TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, September 26, 1994
Bill C-206. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 6113
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 6116
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.27 a.m.) 6116
The House resumed at 11.59 a.m. 6116
Bill C-46. Motion for second reading 6116
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6116
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 6128
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6135
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6136
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6136
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6136
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 6136
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 6136
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6136
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6137
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6137
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6137
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6137
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6137
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 6137
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6138
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6138
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6139
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6139
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 6143
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 6144
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6144
Bill C-46. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 6147
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6151
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6153
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6155
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6157
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6160
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 6165
Amendment to amendment 6172
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6172
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6173
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6174
6113
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, September 26, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 26 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-206, an Act to provide for the relocation and
protection of witnesses, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, before I
speak to Bill C-206, I would like to remind this House that this
is the twenty-sixth anniversary of the death of Daniel Johnson
senior, the premier of Quebec, whose politics transcended
partisanship and who left a valuable legacy for the Quebec we
know today.
I have read Bill C-206, introduced by my colleague, the hon.
member for Scarborough West, to whom I have listened
attentively, both during his presentation before the
Sub-Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, when he so
eloquently argued to have his bill put to a vote in this House, and
when he reached a stage not many reach, because many are
called but few are chosen. The hon. member for Scarborough
West may congratulate himself on having raised the awareness
of the Sub-Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that
of this House regarding the protection and relocation of
witnesses.
The hon. member's concern for this particular issue is to his
credit and will advance law in Canada, because, as we would
have to agree, we have lagged behind our neighbours to the
south, who have already, for close to 25 years now, had
legislation in 50 states of the union with respect to witness
protection that is known to the public and that sets out their
rights.
Here in Canada we have, of course, certain more or less
well-known provisions for the protection and relocation of
witnesses, which are applied in turn, piecemeal and sporadically
by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Ontario Provincial
Police or the Sûreté du Québec.
However, I do not believe that in a democratic state we should
be satisfied with piecemeal measures and decisions taken
arbitrarily by those who are called upon to make such decisions,
often behind closed doors. I think that the idea of having
legislation that will apply throughout Canada is one that will
improve the situation of witnesses, particularly in a criminal
context and especially with respect to serious crimes. I therefore
think that we can put an end to a sort of bona fide application of
procedures, which could be sequential, without controls and
without witnesses really being informed of the applicable
policies.
(1105)
As I said earlier, a standard procedure must be established.
The public must know what the future standards will be and how
to have access to the protection and relocation program.
How will it work? Should the judiciary be involved in the
protection of witnesses? The hon. member for Scarborough
West suggests it should not be involved, to prevent excessive
media coverage, but perhaps a parliamentary committee could
be an alternative. This is an excellent idea, to have a
sub-committee such as the justice sub-committee look, as
discreetly as possible, at how witnesses are being protected. I
think this is a fine job for the justice sub-committee which is
already looking into allegation concerning the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service. This new responsibility could be
added to the mandate of the sub-committee.
In the case of serious crimes like drug trafficking or organized
crime, the very survival of the witnesses is often at stake. But in
our legal system, the entire case for the Crown usually rests
much more on witnesses than on the admission of guilt on the
part of the accused, which puts the Crown in a precarious
position when introducing evidence. Crown attorneys never
know, throughout the bail hearing, the preliminary investigation
and finally the trial per se-a three-stage process that can
stretch over several months-if their witnesses will see them
through. They often wonder: can I be sure I will still have
witnesses to call by the time we go to trial? And when I call them
to the stand, will I be able to ask them the questions and, more
importantly, get the honest answers I have every right to expect
from them?
At present, there certainly is no guarantee, because witnesses
often have failing memories in such cases. The hon. members
who were in legal practice or even watched movies about certain
trials or television broadcasts of trials have noticed witnesses
who cannot recall anything at the time of the trial. Their
6114
memories fail them. I think we must provide assistance to these
witnesses who need our help.
Help is required both before the trial and, of course, after it.
Before the trial, we must ensure their physical safety, which
involves providing them with some form of protection. At
times, this will mean literally hiding them for their own
protection, and with their consent I hope, so that they can give
adequate evidence to enable a court of law to appreciate the
value of the evidence and determine whether the Crown has
proven its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Bear in mind that,
in our legal system, an enormous onus rests with the Crown and
the slightest error in that area will automatically lead to an
acquittal. With regard to foul crimes-I mentioned drug
trafficking and organized crime-the simple fact that witnesses
vanished could be enough to raise a reasonable doubt because
the jury or the judge, if the accused has asked for a trial without
jury, will not have the benefit of their testimonies.
But there is also the aftermath, them time after the trial, after
the sentencing. Sometimes, the presumption of
innocence-which I in no way question-and its offshoot, the
reasonable doubt principle, can also lead to an acquittal and a
witness can be in grave danger. We must therefore provide for
the social reintegration of a witness who had someone put way
or may even have failed to do so on the assessment of the
evidence.
(1110)
What this generally means is getting a new identity, new
papers and often a new job for the witness. In extreme cases of
course, the State must be able to provide replacement income to
witnesses who have put their lives on the line for the law of the
land to prevail.
In that sense, I fully agree with the principle of the bill
introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West. In short,
based on what was said in the comprehensive speeches made so
far on the subject, let me just indicate that at the time of the vote,
scheduled for later on, or in a deferred vote, I will gladly support
the bill put forward by the hon. member.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to rise in support of this private member's bill and the
initiative taken by the hon. member. One of the most amazing
things to me is having had the opportunity now to take a look at
this, I would suggest to all members that they probably have a
number of people currently in their constituencies falling
through the cracks relative to this issue.
Most of us are involved with people in our society who are
supposedly the law-abiding people, the upstanding citizens, the
people we never hear about in the courts. Certainly we never
read about them in the paper. As we are all aware with criminal
justice there are situations in our constituencies that require the
attention of the police and the courts and of course all of us want
to see justice done correctly.
Part of the justice system are the witnesses who come before
the courts. They are a very important part, at the risk of stating
the obvious, to getting the convictions we would like to have in
our criminal justice system for those who are guilty of a crime.
The information these witnesses provide is absolutely
invaluable to crack the case. Unfortunately, however, it is very
obvious that we would end up in a situation of tremendous fear
on the part of some individuals when they are confronted with a
situation of facing the accused in a court or coming forward with
information. They have tremendous fear and very
understandable fear.
I happened to notice in the Edmonton Journal this last
weekend that there was a case of an individual who on
September 6, 1988 got four months in custody for uttering
threats, carrying a concealed weapon, failing to comply. On
February 10, 1989 this person was sentenced for six months
open custody for forcible confinement and assault with a
weapon. On September 20, 1989 this person was sentenced for
two months open custody for solicitation, and on and on. There
are four more cases on top of the first three I have outlined. Then
on September 9, 1992 this person was sentenced to 30 days in
jail and fined $400 for uttering threats against a woman police
believed might implicate this person in a murder.
We have seen particularly in western Canada very successful
so-called crime stopper programs in which crimes are brought
forward on television. People are encouraged to come forward
and act as witnesses but the difficulty is that even if they come
forward in confidence, even if they come forward in secrecy,
even if they provide the information in such a way that it will
result in a conviction, it is not infrequent that mistakes will
occur in the investigation or mistakes can occur in the court
where the name of that person who has come forward as a good
responsible Canadian citizen suddenly is applied in court. Then
the accused person at that point, particularly if it leads to a
conviction, is fully aware of where the information came from.
Fear is an absolute factor in this equation.
(1115 )
Right at the moment this is a police responsibility, and as the
member from Quebec stated, this leads to a patchwork, very
spasmodic kind of a system. It leads to inconsistency from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction because there will be different
attitudes on the part of different police departments even
throughout our constituencies. There will also be different
budget constraints and respective police forces will have
different attitudes toward the issue of budgets.
6115
Another problem that currently exists is what I call the 97 per
cent factor. I have been led to believe on the basis of research I
did before speaking to this issue that 97 per cent of the people
who would be protected by the witness protection act are people
who were involved in some kind of criminal activity with
respect to the issue that would be before the court.
It becomes part of the plea bargain or it becomes part of the
``if you will give us this evidence in court to lead to this
conviction, although you were involved'' and this bargaining
goes back and forth.
I suggest with police being human beings they would
undoubtedly have an attitude problem from time to time with
some of the people they would be using in an attempt to gain
convictions because the people they are dealing with as far as
they are concerned do not fall into the responsible citizen
category.
This legislation would lead to a specific protection
department. I support it because it would be separate from the
police force for the reasons I have just outlined. This protection
department for witnesses would also, in my judgment, be best
served by getting people who are trained in counselling.
Can we imagine the stress on individuals of coming forward
as a witness, particularly in very serious crimes or crimes where
there are tremendous numbers of people involved? I see the
witness protection department as having counsellors who are
trained.
By having a department separate from the police forces, we
would not only gain uniformity of application across the
country, but it would give us an opportunity to develop some
kind of standard policy across Canada.
The Reform Party, of course, is noted for always talking about
how much it is going to cost. With the current incarceration and
rehabilitation programs for people who are convicted of
criminal offences we are currently looking at an expenditure of
about $2 billion. In the area of enforcement under federal
jurisdiction alone we are looking at a cost, I believe, of about
$1.7 billion.
What we should be doing with the $1.7 billion is looking at the
cost effectiveness of using dollars where people would have
confidence in a witness protection plan to be able to come
forward. I cannot help but think that this would have a direct
impact on being able to roll back the cost of some investigations,
where the investigations would not have to go forward at
continuing cost because people would feel comfortable in
coming forward.
The relocation of a witness is an issue. Again I suggest that
within the $2 billion which we are currently spending on
incarceration and rehabilitation, we should be able with some
ease to find some dollars for the issue of relocation of witnesses.
In conclusion, the sentence that a criminal receives for his or
her criminal activity is measured in months and years. I suggest
that the sentence that a witness gets is a life sentence,
particularly in situations where the person who is convicted of a
crime makes it very clear that he or she is going to continue to
pursue the witness. We must set up retraining for these people to
get them from the field that they are currently working into
another field. This would help to isolate them from their
previous situation. We must set up documents, set up protection
for the people who we are asking to be witnesses in these
criminal cases.
(1120)
I look forward to the thoughtful support of all members to
move this bill forward to committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Order 44, the hon.
member for Scarborough West will close the debate.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I am
very honoured to stand today to close the debate on my Bill
C-206, the protection of witnesses in Canada.
I want to begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General of Canada who was kind enough to second my
bill when debate began on April 20, 1994.
Throughout the three hours that the bill has been debated,
eight of my Liberal colleagues, two members of the Official
Opposition and four members of the Reform Party have spoken.
Each and every one of them has spoken in favour of the principle
of the bill.
Many good points have been raised. Many suggestions have
been made. I am the first to acknowledge that the bill, since it
was written by me, is certainly not perfect and that it can be
improved. Should the House decide to pass the bill at second
reading and send it to a committee, I look forward to discussing
the suggestions that my colleagues have made to help make this
a better bill so that witnesses can be protected and thereby
strengthen the justice system.
I am particularly thankful that the Official Opposition has so
clearly and unequivocally come out both on April 20 and today
and stated that it would support the bill, as have my friends in
the Reform Party.
I want to briefly remind everybody in the House and those
watching that this is an area which has been left alone, which is
quite unusual. In fact there is no legislative basis anywhere in
Canada for the protection of witnesses. Although there is no law,
there are approximately 21 individual witness protection plans
across the country, as we heard from the hon. member for
Kootenay East, all being run by various departments under
different rules.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police plan, which has no
legislative basis, has expanded. In 1986, for example, $569,000
was spent by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for witness
protection programs. In 1993, a few years later, $3,800,000 was
spent. What for? This is under the rubric of drug enforcement.
6116
Under the rubric of drug enforcement it is clear that over the
years it has become useful in the capturing and convicting of
criminals to help witnesses who would otherwise fear for their
lives to be relocated.
This bill, the protection of witnesses, will help to convict
criminals and get them off the street by encouraging people to
come forward and testify, knowing that they will not be subject
to further reprisal.
There were 1,455 unsolved murders in this country between
the years 1980 and 1992, almost 1,500 unsolved murders. I hope
that this bill will help to solve some of those tragedies.
I got a call from a number of people in hiding over the course
of debate of this bill but one in particular struck me. It was a
mother with a number of children who is currently in her third
province of residence because of this hodge-podge of protection
plans. She was a witness testifying against her husband in a
murder trial. As a result of that her husband was convicted. Her
husband is looking for her, as are her husband's associates. She
was relocated to the province of Ontario with her children,
living in fear and hiding.
Unfortunately because of the fact that there is no legislative
basis it is not that easy to get new passports. It is not that easy to
get a new social insurance number. It is not that easy to invent a
new identity. Her husband's associates, even though he is in
prison, have been able to trace her in two provinces and now she
is running to her third. We do not want to see that happen to
families and to victims. I hope this bill will help to alleviate that.
In closing, I want to remind the House that should members be
of the view that this bill merits passage at this time, it means the
principle of the bill is accepted and the matter proceeds to
committee where it will be studied carefully. There we will be
able to look at the experience in the United States. We know that
our friends in Australia have just this year introduced a very
similar bill to this one. They are struggling with that as well.
I am sure the committee will be able to carefully examine the
good points made in the debate and to examine the experiences
in the United States and Australia. We should able to come up
with a plan that will protect victims and their families, witnesses
and their families, and will help to convict those who deserve to
be convicted.
I thank everybody in the House and I ask for thoughtful
consideration in the passage of my bill at this time.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
Mrs. Bakopanos: I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask
the House to suspend the proceedings until noon.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the wish of the House to suspend
the sitting to the call of the bell?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.27 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 11.59 a.m.
_____________________________________________
6116
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry
and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Industry
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the occasion of second
reading of the legislation that gives official recognition to the
Department of Industry.
I will begin by explaining to Canadians that this legislation
provides a streamlined, organized and comprehensive approach
to all those various instruments the government has had spread
over several departments. It is an effort to bring them all under
one ministerial roof.
Under this bill the minister is responsible in Canada for
industry and technology, trade and commerce, science,
consumer affairs, corporations and securities, competition and
restraint of trade including mergers and monopolies, bankruptcy
and insolvency, patents, copyrights, trademarks, industrial
designs, and integrated circuit topographies.
Also included in the minister's responsibilities are standards
of identity, packaging and performance in relation to consumer
products and services, except in relation to the safety of
consumer goods; legal metrology; telecommunications, except
in relation to the planning and co-ordination of
telecommunications services for departments, boards and
agencies of the Government of Canada; and broadcasting, other
than in relation to spectrum management and the technical
aspects of broadcast-
6117
ing; the development and utilization generally of
communications undertakings, facilities, systems and services
for Canada; investment; small business; and tourism.
Never before has there been such a comprehensive
revamping. As I mentioned earlier we have put four departments
into one. The purpose is to allow the government and all
members of the House of Commons to work at creating a very
tight focus. This will create an environment for stimulating
entrepreneurs and thus will get people back to work.
In these times of a very tough fiscal framework, the debts and
deficits at all levels of government are very high. It is therefore
incumbent upon all members in this House and all public
servants across Canada to do their very best to maximize the use
of taxpayers' dollars. By undertaking this massive and
comprehensive reorganization the Government of Canada is
living up to a commitment made during the campaign and which
is contained in the red book. Speaking on the red book for a
minute, it has become our compass in the past 10 months as a
government. I refer members and Canadians to page 47 where
we stated:
A Liberal government will focus on small and medium-sized businesses
because they can and must be the determining factor in turning around what has
so far been a jobless recovery.
Small and medium-sized businesses are primarily Canadian owned. They are
found in all sectors of the economy: manufacturing, services, retail, high
technology, low technology, fishing, and farming. Supporting small and
medium-sized businesses will benefit all Canadians, but particularly certain
demographic groups.
(1205 )
This bill will allow us to put a very special focus on that sector
of our economy we believe will ultimately pull this country out
of its very difficult economic and fiscal framework.
One thing members opposite have been talking constructively
about over the last few months is that we have to reduce overlap
and duplication. This bill addresses that point which opposition
members have made.
Another thing opposition members have put forward from
time to time is that by having many departments sometimes the
message becomes scattered and the focus is not as tight as it
should be. This is a very large department. We are talking about
a department with 6,000 employees all across Canada. Of those
employees, 2,500 are beyond the national capital region. In
terms of public service, we are talking about 140 access points.
It is important that all our public servants be in tune with this
new government thrust. It is important that all members get
behind this bill because it essentially meets the request, some
thoughts and ideas that opposition members have put forward.
Another important point we have to deal with is that because
of our very difficult fiscal framework, government no longer has
the resources to put money into program support. Funding
support is very tight right now.
As a national institution Industry Canada must have a
different presence in the community. It must have the type of
presence where it will be like a facilitator. We will lever the
government's resources and do many more joint ventures with
the private sector. We will be funding less in terms of special
projects.
Of course the minister has made some very special exceptions
in the last few months. Those special cases involve important
issues relating to science and technology and research and
development. There are a couple that the House and Canadians
should be aware of.
The minister made the commitment to the space station. That
was a commitment in excess of $2 billion over time but it is an
area where Canada has great brain power. By participating in
this program with the United States not only will we be partners
but we will be allowing the best and brightest in that sector to
grow. We also continue to fund the very special centres of
excellence, the 10 of them across the country.
We can see that the minister has not in any way shape or form
retreated from the government's commitment to research and
development. Research and development is an integral
component of any national industrial strategy.
Another very important feature of this bill is clause 5(a):
The minister shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions
assigned by section 4(1) in a manner that will
(a) strengthen the national economy and promote sustainable development.
This particular clause is something the minister, when an
opposition member, fought aggressively to be included in
previous legislation but was unable to achieve it. This is a very
special feature of the bill. We salute the minister, the drafters
and the officials that this is now a part of our national industrial
strategy, that this is all going to be done in the light of
sustainable development.
(1210)
In order to make sure there is a discipline on the department
we have incorporated the old Department of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs. The interests and protection of Canadian
consumers is within the same department. This means that as we
are advancing and developing policy we are going to have
consumer protection and interest right there in the room during
the evolution and debate on this policy. That will go a long way
in making sure that the objective of sustainable development is
maintained.
I would like to touch on a couple of other very important areas
of responsibility within the Department of Industry. Throughout
the day many of my colleagues will talk about this bill and how
it impacts on their various regions and communities in Canada.
I would like to highlight the commitment of this government
to the tourism sector. Those who watched the Prime Minister's
address to the Chamber of Commerce last Sunday will have
noted that he highlighted tourism as being a sector of our
economy to which this government will make a very special
6118
commitment. As that sector is part of Industry Canada I can
happily say we are excited that we are going to rebuild Tourism
Canada.
I cannot imagine a member of Parliament in this House not
supporting that particular sector. In terms of job creation, after
the automotive and forestry sectors tourism creates more jobs
than any other sector in our economy. Right now there is close to
a $7 billion deficit in that sector.
I hope all members of Parliament will support the
government's initiatives. The Minister of Industry will be
making an announcement in about three weeks' time on how we
can rebuild that sector of our economy.
Another area of responsibility within the Department of
Industry is the Federal Business Development Bank. We are
happy that this particular government instrument is in the
Department of Industry and we are especially happy with the
support from the opposition parties on the whole issue of access
to capital for small business.
The presence of the Federal Business Development Bank will
be reinforced. We will put a tighter focus on that institution and
its responsibilities to complement existing financial institutions
and target small business operators. By doing this we will fire up
the Canadian entrepreneurial spirit, especially with businesses
that have 50 or fewer employees. The access to capital problem
all members of this House hear about from their constituents is
something to which the Department of Industry is sensitive.
As a member of the industry committee I can tell Canadians
that probably in two or three weeks our all-party study will be
tabled in the House. Most of the things we have been working on
will address and support this current revamping and
restructuring in Industry Canada.
(1215 )
We would like to think that the Department of Industry is not
just listening to members of the opposition parties but that in
this particular piece of legislation we are showing we are acting
on some of those recommendations and following through on
some of the commitments that we made in our red book.
There are so many different aspects within the Department of
Industry that I could go on all day. I would like to talk about a
couple of other areas where the minister has given very special
emphasis and energy during the last few months. It is important
for Canadians to know about all the work that has been done on
reducing interprovincial trade barriers. The interprovincial
trade barriers that exist in this country cost industry close to $11
billion a year.
I am happy to report that the Minister of Industry at the end of
June successfully reached an agreement that will reduce many
of these tariff barriers in about 10 different sectors. This will go
a long way in creating a more efficient economy in Canada. We
are not saying at this point that the interprovincial trade barrier
document is the end of the pathway, it is just the beginning of the
pathway. It is a very tough issue which the minister started on
early in this mandate and he was able to achieve a good round of
successes in phase one. We state clearly that it is only phase one
and we have a tremendous amount of work to do yet. We seek the
co-operation and ideas of all members of Parliament in that
area.
Another area where the minister has given very special focus
and attention is the information highway. The information
highway will give Canadians an opportunity to re-establish
ourselves as the communications country, the communications
state par excellence of any country in the world.
Along with the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development we are working not just with the information
highway advisory group but we are working in partnership with
various community groups, with the private sector, and we are
working very hard now in creating an environment in which we
can pave the information highway.
Last week I attended on behalf of the minister a
demonstration. The Queen's masters of business program began
the new master of business program which is on interactive
television. Now you can be sitting in the Northwest Territories
or some place in B.C., or Toronto or Newfoundland and through
the technology that has been developed with various
corporations you can now get your MBA without going to
Queen's in Kingston. This is the first of its kind in Canada but it
is a concrete example of how this information highway is
turning from theory into real hard reality. This is the type of
thing that will make us a more educated country, and a more
educated country is a more competitive country.
The other thing we are doing in the Department of Industry is
working very hard to encourage our small and medium size
operators to become more export oriented. We are doing this
through our advice in policy development with the Federal
Business Development Bank. We are doing this through
Industry Canada officials who are dedicated to helping small
and medium size entrepreneurs to shift their marketing
strategies from the North American marketing thrust to the
Asian thrust, and other parts of the world.
We are doing our best to move this whole restructuring and
streamlining of government forward in a way that we believe
will show Canadians that we are serious in eliminating waste,
that we are serious in developing a co-ordinated approach, a
focused approach that will allow the business community of
6119
Canada to develop a renewed faith in dealing with the
Government of Canada.
(1220 )
One of the real frustrations entrepreneurs have in dealing with
government is that they will go to a department asking for a
particular type of advice. The official will say for this particular
part of your program you come to Industry Canada but for this
other part you have to go to consumer affairs, for this other part
you go to the Federal Business Development Bank.
By the time the entrepreneur is finished with the experience
he feels that he would much rather avoid dealing with the
government.
We are hoping that through this bill, through this
streamlining, by putting all of these services-emphasis on the
word services-under one roof, we are not only going to become
more streamlined but by eliminating duplication we are going to
make the experience of business men and women in dealing with
their government a much more productive one. That will
ultimately rebuild confidence and trust in this institution.
I want to once again say that we are moving quickly in the area
of reorganization. We are hoping this bill will receive the
support of all members of this House so we can get on with
meeting the objective that all of us in this House want, putting
Canadians back to work.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I will comment on-not to say respond
to-the speech by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood,
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, who
rose today on behalf of the Minister of Industry to present Bill
C-46, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, not to say
the new Department of Industry, because it must be said that this
bill simply confirms after the fact what was planned by the
former government then led by Ms. Campbell. Under this bill,
certain institutions such as Investment Canada, Consumer and
Corporate Affairs, part of the Department of Communications
and Science and Technology will now come under the same
concept, the same minister and the same department, namely
Industry Canada.
Briefing sessions, to use the federal public service's new
terminology, can be very enlightening in that we meet with
public servants who can fill us in on the government's approach.
That is how we learned, for example, the guidelines behind Bill
C-46, which can be found in a government document prepared
by the minister's officials. The guidelines are as follows: Bill
C-46 is aimed at, among other things, maintaining the status
quo between the mandates of the departments affected;
preserving the provisions in the old laws as much as possible;
and finally, making the minor amendments that are needed but
not substantial.
That is characteristic of how this government elected on
October 25, 1993 has operated since the beginning of the session
on January 19. It is there but not making any headway. It is
simply marking time. It holds debates without making any real
progress, without promoting advances in science-since we are
talking about science and technology.
It is simply marking time, and that is becoming more and
more obvious as weeks and months go by without any real
savings recorded as a result of their amendments. Three or four
structures are combined under one head; they are now headed by
one person instead of two or three, but nothing is really saved in
the day-to-day running of things; we think it is purely a
cosmetic operation, it is grandstanding, it is a way to say that
instead of 30 or 32 ministers as before, there are now 20, but
with the same responsibilities.
(1225)
I refer to a government document given out at another briefing
session we had for people in the Official Opposition who are
concerned with the Department of Industry; it is contrary to the
action needed, in their words, to make the machinery of
government simpler and more efficient and to provide better
services to users. So nothing is being simplified and nothing is
more efficient with this change in structure, which is purely
cosmetic.
These are not just words; this is the mandate of the minister of
the newly structured Department of Industry. It is worth reading
it.
My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, read it in English;
I shall read it in French: ``Powers, Duties and Functions of the
Minister. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister
extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has
jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, board
or agency of the Government of Canada, relating to industry and
technology in Canada; trade and commerce in Canada; science
in Canada; consumer affairs; corporations and corporate
securities; competition and restraint of trade, including mergers
and monopolies; bankruptcy and insolvency; patents,
copyrights, trade-marks, industrial designs and integrated
circuit topographies; standards of identity, packaging and
performance in relation to consumer products and services,
except in relation to the safety of consumer goods; legal
metrology; telecommunications, except in relation to the
planning and coordination of telecommunication services for
departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada,
and broadcasting, other than in relation to spectrum
management and the technical aspects of broadcasting; the
development and utilization generally of communication
undertakings, facilities, systems and services for Canada;
investment; small businesses; and tourism.''
6120
So, Mr. Speaker, 15 fields of action, 15 fields of
responsibility, which make the Department of Industry today a
huge giant. We may wonder how one individual, as well
supported as he may be by the bureaucracy, can really do an
effective job! I for one, anyway, am very sceptical that anyone
can really govern with such a broad mandate, when you realize
that the industry minister's responsibility, in addition to what I
just read, extends from Statistics Canada, for example, to the
Canadian Space Agency to the Competition Tribunal and
includes the Federal Business Development Bank, to name only
these.
So I think that this excessively large field, which on the very
face of it leaves us sceptical-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Superman.
Mr. Rocheleau: Superman. Yes, the parliamentary secretary
has taken the words out of my mouth. It takes a superman and the
voters will have to decide in due course whether the minister is
superman.
Mr. Speaker, one aspect of the bill that I read particularly
interested me. With respect to the minister's powers, clause 5
says, ``The Minister shall exercise the powers and perform the
duties and functions assigned by clause 4'', as we saw before,
``in a manner that will (a) strengthen the national economy and
promote sustainable development; (c) increase''-and this is
very important-``the international competitiveness of
Canadian industry, goods and services and assist in the
adjustment to changing domestic and international conditions.''
(1230)
When I read this section, I immediately think of two Quebec
industries affected by the defence industry conversion which
show the government's negligence immediately-and there are
certainly more in other parts of Canada. On paper, this
government has every power to take action, but it lacks the
political will to deal with the very harrowing issue of defence
industry conversion, thus letting the situation get worse from
week to week.
Take the case of Expro where, in the last few weeks, the
situation has become dramatic. Indeed, the workers, the union
and the management are faced with the unbearable choice of
having to decide who and how many, will be laid off. I can
understand why union leaders opposed this measure since there
is no alternative.
There is no alternative of course because the global situation
is difficult. As we know, now that the cold war is a thing of the
past, everything that has to do with military production is being
reevaluated. In fact, the military industry worldwide is
conducting such an exercise. But what distinguishes Canada is
the government's negligence compared, for example, to the
American government's initiatives to concretely support that
industry and make sure that it will improve. The situation of
Expro is getting worse, while MIL Davie, in Lévis, has still not
received any support from this totally apathetic
government-in spite of strong public and political pressure.
Thankfully, we heard some good news for the Quebec City
region when the leader of the Parti Quebecois, who is being
sworn in today as the province's new premier, pledged-and we
hope that he will have the means and the political will to fulfill
that commitment-to find a solution in the case of MIL Davie,
with or without the help of the federal government. Mr. Parizeau
must be congratulated for displaying this kind of political
courage to ensure that the problems of the number one private
company in the Quebec City region are resolved-indeed, this is
no small venture: it is the largest company in the region. The
projects regarding the ferry to the Madgalen islands and the
smart ship, which have been the subject of much discussion and
which the federal government is very familiar with, should get
the green light so as to at least give some time to MIL Davie.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all our elected
colleagues from the Parti Quebecois, and particularly Mr.
Parizeau. I also want to congratulate the PQ members who were
elected in my region, namely Mr. Guy Julien and Mr. Rémi
Désilets, who will respectively represent Trois-Rivières and
Maskinongé at the legislative assembly. Some may find those
results strange but the fact is that, for the first time ever,
Maskinongé voted for the Parti Quebecois, and so did the riding
of Charlevoix if I am not mistaken. This is a sign of the times
and it shows how coherent Quebecers have been in their thinking
since the failure of Meech. Indeed, Quebecers first said ``no''to
the Charlottetown accord, then ``yes'' to the Bloc Quebecois and
the Parti Quebecois, and they will say ``yes'' to sovereignty in a
few months.
We are pleased that the Parti Quebecois is now in office and
we were glad to see that Quebec's premier, Mr. Parizeau, wasted
no time in announcing at his first press conference a policy
which will better anything ever done by the federal government
regarding regional housing-even if those federal measures
were not necessarily constitutional-by setting up a new
structure whereby parliamentary assistants, who will be directly
accountable to the premier, will each be responsible for one
region of Quebec.
(1235)
I think Quebec has scored some major points as far as its
future is concerned, and we can only commend the Government
of Quebec, and encourage and support it in its new approach to
regional development, which is entirely in line with the findings
of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission on the concerns of the
regions.
Earlier, I read to the House what the department's
responsibilities were, but there is more. That was only Part I.
The powers, duties and functions of the minister also extend and
include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not
by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the
6121
Government of Canada, relating to regional economic
development in Ontario and Quebec. This brings us to the
Federal Office of Regional Development which comes under the
Department of Industry but, politically, is the responsibility of
the Minister of Finance.
Incidentally, the office, and this is perhaps something many
people were unaware of, was established by order in council,
while its counterparts the Department of Western Economic
Diversification and ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency-were legislated into existence. The fact that western
Canada has a department, the Maritimes an agency and Quebec
an office probably says much about the federal government's
perception of Quebec's economic development. It may be
symbolic that besides having an office that is the responsibility
of the Minister of Finance, we have an order in council instead
of legislation.
If we take a closer look at all this, we should realize that the
institution itself, which is called the Federal Office of Regional
Development, merely duplicates what already exists, even at the
federal level. I know what I am talking about. I live in a region
where we have regional development, and I can tell you that
federally, the office is competing with the NRC, which has its
own regional branches staffed by one or two that get in touch
with small businesses, inquire about their technological
requirements and are then able to meet those requirements,
which is not the case with the office. The Federal Office of
Regional Development is therefore competing with at least one
federal agency and, in Quebec, with the Quebec Department of
Industry and Commerce, which promotes regional development
for the benefit of small businesses, and with the entire network
of industrial commissioners Quebec has established with
municipal funding plus the support of the provincial
government.
The Federal Office of Regional Development merely creates a
lot of overlap and duplication, and that is its sole mandate.
When we take a good look at the section on regional economic
development, we see in section 8(c): ``focus on small and
medium-sized enterprises and the development and
enhancement of entrepreneurial talent''.
There are already quite a few players in the field. In Quebec;
they are talking quite openly about streamlining all this, and
now the federal government gets involved, for historical
reasons, as we all know. This Parliament has always wanted to
do the right thing. It has always wanted to do what is best for
Quebec, but Quebecers are pretty smart, and we can expect some
action on this issue very shortly. Furthermore, the federal
government has made cuts in the Federal Office of Regional
Development, so that any potential it had for being effective is
about to disappear altogether.
(1240)
From what I have heard recently throughout my riding and
also from other sources, cuts amounting to $70 million over the
next three years will make an empty shell out of the Federal
Office of Regional Development. It is an empty shell which
meets the needs of small and medium-sized businesses only
when they are involved in high-tech projects. But unfortunately,
this is not often the case-herein lies the problem-and one
must remember that, by and large, the office is of very little
assistance to small and medium-sized businesses.
As for its involvement in tourism mentioned earlier by the
parliamentary secretary, it seems to me that we are talking about
provincial jurisdiction and, in this particular case, Quebec
jurisdiction. The federal government must thread very carefully
if it wants to get involved in this area. We have seen examples of
such involvement in remote areas where the federal government
stepped in to support projects sometimes turned down by
Quebec resulting in a lot of confusion, duplication and
overlapping, and a tremendous waste of money and efforts.
Unfortunately, this lack of cohesion is too often the rule instead
of jointly planned regional development.
We believe that regional development is, first and foremost, a
provincial matter and that Quebec should have exclusive
authority in this area, especially now that we have the resources
and the structure to do it. With the new government, we will be
in an even better position to take matters into our own hands. We
cannot allow the federal government to continue interfering in
such a field of competence, especially since we know that the
Quebec government is working in co-operation with the various
stakeholders and elected representatives in every municipality
and region of the province. Regional municipalities and unified
regional municipalities provide Quebec with the appropriate
structure to meet people's needs in an increasingly articulated
manner.
We cannot support such an empty bill. It is just
window-dressing. It comes after the fact to sanction a decision
made by this government hopefully with a view to streamlining
its operation. It is only skin deep. As a consequence, we cannot
support this bill and for this reason I move, seconded by the
member for Charlesbourg, the following amendment:
That all the words following ``that'' be deleted and replaced by:
``this House refuse to give second reading to Bill C-46, an Act to establish the
Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other Acts, because the
principle of the bill does not put an end to duplication and overlapping by not
recognizing that Quebec has exclusive authority over regional economic
development''.
6122
The Deputy Speaker: I will say that since this bill has
already been reviewed, this motion which is similar to the
previous one is acceptable.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is
an honour for me this morning to enter the debate on Bill C-46. I
am particularly pleased to see the minister's parliamentary
secretary here but very disappointed the minister himself is not
here to enter the debate on Bill C-46.
(1245)
I wish to enter into the debate by indicating that the bill which
apparently is simply to streamline and to create jobs, as has been
indicated by the parliamentary secretary, is nothing of the kind.
There was an opportunity in presenting the bill to the House to
show some leadership in this vast and extremely powerful
economic arm of the government. Based on the content of the
bill that leadership opportunity has been ignored. I hope to show
that there is a need in Canada as never before for the portfolio of
the minister of industry to provide the leadership and direction
from which Canada could benefit so much.
In so doing, I wish to draw attention very briefly to the
development of the particular department. C. D. Howe ran much
of the former department of trade and commerce during the
fifties essentially as minister of defence production. Much of
the development in the fifties and in his direction to that
particular department was as a result of the contacts he had made
with various industries during World War II.
Walter Gordon followed C. D. Howe. He wanted to create a
department of industry in the early sixties. Eventually he was
successful in doing it. Mr. Gordon was an interventionist and a
protectionist and he wanted the department of industry to further
those goals. His proposal received a rough ride in cabinet at that
time and from the existing department of trade and commerce.
Eventually the department was established but had no clear
direction or vision of what it was supposed to do partly because
according to some observers Mr. Gordon really wanted to be the
minister of finance and did not want any advice from the
Economic Council of Canada which was trying to develop a
strategy for the economic development of Canada.
In 1968 industry, trade and commerce was established as a
merger of industry and trade and commerce under Jean-Luc
Pepin. It is also worthy to note that at that time a parallel
development took place, the development of regional economic
expansion. These were years of difficulty involved in
integrating industry on the one hand, trade and commerce on the
other, and DREE on the other side. Organizations and
reorganizations occurred within industry over the following
decade, always searching for a focus and cohesion that seemed
to elude them.
In 1978 the ministry of state for economic development was
created, another new name. Out of the government's desire to
co-ordinate economic and industrial strategy which had always
been eluding it under the efforts of ITC it noticed the only thing
that changed was the name. It was the ministry of state for
economic development.
In 1982 the industry, trade and commerce department was
scrapped under the reorganization of government initiated by
then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. The trade commissioner
service was moved to external affairs and the remainder of
industry, trade and commerce was merged with DREE, the
department of regional economic expansion. Out of that
department the new name was generated, the department of
regional industrial expansion. The ministry of state for
economic development was renamed the ministry of state for
regional economic development and was given responsibilities
for that area.
Almost all officials involved in the reorganization undertaken
under a veil of great secrecy were from the privy council office.
Even some of the ministers and deputy ministers directly
involved in the reorganization were not involved in the
discussions with privy council establishing a new department.
Again, confusion and turf wars among the various component
entities of DRIE prevailed.
In 1987 the government announced the creation of the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and soon after western
economic diversification. The rest of DRIE became over the
next three years the department of industry, science and
technology. During that three-year period the privy council
office provided no direction or very little direction for the
creation of the mandate for the ISTC and the department was left
to find its own direction. While the ministers did attend some of
the meetings they did not provide any particular direction.
(1250)
The election of 1988 and the following free trade agreement
negotiations interfered with the further development of the
mandate so the department wandered for three years before it
was officially created in 1990.
In review, the core of the department of industry has been a
long history or succession of organizational changes and name
changes. Each has been without focus, lacking in vision or
coherent strategy, and producing interior confusion and strife
for the various entities. Attempts at meshing the different
philosophies have produced a department which attempts to
implement mutually exclusive mandates: that of national
industrial development on the one hand and that of regional,
economic and industrial strategy on the other.
6123
That history continues in the bill. The incompatible strategies
of regional and national economic expansion continue without
change.
Shortly after the minister took on his portfolio he said that he
had four goals he wanted to pursue while he carried out his
mandate: small business, tourism, the information highway and
the promotion of exports. In his first major piece of legislation
the minister does not articulate a clear vision of the department
in any of these areas. Neither does he solve the incompatibility
between regional and national strategies.
The minister had the opportunity to make a difference, to
provide a direction, to determine and clearly set goals for his
department, to re-establish confidence in government and
politicians which the parliamentary secretary so ably said he
was doing and he did not, to provide a fresh new voice for the
people fiscally and democratically, and to set out a vision for the
department of industry in Bill C-46, an act to establish the
department of industry and to amend and repeal certain other
acts.
What did the minister do? The minister has missed the
opportunity to act, accepted the Tory leadership in
re-organization, essentially changed nothing major, accepted
their direction, accepted their philosophy and accepted their
goals. He changed nothing of consequence. The minister
accepted the principles that guided the writing of the act. This
represents more of the same. There will probably be no more
confidence in the government than there was in the previous one
if that is the kind of leadership we are to get.
What are the two big themes the minister could have effected?
The first is quality of treatment: treat all the regions the same
way with no special considerations for any one part of Canada
over another. The second is the intrusion of government: get
government out of the economy as much as possible and let the
market preside.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): That is what we are
doing.
Mr. Schmidt: Let me quote clause 13 and members will know
how much intervention there is. I am convinced the Liberal idea
of leadership is to govern in the truest sense of the word, to make
decisions on behalf of everyone but never face the people or
listen to them. I want to illustrate clearly that the parliamentary
secretary to the minister of state for science and technology is at
least making an effort to listen to the public.
How do I show this? Bill C-46 in subclause 13(1) referring to
cabinet, the most central part of government, clearly states:
Where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the national interest
to do so, the Minister may, in exercising the powers and performing the duties and
functions assigned by subsection 4(1)-
These have been detailed by the parliamentary secretary and
my colleague from the Bloc so I will not take time to read them.
It continues:
-develop and implement programs and projects of special assistance to
industries, particular industrial or commercial establishments, organizations,
persons who are members of a particular category of persons defined by order of
the Governor in Council or particular persons to aid economic development,
whether through the restructuring, adjusting, rationalizing, establishing or
re-establishing, modernizing, expanding or contracting of an industry or
particular industrial or commercial establishment or organization in Canada, or
otherwise.
If that is not intervention in the sense of allowing cabinet
rather than the enterprise system or the individuals to make
decisions, what is it? As the government intervenes, government
decides who wins and who loses. The marketplace is not
permitted to function as it should. Of course there should be
some guidelines but it is not allowed to function without undue
restriction.
(1255)
The Tories did that. The Liberals before them did that and the
Liberals of today say that they will do it too. It is not new. It is
not more efficient. It is more of the same. I submit that nothing
has changed. If anything, the government is likely to make a bad
situation worse.
The bill perpetuates the philosophy that has so debilitated
Canada throughout successive governments. If we look at the
deficit today we recognize only too clearly that is precisely what
happened. Do we remember C. D. Howe's cavalier statement:
``What's a million?'' That embodies what the department has
done throughout its history.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): This saves $26
million.
Mr. Schmidt: Yes, $26 million out of a $3 billion budget. I
submit it is a minuscule amount. I agree it is the right direction
but it is not enough.
There is no leadership. There is empowerment, though. There
is entrenchment of bureaucracy through repositioning people
and cost centres. They are in different places. There are new
people with new titles who make the same decisions under the
same philosophy, the same principles and the same policies of
those who preceded them, in this case the Conservatives.
To be able to distribute money without accountability or
demanding accountability is to encourage dependence,
irresponsibility, the possibility of misappropriation of funds,
political patronage, the abuse of power and the corruption of
officials and politicians.
6124
It is no wonder the people of Canada say that governments
come and go, politicians come and go and nothing changes. With
the bill we see no plan for change. To administer change is
difficult. It requires a goal. It requires a vision. It requires a plan
to get there. It requires a strategy and tactics to achieve it. In
short it requires leadership. The bill does not provide that.
The bill concentrates on centralized planning, an
interventionist strategy and the preference of one region over
another. It denies the equality of persons, entrepreneurs and
provinces. It is deceptive in its presentation. It purports to be a
housekeeping piece of legislation but it displays no leadership
or change in direction which the department so desperately
needs and which was promised to Canadians in the red book.
Let me become a little more specific. The government is
simply following the changes as instituted by the Tories. The
Tories did nothing to fix some of the more glaring difficulties
with the department as it existed in its previous form. The bill
only perpetuates centralized power, more interventionism in the
marketplace and in individual lives, and the government knows
best attitude: the government will decide what is in the national
interest. It divides and subjects.
Regional development in the two largest provinces of the
country, Ontario and Quebec, is lumped together and as a
consequence separated from the rest of Canada. Under existing
law an order in council gives the minister of finance
responsibility for FORD-Q, the Federal Office of Regional
Development, Quebec. We are told there is about to be the same
kind of order in council under the new changes in the new act.
Nevertheless the act empowers the minister of industry to be the
special minister for the economic development of Ontario and
Quebec.
How can the minister of industry have a national overview
and responsibility, or the minister of finance for that matter who
has the same kind of overview? How can these people exercise
their duties as minister for the whole of Canada and balance the
special interest? It seems to me there is an obvious conflict of
interest when he is responsible for all of Canada and then pays
special attention to a particular region of a province. It
maintains the inequalities that exist at the present time. There is
no attempt at level and fair treatment for all whether
individuals, industries or regions.
I submit this is wimpy and kindergarten style tampering with
government structure. Very far reaching effects are taking place.
They have wasted a lot of time and what has it achieved? We
have been told in our briefing sessions that they have reduced by
230 people the staff of 6,000 and they have reduced the $3
billion budget by $26 million. That is in the right direction. I
commend the government for that but it is not good enough.
There is no evidence of them realizing the efficiencies
necessary in putting together these four government
departments.
(1300 )
If that is all that can be done to save $26 million and reduce
staff by 230, is it worth the effort, the dislocation, the stresses
that will be involved for the people who are going to be
relocated?
It was like getting a parcel beautifully wrapped in nice red
paper, the colour of the red book. As we unwrapped it we found
that this big box had four smaller boxes in it. On the big box one
could still see the Tory label in spite of the fact that it had been
changed to read Liberal. It is nothing new, just new packaging
and a new label. Our hopes were dashed, our expectations
frustrated and our anticipation ignored.
Enough of criticism. Do we have any alternatives? Yes, we do.
We believe that the Department of Industry like all of
government needs a set of guiding principles and policies, a
mission statement, if you will. Reform proposes to bring its
philosophy and principles to this department as it would to all
others. Here are some of those.
We believe in the value of enterprise and initiative and that
governments have a responsibility to foster and protect an
environment in which initiative and enterprise can be exercised
by individuals and groups.
We believe that the creation of wealth and productive jobs for
Canadians is best achieved through the operations of a
responsible, broadly based free enterprise economy in which
private property, freedom of contract and the operations of free
markets are encouraged and respected.
We believe that public money should be regarded by
government as a sacred trust or of funds held in trust and that
government should practice fiscal responsibility, in particular
the responsibility to balance expenditures and revenues.
I notice the parliamentary secretary is nodding his head. I
certainly hope the Minister of Finance will see that and that the
Prime Minister will agree to that and that they will change their
goal which says 3 per cent of the GDP will be the deficit in
perpetuity or that it will continue. It is time we recognized the
principle that we need to balance our budget.
Reform also supports the depoliticizing of economic decision
making in Canada through the gradual elimination of grants,
subsidies and the pricing policies and all federal taxes direct or
indirect on the natural resources of the provinces other than
income tax of general application.
6125
Reform also supports the gradual removal of all measures
which are designed to insulate industries, businesses, financial
institutions, professions and trade unions from domestic and
foreign competition.
We support a vigorous measure to ensure the successful
operation of the marketplace through such means as promotion
of competition and vigorous enforcement of competition and
anti-combines legislation with severe penalties for collusion
and price fixing.
We support orienting federal government activities toward
the maturing of human and physical infrastructure and to
support giving greater priority to the development of skills,
particularly those that provide future job flexibility.
As well, such training should be made flexible in terms of the
type of institutions providing the training. We would encourage
co-operative training in industry. To that end my colleagues and
I have developed a statement for this department we think we
should all observe. The role of the Department of Industry
should be to establish and maintain a culture which rewards
entrepreneurship, innovation and research and ensures a level,
competitive and honest marketplace.
To that end there are many opportunities for improvement in
this bill which we would seize on: to curtail the centralized
control that is proposed in this bill; to emphasize reducing the
ability to interfere in the marketplace; to emphasize improving
the ability of the marketplace to self-regulate. Serious
intervention in the marketplace should be in emergency or
extreme cases only.
The national interest must be clearly defined by the people of
Canada through Parliament, not by cabinet; in extraordinary
circumstances by referendum. It should not be in the hands of
cabinet where it can be made to mean anything it wants it to.
(1305)
With regard to regional development, some fundamental
problems exist with this form of government intervention in the
economy. Many scholars and former senior mandarins in this
department and other departments of government have noted
that a national industrial strategy and regional development
strategy are mutually incompatible. They often work at cross
purposes to one another and become self-defeating.
We believe that the federal government should treat all
regions of this country fairly and as a result should do away with
all regional development programs. Fair treatment would
eliminate the need for a minister to decide between the national
interest on the one hand and the regional interest on the other.
Regional political patronage and, just as important, the
temptation to engage in it would be removed to a great extent if
the instrument of regional development were done away with.
Better efficiency within the department should then be realized
and other areas would benefit as well.
I note with satisfaction, as I referred to earlier, the review that
is taking place on science and technology policy by the
Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development. I
commend him for that and wish him well. I hope that he will
question the presence of the many and varied scientific
bureaucracies and funding agencies that fall under his purview.
They need to be the subject of rigorous and continuing scrutiny.
It appears that much of their work duplicates that being done by
universities and various research enterprises. The fewer the
hands that research funding passes through the better. I hope his
review is complete and thorough.
We need to expand private sector partnerships with direct
profitable spinoffs which would strengthen the research and
development establishment. We need research and development
as never before. In that regard we need to be efficient, cost
effective, profitable and domestically and internationally
competitive.
In conclusion, when we look at the history of the department
and couple it with the proposed reorganization it is clear that the
minister has chosen not to exercise the leadership that was his in
this instance. He has only chosen to perpetuate the confusion
and the lack of solid and visionary direction that have been the
hallmark of the industry department throughout all of its history
and all of its reincarnations and incarnations since the fifties.
We hope that the minister would have taken this opportunity
to enunciate a comprehensive national industrial economic
strategy and reorganize his department accordingly. It is clear
that is not the case. What we have is a clear demonstration that
this government has no vision for Canada's economy, a vision
from which it could so clearly benefit.
The opportunity to regain public confidence has been
squandered. The government could have done away with the
pork barrel of regional development and the odious spectre of its
centralized economic planning. It did not. This bill perpetuates
the status quo. The system needs to be changed to let the market
function freely within a framework and direction that reflect the
democratic will of the people.
Because this bill is elitist, centralist and interventionist I
cannot support it.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to have the opportunity on
second reading for me to put a short question to the member of
the Reform Party?
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary may not
be aware of the fact that the first three speakers for the three
recognized parties have a 40-minute maximum and there is no
6126
period for questions or comments when each speaker has
concluded the first three speeches.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, the debate
on this bill today is of historical importance for its significance
and also because it coincides almost to the day with the seventh
anniversary of the presentation of the Brundtland report, Our
Common Future, to the United Nations General Assembly where
it was extensively discussed and received unanimous support.
(1310 )
The words sustainable development re-emerged as a result of
that event. It is very heartening to see that the Minister of
Industry has inserted the term sustainable development in clause
5 of his bill. It is also heartening because when the minister was
in opposition he urged the government of the day to use the term
sustainable development when a bill was introduced at that time
for the formation of the previous ministry. Unfortunately those
pressures fell on deaf ears.
In this respect the minister has shown that he has carried out
in government what he had spoken about while in the
opposition. That is very reassuring for anyone who believes that
our political system is alive and kicking and in good health.
What does the term sustainable development mean? It is the
key phrase in clause 5 of this bill. Does it mean a growth in
which the environment and the economy are seen in conflict?
Does it mean a philosophy of imposing limits to growth? Does it
mean returning the planet to a hypothetical natural state?
Evidently the answer to these questions is no.
Sustainable development means integrating the economy
with the environment. This is not a relationship of conflict. The
environment and the economy are mutually reinforcing. The
terminology recognizes this fact.
Sustainable development means learning to recognize and
live within the limits of physical impact beyond which
degradation of the ecosystems, of resources and of human
condition becomes inevitable and progressive.
Some limits are imposed by the impact of existing
technologies and social organization and by the size of the
planet but many limiting factors can be expanded through
technological changes, modes of decision making, changes in
domestic and international policies, and through investment in
human capital.
Since the 1987 Brundtland report there has been a lively
debate over the specific conditions of sustainability. At this
point we can say that sustainability is as much a social goal as it
is an economic and environmental goal. It resembles other
worldly, widely accepted and conceptually difficult social goals
such as democracy, justice and public health.
Since the 1992 earth summit in Rio the global community
finds itself in a state of transition from unsustainable to the
search for sustainable forms of development. With this bill we
are now beginning to come around the corner, so to speak. The
fact that the Minister of Industry decided to insert sustainable
development as a main objective of his department is very
heartening. He should be congratulated.
What are the principles that the officials in this new
department should adopt in order to reach the objective of
sustainable development? One, as I mentioned briefly, it is the
fact that the environment and the economy must be integrated in
the decision making process. This is probably the most
important condition for sustainable development and also the
most challenging.
Too often policies are directly against the requirements of
sustainability.
(1315 )
The environment is introduced into the decision making only
after a problem has developed. At that late date options are
usually limited to investments for end of pipe technologies to
recapture emissions from waste streams and put them
somewhere else.
This leads to the still dominant mentality that a conflict exists
between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. It is a
false perception of course. We must make both mutually
reinforcing, namely a healthy environment with a healthy
economy. Integrated decisions have to be made at the front end
of the development when goals and policies are being set, not at
the end where costs are staggering, as in the case of acid rain
abatement and as in the case of a number of other issues.
However now is not the proper time or place to list these.
Therefore, to conclude this point a fundamental reorganization
of economic policies and priorities is needed.
Second, energy. In North America and in most OECD
countries conventional energy sources, namely coal, oil,
nuclear, gas, attract large subsidies. Total energy subsidies in
the United States alone have been estimated at more than $40
billion annually. In Canada the last time we conducted an
estimate on this item the figure came close to almost $5 billion
in subsidies.
End of pipe technologies to improve the safety and reduce
emissions where available cannot even begin to compete with
the opposite efforts of these huge and indirect subsidies. Energy
is a key policy field in order to achieve sustainable
development.
Third, agriculture. Taxpayers and consumers of OECD
countries spend well over $250 billion a year on agricultural
subsidies. They not only encourage farmers to expend their
basic farm capital; namely soil, water, trees, they also promote
over production. This gives rise to demands for trade protection
and export subsidies to enable those food products to be dumped
in developing countries, thus in turn undermining their
agriculture
6127
as well. Here again end of pipe measures for soil and water
conservation programs are too weak to compete with these
subsidies.
Fourth, the nature of production. If high rates of growth are to
be achieved and maintained a significant and rapid reduction in
the energy and raw materials content of every unit of production
is necessary. A healthy economy will no longer be one that uses
increasing amounts of energy, materials, and resources to
produce more goods, more jobs, more income.
This assumption still dominates policies in energy,
agriculture, and other resource sectors unfortunately. It is a
leftover from the mass economy of the industrial age marked by
a steady expansion in the production of energy, depletion of
resources and degradation of the environment.
The link between growth and its impact on the environment
can be severed. The sustainable development economy, the new
economy, is more efficient, uses less energy, less resources for
every unit of production, uses more information, uses more
intelligence.
Industry, if driven by the principles of sustainable
development, is discovering a number of things. For instance it
can redesign industrial processes which require less and more
flexible capital plant. It can recycle and reuse by-products. It
can invent products that use lighter and more durable materials
and that require less energy to produce.
Industry is discovering that with reduced energy and material
content, it can save an overall cost per unit of production and
reduce environmental emissions and wastes. This is a far more
effective way of reducing emissions than expensive end of pipe
technologies that serve no other purpose. In addition resource
reduction and recycling lead back to the beginning of the
production cycle. They result in decreased mining and mining
wastes, decreased water consumption and pollution, decreased
deforestation and erosion.
(1320)
Moving from unsustainable to sustainable development
requires a shift in the government's agenda, a shift not only in
the Department of Industry but also in the Department of
Natural Resources, of trade, transport, agriculture, public
works, external affairs, in our procurement policies, in the
production of energy.
The Minister of Industry is leading in this respect but he
cannot do it alone. A clear indication of whether a government is
shifting its agenda to address sustainability seriously is its
budget.
A budget establishes economic and fiscal incentives, as we all
know, and also the disincentives, including forms of taxes
within which farmers, consumers and business make their
decisions. A budget is the most important environmental policy
statement because it determines how the nation's environment
will be degraded or enhanced, how its stock of ecological capital
will be increased or reduced. Actually the budget should be
regarded as an environmental statement.
It was with these considerations in mind, with a clear intent of
keeping an election promise, with a commitment to the need to
shift to sustainability that in May of this year the committee on
the environment and sustainable development recommended to
the government the creation of a commissioner of the
environment and sustainable development. This individual
would report to Parliament. He would report on progress made
in the shift from unsustainable to sustainable policies, on
programs, on budgets. We did this drawing from chapter IV of
the election campaign red book. We were motivated at the same
time by the conclusions of the earth summit in Rio, namely the
understanding and belief that Canada must move toward a
sustainable development agenda for the 21st century.
The minister and his department are off to a good start by
making sustainable development the main goal of this new
department in clause 5. The minister is saying that economic
development is dependent and goes hand in hand with ecological
capital; that the depletion of one leads to the weakening and
depletion of the other.
The wording in this bill is a milestone toward establishing in
law the interdependence between two values of tremendous
importance to humanity. Already the recognition of sustainable
development has clearly emerged in the policies of the minister
of fisheries through the conservation he has introduced. This
was somehow imposed on us by circumstances that have
developed over the last 20 years.
Another positive development on this road toward sustainable
development is the appointment in early July of a task force to
study the baseline expenditures of government that may be in
conflict with sustainability and environmental protection. This
task force will report to the Minister of Finance next November
and is keeping a promise made in the campaign red book.
Another positive development came last Thursday when both
the Minister of Industry and the Minister of the Environment
announced a strategy for the Canadian environmental industry.
It is the realization at the political level, the highest level, that
there is an enormous potential, enormous scope for the
development of a new industry that draws its strength from the
realization that we are entering a new phase in growth, a new
phase in development and the linking of the two concepts of the
economy and the environment being integrated in a rational
manner.
6128
(1325 )
Yet to come are the changes in other departments. We still
have a long way to go but the beginning is good and promising. I
want to applaud the minister for his initiative.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with attention to the hon. member for Davenport, who I
see as a man full of fine qualities who spends a great deal of
energy protecting the blue planet. I have no doubt that the hon.
member for Davenport made his allegations in good faith, but I
have serious reservations about his party.
You know, when I look at a government that revels in big
words such as sustainable development and plays on people's
emotions by talking about global development and mortgaging
the future of our children and grandchildren, I am puzzled.
When I see, for example, a ship that has been lying at the
bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 24 years and that is still
leaking part of its cargo every day; when I see a government that
leaves thousands of lights on 24 hours a day when the offices are
empty; when I see overheated rooms; when I see the lawn in
front of the Parliament Buildings being watered right after it
rains or a few hours before heavy rains are forecast; when I see
the quality of the water in the St. Lawrence River and the Great
Lakes get increasingly worse; when I see that the $5.8 million
that was to be spent on cleaning up the St. Lawrence in Phase I of
the St. Lawrence Action Plan was actually invested in
Miramichi, New Brunswick, several hundreds of kilometres
away from the St. Lawrence River, these denunciations raise
questions in my mind about the seriousness of the Liberal Party
now governing Canada.
The question I could ask the hon. member for Davenport is
this: Can you, sir, who show very good judgment particularly on
environmental matters, guarantee that the party of which you are
an active member will be as serious as yourself in the years to
come, when you know as well as I do that time flies and that we
are falling behind with regard to sustainable development?
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member for
Frontenac that the best guarantee is the fact that the minister has
included in Clause 5 of his bill, about his new department's
objectives, two very important key words for the first time, and
that is a good start, a good promise, if you will.
Of course, the law must be enforced and the purpose of
today's debate is, I think, to provide the minister and his
department with the guidelines needed to promote the two key
words ``sustainable development''. I hope that, as we are doing
today in this House, the new government elected in Quebec City
will also pass legislation aimed at promoting sustainable
development. I am sure that the hon. member for Frontenac,
given his influence with his colleagues in Quebec's National
Assembly, will lobby, make representations to his provincial
colleagues. The state of the St. Lawrence River is the result of
past policies but today here in this House we are discussing the
future. We are talking about the new behaviour for the industry
of the future.
(1330)
I am sure that if the Government of Quebec does the same
thing, sets the same goal for provincially-regulated industries,
we will see considerable changes in the St. Lawrence River and
in all other rivers in the country. But we must exert pressure, we
must say that solutions exist and we must, of course, finds ways
to demonstrate that the economy and the environment can be
integrated.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2),
I wish to advise Your Honour that henceforth the members
speaking on the government side will divide their time into two
10-minute periods with five minutes for questions and
comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
being allowed to speak today on the government's Bill C-46. At
first glance, this bill only confirms the organizational changes
made by the previous government in the summer of 1993.
Caution, however, teaches us to read between the lines, and it is
precisely between the lines that we see the reasons for opposing
this bill.
In fact, the government should have put a stop to duplication
and overlap by giving Quebec exclusive control over its
economic development. Instead, the government is giving the
Department of Industry authority over regional development in
Quebec and in Ontario, contrary to what is happening in the
West and in the Maritimes.
The Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec is a
Quebec regional development agency and is not created under
the specific legislation. It on took an order in council to transfer
the regional development responsibilities of the Minister of
Industry to the Minister of Finance. Nothing, however,
guarantees that this order in council will be issued. It worries me
that one day Quebec's regional development will fall into the
hands of a minister from another province, as happened in 1991.
Regional development could become lost in the administrative
structure of the Department of Industry, and, I repeat, this
worries me.
Bill C-46, Mr. Speaker, is the result of the previous
government's wish to rationalize the machinery of government.
In going ahead and implementing it, the Liberal government
must give proof that it will effectively reduce government
waste. And this will be far from conclusive, when one looks at
the unnecessary and costly expenditures resulting from
duplication and
6129
overlap within the federal government and between the
Canadian and Quebec governments.
Since the study by Germain Julien and Marcel Proulx, who
made public the overlapping of federal programs with certain
provincial programs, just from the point of view of
co-ordination, civil servants must meet close to 1,000 times a
year to see if they are not offering the same services, to
harmonize program objectives and to ensure that they are not
incompatible.
(1335)
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission was clear on this point.
If Quebec took charge of existing federal programs and provided
the same services, we would save $233 millions in
transportation and communication expenditures, $250 million
in labour expenditures and $289 million in expenses associated
with the collection of duties and taxes.
How efficient are measures implemented by two levels of
government? More often than not, they cancel each other out
because of competition and even conflict arising between the
federal and provincial government. Program co-ordination is
made difficult since neither government is prepared to make
serious concessions on objectives or priorities. Even the famous
infrastructure program had some hiccups. Did the former
Minister of Municipal Affairs in Quebec not receive a letter of
reprimand from the minister responsible for the program?
Just to know what services and financial assistance programs
are available and to comply with laws and regulations, our
constituents are forced to make multiple inquiries to keep
abreast of programs and services. This is quite a burden, even
more so when the programs and services are overlapping.
Businesses have to assign employees to gathering this
information and eventually taxpayers and consumers are
affected.
In addition, there are people who do not use certain services
because they do not know about them and program duplication
does nothing to help. In fact, it even complicates the matter
further. The people have little control over the way they are
governed because of the confusion caused by overlapping. Such
fragmentation of action makes it impossible for any one level of
government to influence the course of things and, to make things
even worse, they pass the puck to each other.
The provinces do have the right to opt out of federal
programs. They do get financial compensation, but only for
joint programs, which account for only five per cent of all
overlapping. For these reasons, I seriously question the capacity
of the Department of Industry to prevent such squandering. The
bill before us provides rather for the status quo with regards to
the mandate of the amalgamated departments. Is this another
instance of semblance of change? Divisions are indeed changing
names, but are we merging and blending the players? Nothing in
this bill points that way. Nevertheless, the people gave a
mandate to reduce waste in the federal government.
The Liberal government talks about ``one-stop shopping'' as
a way to rationalize its internal operations. We all agree that this
is a step in the right direction. But be careful: a mere merger that
increases the size of an organization also reduces its
productivity and efficiency. As a result, the bureaucracy is even
more cumbersome. The Liberals have not yet shown that savings
will be made with this ``single window'' concept.
The one in Montreal for business people saves the
government no money. Customer service is improved, but what
about the promised streamlining? We are entitled to demand that
the Liberal government carry out all the restructuring of the
federal machinery presented in this House in various bills that
were intended to save money. The Bloc Quebecois demands it on
behalf of all Canadians and Quebecers.
This bill also confirms existing overlap in regional
development. Why let the Department of Industry meddle in our
territory? For years Quebec has demanded control in this area.
We have a very particular view of our requirements in this field.
The decentralization of funding and authority begun by the new
government in Quebec is the response which the regions were
waiting for to take charge of their own communities.
(1340)
The federal government would be well advised to do away
with its centralizing attitude and instead implement this
democratic vision of regional development. To say that regional
development is neglected in Quebec is stating the obvious. Let
me just mention the much publicised federal-provincial
agreements on regional development in 1987 and 1988. I will
admit that these agreements work very well in the western
provinces and in the Maritimes. Indeed, since these agreements
were signed, $1.2 billion was spent in Atlantic Canada, $630
million in the western provinces, and $165 million in Quebec.
Our regions suffer from the multiple interventions in regional
development and from a lack of consistency of government
policies. Let me give you an example. Would you believe that
the government subsidizes an industry through the Federal
Office of Regional Development, the only Canadian industry in
its sector, while also allowing one of its departments to buy
equipment from a competing American company? Yet this is
what is happening to an industry in my riding.
This is unacceptable. If you believe in a product and subsidize
the related research and development efforts, should you not
also promote its marketing? Not so with this government, it
seems. That situation should be corrected as soon as possible.
6130
In its report, the interdepartmental work group on regional
development set up by the Quebec government in 1991 looked at
the issue of multiple interventions in regional development and
concluded that: ``In the present context, we can see the
following negative results linked to the interventions of the two
levels of government: confusion in terms of the regional sense
of belonging, since the federal regions do not correspond to the
administrative regions in Quebec; duplication of structures,
regional consulting organizations and economic development
agencies, as well as setting up of management committees and
programs to reconcile various types of interventions;
duplication of activities which results in high operation costs,
given the actual budgets invested in regional development; too
many government stakeholders, a situation which frequently
results in confusion at the regional level''.
May I remind hon. members that these comments were taken
from the final report of the interdepartmental task force on
regional development, published by the Government of Quebec
in 1991. Quebecers are sick and tired of seeing their money used
for the regional development of other provinces. This money
should go to help small businesses and create small businesses
and jobs in Quebec. Quebec does not want regional development
that is based on the strictly industrial vision of the Minister of
Industry in Ottawa. Quebec has had enough of the federal
government's meddling and inconsistencies. Long ago, Quebec
realized that only regional players understood the real needs of
their environment. Enough of these projects, one-shot
interventions and political decisions that siphon off funding
from projects that are working perfectly well.
This bill is unlikely to end the uncertainty that is rife within
the regional development agency. The Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec may be very anxious to
harmonize its activities with Quebec's, but so far, it has not been
successful. According to the Minister of Finance responsible for
the office, it has not yet been able to harmonize its mandate with
that of the Quebec government's business development centres,
which means the centres are still at the mercy of unilateral
decisions by Ottawa. For instance, the federal government is
planning to merge the BDCs and CFCs, which are now the
responsibility of the Department of Human Resources
Development, and have a single agency that would come under
the Federal Office of Regional Development. Representatives of
these agencies in my region talked to me about their concerns.
The very future of the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec is in jeopardy. Despite all the promises
in the red book that regional development could be a high
priority, the office's budget is shrinking.
(1345)
In 1993-94, the office's budget was $232 million, which is
expected to drop by $70 million over the next three years. After
these cuts, the budget for the Federal Office of Regional
Development will be down to $162 million, compared with $200
million for the West and $214 million for the Maritimes.
The concerns of the agencies responsible for regional
development are quite understandable, considering the way the
Federal Office of Regional Development operates. The office
has failed to harmonize its activities with the comprehensive
vision of local development established by the BDCs and the
CFCs.
Programs designed in Ottawa and implemented in our regions
do not always respond to the real needs of the people. The money
is spread around without any real input from the community.
The federal government should consider the strategic planning
priorities of Quebec's regional municipalities and regions, in
order to maximize the impact of activities by regional agencies
responsible for local development.
As long as decision-making and budgeting remain
centralized in Ottawa, the regions will not be able to establish
the base they need for continuing development. Geographic
isolation is one thing, but it is nothing compared with the
remoteness of the decision-making process.
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission realized that the future
of regional development in Quebec depended on the regions
controlling the levers of development. I wish the government
would do something and admit it is not on the right track with
regional development in Quebec. The fact is that the economic
base is foundering, the social fabric is disintegrating, the rural
exodus has not been stemmed and young people are still the first
ones to leave.
Remote areas are crying out for help and with good reason.
Federal funding to Quebec regions has increased by 50 per cent
since 1983, whereas during the same period it has increased by
300 per cent in western Canada and by 250 per cent in the
Maritimes.
On a per capita basis, the results are even more catastrophic.
In 1987, per capita federal spending was $431 in the Maritimes,
$259 in western Canada and $64 in Quebec.
How can we bring some balance back? The federal
government must reduce expenditures, eliminate tax breaks for
family trusts as well as waste resulting from overlapping and
duplication due mainly to infringement upon provincial
jurisdictions. The billions of dollars saved this way could be
used to bring some fairness back into federal funding of Quebec
regional development.
In the last budget speech, the federal government announced
that it would not renew subsidiary agreements respecting
forestry and mining. And yet it is in these two areas that
subsidiary agreements have been the most beneficial for
Quebec. The Eastern Quebec Development Plan, which will no
longer be funded, is a case in point. Close to 6,000 woodlot
owners are extremely worried. In other areas, the government is
reluctant to renew its agreements. Federal subsidies to farming
amount to $225 million, $25.5 million of which, only 10 per
cent of the envelope, goes to Quebec. For transportation,
Quebec gets only $165 million, or 13 per cent, out of a total of
$1.1 billion, slim pickings indeed.
6131
Let us settle the matter once and for all by repatriating this
money-in the form of tax points-so that it can be managed by
Quebec. Regional development will be a winner. This is what we
are all hoping for.
All kinds of small steps can help us get out of this mess.
Nowhere in the red book is it suggested that investors be allowed
to pump federally guaranteed venture capital into local
businesses. And yet, this is the kind of solution people are
offering to help their region.
(1350)
The new Quebec government has developed a real regional
development policy. The Parti Quebecois wants to promote in
that respect the assumption of responsibility by the
stakeholders, in a context of freer trade which eliminates some
trade barriers and opens the regional economy up to stiff
competition.
Let me quote some of the objectives of this positive policy
which could serve as a model: high level of employment,
competitive export-oriented economy based on sustainable
development, continuity and high added value, better quality of
life in large communities, viable land use and many more.
No consensus can be achieved at the federal level regarding
regional development because priorities vary from province to
province and from region to region. That is why we are stressing
the need to decentralize budgets and decision-making powers.
The future calls for a decentralization of powers towards
decision-making units, that is to say the regions, these being in a
better position to assess their own situation. This bill should be
rejected because it does not provide Quebec with exclusive
control over regional development.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my colleague's discourse
regarding this bill.
Of particular interest was the concern about overlap. It is a
concern many members on all sides of the House share based on
the concept that we should get as many efficiencies into
government as we possibly can.
My question for the hon. member would follow that if we
were to simply remove the federal government from this debate,
we would be left with the provincial governments which would
then have an overlap problem with the municipalities. Would it
not be better for us, as a national government, to set priorities
nationally? Then to the best degree possible we could devolve
responsibility for managing these programs to that order of
government closest to the people being served.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer this
question because I know that, like us, our colleagues from the
other party on this side are here to cut public spending and also
to try and put some degree of order back in our fiscal house.
To answer my hon. colleague's question, with respect to
duplication and overlapping, let me tell you that when we look at
the statistics, precise figures-not my own but rather extremely
precise figures provided by economists-and see a government
reducing its activities and hear people say: ``Look, we might as
well let the federal government run it all'', I for one cannot
believe my ears.
When a problem arises in a community, a province or a
country, I have a rule of thumb that goes like this: who is in the
best position to resolve the problem? It may be the municipal,
provincial or federal government. I think this is the basis for
taking our problems in our own hands because we are the ones
who are in the best position to assess the problem. Look, we
know that savings would be achieved. We know that. It was
established beyond any doubt.
These savings could be used, as I said repeatedly, to create
jobs and put Canada back to work. Then we would be truly
entitled to tell the people watching us and listening to us: ``We
have done something for the people of Canada and Quebec''.
And that is what I strive to do in this House to work and plead so
that something is really done for all Canadians and Quebecers.
(1355)
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to commend my colleague from Lotbinière for his speech on
Bill C-46. I would also like to comment on the remarks of my
Reform colleague whose question seems very relevant in the
political and economic debate Quebecers and Canadians are
now engaged in, because he presents the problem in appropriate
terms.
Regional development is one of the main reasons why there
are sovereignists in Quebec. Some Quebecers want Quebec to
take its destiny into its own hands because the federal
government's priorities will never coincide with those of
Quebecers and their government. That is not necessarily the
case in the rest of Canada as such. Given Canadians' sense of
belonging compared with that of Quebecers, we know that
Canada can develop its own internal logic in terms of
development because there seems to be a strong consensus.
As my colleague just said, the federal government can set
Canadian standards from the Pacific to some point in the East,
but the Government of Quebec and Quebecers themselves will
always be opposed to Canadian standards that would apply to
Quebec.
6132
Therefore, I congratulate the hon. member for asking a
relevant question that is at the heart of the constitutional debate
that concerns us and keeps us busy, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something. The
relationship between the federal and provincial governments
reminds me a little of a family where, one day, the son tells his
father: ``Dad, I would like to start a business.'' So the father
answers: ``No, son, stay with me, am I not taking good care of
you?'' The father stands in the way of the son's development,
prevents him from spreading his wings instead of saying,
``Look, son, you are old enough to leave the nest.'' That is what
we are asking for. We want to leave the nest so we can take
control of our own destiny and continue to negotiate the same
thing.
We keep on explaining that we do not want borders and
barriers. What we want is good communications but we must get
back what we are entitled to. For example, when we were talking
about manpower training earlier, they said they wanted to save
$250 million. If you want to throw away that $250 million, go
ahead, but I myself would like to save it because money is
important to me and I would like to re-invest it in my province,
in small businesses and all that.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to
Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6132
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the opening of Castle
Kilbride, Canada's newest heritage site.
On Sunday, September 25, thousands of local citizens
gathered to commemorate this important occasion. It was my
honour to present the certificate on behalf of the Prime Minister
and the Government of Canada to the mayor of Wilmot to be
placed in a time capsule. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage did an excellent job in
representing the minister on this occasion.
Castle Kilbride, situated in Baden, Ontario, was built in 1877
as a showpiece of the Livingstone family. This stately home,
Italianate in design, incorporates many unique features,
including fresco paintings on the ceiling which are unrivalled in
Canada, as well as many other beautiful original fixtures.
Most important, it provides us and generations to come with a
fascinating look at the past. None of this would have been
possible without the co-operation of all levels of government,
as well as the tireless efforts of the mayor and the council of the
township of Wilmot, supported by an army of volunteers from
Wilmot township in Waterloo county.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, on
hearing what some Liberal members are saying, I wonder if the
Minister of Justice is not giving in to pressure from the gun
lobby. The great majority of Canadians and Quebecers favour
stricter gun control, especially for military weapons and
handguns.
Given the consensus on this issue in Quebec, I would like to
remind the minister that if the (Quebec) National Assembly had
exclusive jurisdiction over the Criminal Code, effective gun
control legislation would have been passed long ago. How many
lives would have been saved if Quebec already had such
legislation in force?
Representatives of associations of women, victims of violent
crime, emergency physicians and big-city police from Quebec
and Canada are all in favour of better gun control. Is the Minister
of Justice listening to the people?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday in Coquitlam, British Columbia, a march
and rally were held to display the public's dissatisfaction with
the current Young Offenders Act. This rally was the largest
anti-crime rally ever staged in British Columbia, with over
3,000 residents attending.
The Reform member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, who was a
catalyst behind the rally, remarked that the most frequently
heard phrase was that the Young Offenders Act is a joke.
Another comment often heard from the crowd was that the
courts are more concerned with the rights and protection of the
offender as opposed to the rights and protection of the victim.
Those at the rally presented several clear messages: lower the
age of the young offender, instil harsher penalties and publicize
the names of offenders in order that the community will be
better protected.
The clearest message of all was for the Minister of Justice to
step out of his glass office and respect the pleas of the majority
6133
of Canadians who want an act that represents mainstream
Canadian values, and they do not mean Bill C-37.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, this weekend I had the privilege of attending the annual
general assembly of the Canadian Environmental Network. I
commend this organization for once again bringing together
Canada's most active environmentalists for several days of
thought provoking discussion.
I listened carefully during the weekend and in addition to the
sharing of information I heard the general frustration expressed
with regard to how the Liberal government is responding to
critical environmental issues.
For example, the government has been in office almost 12
months and still has not proclaimed Bill C-13, the
Environmental Assessment Act. Second, the government is
responsible for the environmental assessment of low level
military flight training in Labrador and has been most unfair to
the Innu during this assessment process.
The federal government is considering funding cuts to the
so-called interest groups such as the Canadian Environmental
Network, the very groups that by their efforts have the ability to
save governments money in the long run.
My congratulations to CEN on this year's annual general
assembly.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
congratulate the P.E.I potato industry on the implementation of
its five-year plan aimed at expanding the facilities and services
at the Elite Seed Farm on Fox Island, P.E.I.
This newly renovated facility which is owned by the primary
producers now has the distinction of being the only one of its
kind in Canada. The facility's new laboratory gives it the
capacity to produce disease free plantlets. The new production
and handling equipment will provide more efficient and
environmentally safe services to producers and consumers.
It will also play a significant role in marketing P.E.I. potatoes
through the use of its conference facilities that will attract trade
missions from around the world. This concept of attracting trade
missions and on site explanations to the industry has been used
by the CIGI in Winnipeg for years.
I congratulate the government and the industry on the
co-operative approach taken.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
address the matter of labour training adjustment boards and how
important it is to retrain our workforce so that Canada can
compete in the international environment. This is the best way
to deal with structural unemployment.
Labour force adjustment boards are staffed by local
stakeholders in the training process. Since many of these
recipients are on unemployment insurance it is important there
there be some form of co-operation between Canada
Employment and the boards. This is the only sensible course
since it will ensure proper program delivery.
Training must have both a local and a national component to
ensure the portability of newly acquired skills. We need to work
together to increase the technical skills of all our labour force
from sea to sea to sea.
* * *
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, the North Bay area
is celebrating the grand opening of Rebuilt Resources Skills
Development Incorporated, another example of how
Environment Canada's environmental citizenship initiative is
helping Canadians work together to improve the environment.
Environment Canada has invested $56,000 in this partnership
through the environmental partners fund. To date this
partnership has resulted in over 340 tonnes of material being
diverted from the local landfill.
(1405 )
The collected materials are reused and recycled where
possible. Other items are used to furnish homes for low income
families. Often the items are repaired and sold at the warehouse,
resulting in a contribution to the local economy.
As a result of the centre's effort the project is now
self-sustaining. Rebuild Resources currently employs four full
time staff, three part time staff, and depends on its numerous
volunteers.
This project could not have been possible without the support
of community partners such as the Ontario Ministry of
Environment and Energy, the Sands Motor Inn, the Shell
Environmental Fund, the Callander Lion's Club, and
Employment and Immigration Canada.
Through the environmental citizenship initiative these
Canadians were able to translate these environmental concerns
into tangible action.
6134
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, last week the
Canadian Council on Social Development published its latest
report on the alarming increase of poverty in Canada.
According to the council's report, social programs are
working, but the labour market is very sluggish and is
responsible for the problems of unemployment and poverty that
we are experiencing. The Bloc Quebecois has been repeating
this message since the minister launched his reform of social
programs. The federal government should first and foremost
concentrate its energy on an active employment policy.
The Liberals, however, have identified social programs as the
main disincentive to work and have decided to cut them as a way
to encourage beneficiaries to return to work. The government is
working on the consequences of the problem and not on its
causes. The minister will find plenty in the council's report to
redirect his approach and give hope to all those who are
excluded from the labour market.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a thousand law enforcement officers
marched on Parliament Hill in the memorial for the 10 officers
who were killed in the line of duty last year.
Today 51 names of prison guards, conservation officers and
customs officials killed since 1967 were added.
Though all occupational deaths are tragic, the deaths of peace
officers are even more so because they frequently come at the
hands of someone else.
Many of these deaths could be prevented but they will only be
prevented if we do our job in this House and pass the legislation
necessary to get dangerous criminals off the streets of Canada.
We need an efficient removal system for our immigration
department. We need gun control legislation that targets
criminals and not the law-abiding Canadian public. We need to
immediately revoke section 745 of the Criminal Code so that
those individuals who murder police officers will have to serve
the minimum 25 years that they were sentenced.
I join with the Solicitor General in calling for a memorial
service next year when no new names are added to that list. Let
us not forget that the decisions we make in this House may make
a difference in attaining that goal.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker,
Winnipeg's future as an air transportation hub for all of North
America got a much needed shot in the arm this month. Northern
Hemisphere Distribution Alliance Incorporated will receive up
to $620,000 in federal government funding to research
opportunities and develop action plans to realize its goal.
Local firms have come together with the Winnipeg airport to
develop a multimodal transportation centre to act as a transfer
point for cargo between the markets of the Pacific rim, Europe
and North America.
This initiative has strong potential to create 6,000 new jobs in
Manitoba, generate $105 million in tax revenue for the three
levels of government and hundreds of millions of dollars worth
of economic activity. It shows the benefits of co-operation
between the private sector and government to foster growth in
Manitoba and all of Canada.
I commend the Minister of Human Resources Development
for his leadership in bringing this dream closer to reality.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, the United Way touches the lives of many Canadians.
The United Way in Guelph-Wellington provides benefits
throughout our community.
This organization cannot survive without our generosity.
Donations ensure that many agencies provide valuable service
to thousands in need.
This year the United Way has set a target of $1,115,000 in
Guelph-Wellington. Besides the needed financial support
United Way agencies are supported by volunteers and devoted
staff such as Morris Twist, executive director of the social
planning council.
I urge the residents of Guelph-Wellington to continue the
good work of the United Way. Our dollars go to ensuring
improved social well-being for our neighbours and friends. This
agency truly does care.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, the city of
Waterloo has been experiencing a major problem with the
deterioration of sewer lines in part of the city where black pipe
has been used.
(1410 )
This is a common problem in many Canadian municipalities.
To replace underground service the usual practice has been to
dig a trench for the main pipe located below the road to the
6135
residence, a practice that is expensive, unsightly and restricts
traffic flow.
This problem is being met by the creation of the Centre for
Advancement of Trenchless Technologies at the University of
Waterloo, with initial sponsorship provided by NRC, Ontario
Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement, the city of
Waterloo and private industry.
Trenchless technology holds the key to effective future
maintenance and rehabilitational below ground infrastructure in
Canada.
I would like to congratulate all the parties involved in this
most important innovation that will benefit all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Minister of Health announced that centres of excellence for
women's health would be created very shortly. What do we
know about these centres? Not much, except that they will be
geared to the particular needs of women. This is a rather vague
federal initiative, where the provinces seem to have been left out
of the implementation process.
Are these centres for excellence another empty shell, without
authority or resources, stuck in a consultative role and remote
from the decision-making centres? Medical research on
women's health care needs to be re-evaluated. Considering the
alarming number of women suffering from breast and lung
cancer, it is a question that all women in Quebec and Canada are
asking, prior to the final announcement.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, the national
debt of $530 billion-plus and the interest costs to service this
debt are the single biggest problem facing Canada today.
Despite this fact, this government still spends $110 million
more per day than it brings in. I challenge the team in red to stop
hiding its head in its little red playbook, get off its benches, off
the sidelines and make a real play for Canadians.
I ask the coach of the Liberal team: Who is prepared to stand
up and take responsibility for this fiscal mismanagement? What
serious actions is it willing to take? Where is the accountability
and the spending cuts promised by the finance minister? When
can Canadians expect tax relief from this government rather
than tax grief? Why will no one on the other side do something
about balancing the budget rather than consulting for another
year?
The national debt clock today stands at $531,946,016,332.04.
This Liberal government is adding to our debt at the rate of
$1,473 per second. This amount keeps on ticking while the
government just keeps on talking.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate the fund raising committee of the Villa
Marconi on its very successful golf tournament held to raise
funds for a seniors residence for Canadians of Italian extraction.
I want to especially congratulate the winning foursome
headed by the one and only unbeatable Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration. While the minister may have temporarily
harmed my political popularity by walking away with all the
best prizes, I want to thank him for his important contribution to
this great event.
It is good to know that a member of Parliament can come to
this community, become part of it and participate in this kind of
event to the benefit of the Italian Canadian community in the
national capital.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the peace officers
memorial service conducted earlier today on Parliament Hill.
This service honoured those persons who put their lives on the
line every day, our correctional and police officers.
As the member for Kingston and the Islands, I have had the
opportunity to see many of these courageous men and women in
action. Our justice system relies on these people to make Canada
a safe and secure place.
Today a commemorative plaque was unveiled in honour of the
51 peace officers killed in the line of duty since Confederation.
This plaque, however, should not be looked upon as a
monument dedicated only to those who have lost their lives. It
should be a reminder to all Canadians of the sacrifices and hard
work of our peace officers that they perform on a daily basis.
On behalf of all members I applaud and thank the efforts of
each and every one of Canada's peace officers. We are truly
grateful.
6136
6136
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the CBC has obtained a copy of the proposed reform of
our social programs that was submitted to cabinet last week by
the Minister of Human Resources Development. The document
says that the minister wants to centralize unemployment
insurance, make enrolment in training courses compulsory for
unemployment insurance recipients and make the spouse's
income a factor in establishing eligibility for benefits.
(1415)
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he
confirm that his government intends to centralize the
administration of social programs, which today is a provincial
responsibility under the Constitution?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is no.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I realize that these documents, whose existence was
alleged and reported by the CBC, are not official documents, but
I think the public is starting to question the government's
intentions, considering that the newspapers have documents
which are said to have been submitted to cabinet.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if, in its proposed reform, the
government intends to oblige the unemployed to take training
courses, in order to be eligible for benefits?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we will have an official document next week, and if the hon.
member wishes to make the usual comments under the
circumstances, he will have to wait until the document is
released. A week from now he will get all the answers to the
questions he is asking now.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, this document, whose existence is alleged by the CBC,
exists. It is not a forgery. It is a document from a government
source. So this document is disturbing, on the face of it, and I
want to ask the government to tell us whether, as the document
indicates, it intends to come down hard on women by making the
income of the spouse an obstacle to their being eligible for their
own benefits?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we will have an officially authorized document, not one
obtained by a third party, at the beginning of next week, and the
Leader of the Opposition will be able to make the usual
comments at that time.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, one week after the intervention of American forces in
Port-au-Prince, U.S. President Bill Clinton announced this
morning before the UN General Assembly the immediate lifting
of American trade sanctions against Haiti. President Clinton
also urged other nations to do the same.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he tell us if
Canada intends to lift its trade sanctions against Haiti today, as
requested by the U.S. President?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, it is correct that President Clinton
announced this morning that he would lift commercial flight
sanctions as well as financial transactions that were imposed
against Haiti as long as it did not apply to the military in Haiti.
Canada is willing to follow suit but first we want to see
President Aristide's request for this which was made yesterday.
It must be recognized that we cannot lift our own sanctions
except by order in council.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Will he
tell us when air connections between Canada and Haiti will be
resumed?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, Canada is willing to
look at lifting this particular sanction against Haiti but it will
have to be pursued through an order in council. I expect that will
be pursued as soon as possible.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister has refused to rule out new taxes
on RRSPs. On Friday further alarm bells rang right across
Canada when the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions also refused to rule out taxes on private sector and
public service pension plans.
It is time to clear the air, so I ask the Minister of Finance for
clarification. Has he ruled out new taxes on private sector and
public service pension plans?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we have made it very
clear that the essence of the consultation process requires debate
with
6137
Canadians as to the tradeoffs and as to the measures they
eventually expect the government to take. It would be to
preclude that process for me to engage in individual comment
on any suggestion at this time.
(1420)
We look forward to the contributions of the members of the
Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois throughout that process
on the finance committee. Members of the Reform Party simply
do not understand the importance of this initiative by the
government.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, certainly we understand consultation but we must have
something to consult about. That is why we are asking the
government some questions; we are asking questions because
we need some answers.
From the minister's reply we can only conclude-and it is the
only conclusion we can draw-that the government is
considering a tax rate not only on RRSPs but on company
pension plans and public service pensions. Millions of
Canadians count on them for their retirement.
Why is the minister contemplating punishing Canadians for
the irresponsible spending of his government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we are not contemplating punishing
Canadians. If there was irresponsible spending it was by the
previous government. A great number of them were supported
by members of the Reform Party.
We are about to embark upon the most comprehensive
consultation process in terms of prebudget discussion that has
ever been held. I do not understand why the members of the
Reform Party are so anti-democratic that they fail to understand
Canadians deserve to have their voices heard.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, no party worked harder to remove the previous
administration because of its fiscal mismanagement than the
Reform Party. No party will work harder to remove the Liberal
government if it continues to spend $100 billion more than it
takes in revenue in its term.
Canadians are concerned. They suspect the new pension plan
taxes are somehow related to the long delayed social policy
review.
Why is the minister contemplating robbing Peter to pay Paul,
or should I say robbing Lloyd to pay Paul? Why is the
government making Canadians more dependent on underfunded
programs such as the old age security or the Canada pension plan
by taking away their personal retirement savings?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, during Wednesday's question period
the member for Calgary West stated that it was in the interest of
his party and should be in the interest of the government to get
the views of all Canadians on the unity of the country. He then
went on to say: ``I am surprised the Prime Minister does not
want that''.
I am surprised, indeed astonished, that the member does not
want us to consult with Canadians on the economic future of our
country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, Quebec paid
all the costs of the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord in
that province and also absorbed 25 per cent of the costs related
to that same referendum in the other Canadian provinces. Last
Thursday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said to the
media that the federal government owes nothing to Quebec,
since he had no confirmation of an agreement between the Prime
Minister and Premier of the time, Mr. Mulroney and Mr.
Bourassa.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he tell us if he
instructed his staff to check with former Prime Minister
Mulroney whether such an agreement existed, as claimed by Mr.
Bourassa?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is yes.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, will the
Prime Minister be kind enough to inform this House and all
Quebecers of the results of this exercise, so that we know
whether or not to expect payment of this $26-million debt owed
to Quebec by the federal government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not expect to have a definite answer for several days yet.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, returns of early
Stuart sockeye plummeted this year to the disastrous lows of
1992.
A leaked DFO document clearly lays the blame on the
government for mismanagement and on a severely reduced
enforcement effort on the Fraser River.
6138
(1425 )
Will the minister commit to an independent review of
management and enforcement practices on the Fraser River
before our stocks reach the disastrous levels of those on the east
coast?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, absolutely.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I understand that
to mean an independent review.
As a result of the leaked document reliable sources within the
department report that in an effort to cover up mismanagement
on the Fraser River this year, reports are being shredded and
departmental personnel are being moved and transferred.
Will the minister assure the House that the witch-hunt in the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans will cease immediately and
that no one will be penalized for releasing documents that will
lead to the truth about the missing fish?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I would suggest we should be more concerned given
that question with a sense of missing balance, fairness and
reason in the House.
The fact of the matter is-
Mr. Hermanson: You don't know the answer.
Mr. Tobin: My colleague from the Reform Party doing
politics a new way interrupts my attempt to give a complete
answer.
The fact of the matter is that DFO will be announcing a
completely independent review of the circumstances regarding
the situation with respect to sockeye on the Fraser River. The
review will involve four individuals, none of whom is involved
with DFO, all of whom are experts in their fields outside the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
All the facts will be out. The chips will fall where they may.
The attempt at paranoia, smear and accusation launched today
will fail.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
For the past year, the minister has been going after middle
income earners and the poorest members of society to replenish
the government's coffers. The odious cuts in the unemployment
insurance program and age credit announced in the last budget
are cases in point. The minister is relentless in his attacks and is
now considering taxing pension plan contributions.
Can the Minister of Finance confirm whether or not he intends
to tax pension plan contributions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I have already answered
this question. What we are really seeking is a consultation
process that is as open as possible. It is not for me to talk about
or comment on particular suggestions as long as the finance
committee has not presented its report. I am certain that the hon.
member does not want to interfere with the process we have set
in motion.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I will rephrase my question: is the minister going to go on
attacking middle income earners and ordinary taxpayers by
taxing RRSPs and pension plans or is he going to go after the
2,000 taxpayers who last year did not pay a cent in taxes, rich
Canadian individuals and companies who, more often than not,
are defrauding Revenue Canada? This is the real question, Mr.
Speaker.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, clearly, in our last
budget, we closed some of the loopholes which allowed some
Canadians to not pay any taxes, namely by eliminating the
$100,000 capital gain exemption which was by far the main
reason for this.
It is very clear that what the member really wants is to do
away with the consultation process. I would like to quote what
the Reform member for Lethbridge had to say about our
consultation process. ``It is the most open budget process I ever
was involved in. Efforts to open up the budget process and to
take into account pre-budget consultations are a welcome
innovation''.
Could it be that the Bloc Quebecois is less democratic than the
Reform Party?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, many native
communities in Canada have squalid conditions.
(1430 )
The health minister today announced a $243 million program
to alleviate some of the squalid conditions. The Canadian
Medical Association has other solutions: clean water, more
aboriginal physicians.
I wonder if the minister could comment on whether her
program addresses those fundamental problems of our natives.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
announcement this morning had to do with the health of
aboriginal communities, helping them heal themselves. It is
meant to
6139
deal with the very real problems of aboriginal suicide, solvent
abuse and nursing problems.
That is my responsibility and I am very committed to it. I
think we have made a great step forward in helping aboriginal
communities help themselves.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General
has identified $85 million in inefficiencies in the non-insured
native health care plan.
Can the minister tell us today what mechanisms there are in
this program to address accountability and inefficiency?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
have taken some steps to address the concerns of the Auditor
General. In this particular program we are working with
aboriginals so they administer their own programs.
When a person takes responsibility of his own actions then the
dollars spent are spent far more wisely.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, lobbyists have just shown how effective they are.
According to documents obtained under the Access to
Information Act, they have apparently managed to influence the
very legislation that was to limit their influence.
Does the Prime Minister admit that, once again, lobbyists
have demonstrated their effectiveness by extensively watering
down the red book's commitment to limit their sphere of
influence?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the member's
attention that this bill is before the parliamentary committee
right now. We will be listening to all recommendations.
At this point there is opportunity for amendments. If those
amendments make sense then the government will look at them.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I consider the reply to be a negation of my statement,
and I ask the Prime Minister again, in light of this reply, how he
can say that this bill has not been influenced by lobbyists, given
the noticeable absence of provisions to force lobbyists to
divulge their fees as well as provisions to eliminate the tax
deduction for expenses incurred by businesses to engage the
services of lobbyists, provisions they were demanding when
they formed the opposition.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, we have taken all of the
recommendations that the previous parliamentary committee
put forward during the last session of Parliament.
As I stated earlier in my answer, it is before committee right
now and work is just beginning. Our second session is this
afternoon. We fully expect that members of the opposition will
bring ideas forward. We will debate these. If they are in the best
interests of making the bill better then we are prepared to amend
the bill.
* * *
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the government House leader. I have obtained
a draft of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for
Ontario recommending that the riding of Cochrane-Superior
be abolished and annexed to existing ridings.
[Translation]
My question is for the government House leader. What can the
eleven members of Northern Ontario ridings and their
constituents do to ensure that we may continue to be represented
by eleven members in this House instead of ten, as
recommended by the commission?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has raised an important point. As the House
knows, the House committee on procedure and elections is
currently holding hearings with a view to making
recommendations for new legislation on redistribution. I
understand it may be completing its work in the next month or
so.
(1435)
The government will take that report seriously when
presenting new legislation. If that legislation is adopted before
next June then the process which has so concerned the hon.
member and his colleagues will not go into effect. Instead the
redistribution will be based on the new legislation.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
last Thursday two Manitoba farmers had their homes searched
by Canada customs officials and RCMP to confiscate documents
related to the export of wheat to the U.S. One of these farmers
was not even given the opportunity to be at home when three
special customs agents and six RCMP approached his wife and
family with search warrants.
6140
My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Is this the
Liberal government's approach to dealing with hard working
farmers who are trying to make a decent living?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, it would not be appropriate for any
member of the House of Commons to comment on an RCMP
investigation. The question should be directed to the Solicitor
General or to the Minister of National Revenue.
On the policy issue that is involved there are obviously laws
in place in Canada today dealing with the appropriate procedure
by which grain may be exported. In a civilized and democratic
society it is important that all of the laws be obeyed, not just
those with which we may selectively agree or disagree.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, one of the
farmers my colleague referred to is Andy McMechan who took
advantage of the open borders guaranteed under the free trade
agreement to avert foreclosure by the Farm Credit Corporation.
Why is the Prime Minister and his cabinet treating these
farmers like drug dealers with these heavy-handed tactics?
An hon. member: They are breaking the law.
Mr. Benoit: Why do they not instead do the right thing and
allow farmers to elect a board of directors to give them control
over their organization, the Canadian Wheat Board?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, in response to a question in the House
last week pertaining to marketing systems for Canadian wheat, I
indicated that I would be providing a forum later on this fall at
which the differing views on the subject can be expressed.
It is true to say that there are farmers in western Canada who
hold profoundly different opinions on the question of the
appropriate marketing system to have in place for their grain. I
think it is appropriate that they should be provided with a forum
within which the different sides of that particular debate can be
aired so that when any future decisions are made they are based
on facts and solid information and not merely on innuendo.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, last July, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refused to grant Quebec
fishermen turbot fishing quotas after having encouraged them in
the spring to gear up for this type of operation.
Considering that it was at his suggestion that they equipped
themselves for turbot fishing, does the fisheries minister
undertake today to fully compensate Gaspesian fishermen, who
have invested one million dollars to be able to fish the quotas the
minister subsequently refused them?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I am extremely surprised at this question, given that on
at least three or four occasions the member asked me for private
discussions just outside that door about this matter. On each of
those occasions I explained to the member that the scientific
evidence with respect to turbot was very bad. He agreed. I told
the member that it was extremely unlikely that there would be
new licences.
The member knows it is absolutely false to suggest that the
federal government encouraged people either in Quebec or in
Newfoundland, because this occurred in both places, to gear up
for a fishery that was not going to take place.
The member should also know that on Monday past the
wisdom of the federal position in Ottawa in taking a
conservationists stance was confirmed when the North Atlantic
Fisheries Organization and all of the member states from around
the world in that organization slashed international quotas by
over 50 per cent and for the first time regulated the turbot catch
because of the critical condition of these stocks.
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, my question is in
the public domain. Informal discussions-I would also like to
remind the hon. minister that, on July 25, he publicly stated that
he had encouraged the fishermen to do so. I will give him
another chance and phrase my question differently.
How can the minister reconcile refusing turbot quotas to
Gaspesian fishermen with offering the major part of the
remaining turbot quota to a single company, namely Seafreez, a
company located in his riding and one that used Russian
trawlers?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, what the member is not saying-and this is regrettable,
and may I say to the member personally, surprising-is that the
Seafreez operation he is talking about is up in the Davis Strait in
area O. It is an area so far north that no Canadian vessel of any
sort is operating there or has ever operated there, and no vessel
in Quebec or Newfoundland or anywhere in Atlantic Canada has
the technological ability to be up there.
6141
With the exception of the offshore shrimp fleet, what the hon.
member is not saying is that Seafreez has been up there for the
last five or six years and had developed this fishery in the day
when the previous administration and a minister on the other
side of the House made those decisions.
To somehow give the impression as had been left, that this is a
new decision and a new allocation by the current minister is
false. Not a pound of the turbot is processed in Newfoundland,
let alone my riding. It is processed in Canso, Nova Scotia.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, on
February 4 I asked the justice minister to take action to review
the Patrick Kelly case.
Despite the fact the minister said he would act on this matter,
seven months have passed and still Mr. Kelly's lawyer has not
received the complete police files necessary to prepare for the
review.
Will the minister commit to the House that he will release the
complete set of police files immediately?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, in the last analysis, because
this is an application under section 690 of the Criminal Code, I
am personally responsible for dealing with the merits of Mr.
Kelly's application for the crown's mercy.
It is a responsibility I take very seriously. The process that has
been in place since the day we received the application in early
1994 has been monitored on a regular basis.
The member makes reference to police records.
Representatives on my behalf attended at the police
headquarters in Toronto to review the entire police file. We have
taken the position with counsel for Mr. Kelly that we will
disclose to him all of those records that are relevant to the issues
raised in the application, and that will be done.
I can tell the hon. member that day by day and week by week I
am monitoring this investigation. It is being conducted
thoroughly and is entirely in accordance with reasonable time
limits.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting to note that there is not an independent inquiry in this
case as suggested by the Marshall commission and, more
important, that the key witness who said that she lied has never
been interviewed.
Where is the justice in this case?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the justice in this as in all
other cases will come from a thorough, methodical and
objective analysis of the facts.
It is easy to suggest, if one's only point of reference is reports
in the media, that the witness who allegedly recanted her
testimony should by now have been interviewed. However, an
acquaintance with the facts of this case would also lead one to
conclude that before any such interview is carried out the
persons doing it should examine all the documents, be
conversant with the entire record, and know exactly what
questions to ask.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadian environmental industries today employ over
150,000 people with annual sales of $11 billion.
(1445 )
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House what the
government intends to do to ensure this growing and important
part of our economy has the necessary tools to compete
tomorrow and into the 21st century?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I will not take the time of
this House to read the announcement we made on Thursday. I
will however repeat that this government intends to
aggressively make sure that Canada's green jobs become the
green jobs not only by government procurement but also for
export around the world.
As a matter of fact, the Minister for the Environment of the
Philippines is in the gallery today. I met with him to talk about
how Canada could sell our water technology and our solid waste
technology internationally. We intend to turn that trade deficit
into a green surplus for Canadian jobs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
On September 12, the Minister of Health announced at a press
conference that she would set up an advisory committee of
experts whose role would be, among other things, to determine
whether some of the information on the blood supply system
should be disclosed or not. She said that given the current level
of interest in this matter, she had to decide whether not releasing
some of the information was still in the public interest.
How can the minister claim to act openly when she asked a
committee of experts to tell her what she should hide from the
public on the deficiencies of the blood supply system?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
what I announced is that I would ask an advisory committee of
6142
experts to review the ethical and legal issues related to opening
up the whole process. As was seen from the confusion that
spread throughout the country when the FDA report was made
public, it is certain that one must always be very careful in these
areas.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister realize that by putting in place a policy to hide
information the public has a right to know, she has made
Canadians distrustful of a blood supply system already hurt by
the tainted-blood tragedy?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
would hope that all members of this august Chamber would
behave very responsibly when it comes to the health of
Canadians. I certainly intend to do so. Yes, I am very interested
in being open and transparent but we must always balance
questions of ethics with legal considerations.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, the
debates which took place in this House last week on the issues of
immigration and crime were the same as ones which took place
this summer in my riding.
A magazine article dubbed ``Nanaimo-Heroin city''
identified the Vietnamese community as a major player in the
drug trade. As a result the Vietnamese community asked me to
set up a meeting with the RCMP and all levels of government to
discuss the issue, which we did.
Is the minister of immigration prepared to accept an invitation
to meet with the Vietnamese Canadian community in my riding
of Nanaimo-Cowichan to hear firsthand their proposals for
changes to our immigration laws?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, in the last eight months we have
been meeting with Canadians not only in the gentleman's riding
but also right across the country.
I applaud the member for having held a public forum in his
riding. I hope at some point he will provide me and my officials
with the results of that forum.
* * *
(1450)
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
will provide the minister with that and I renew the invitation.
My supplementary question is for the Solicitor General.
Nanaimo has been promised extra drug enforcement officers to
help address this problem, yet to date his ministry has failed to
fulfil that promise.
Why has the minister not undertaken a redeployment of
resources to Nanaimo when the commanding officer of the
RCMP in British Columbia has clearly stated there is a great
need?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
matters of deployment of RCMP officers around the country are
handled by the commissioner and not directly by the Solicitor
General. However I will be happy to inquire of the
commissioner and get back to the hon. member about this
matter.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. It concerns the
proposal made last week by Canadian Pacific to purchase that
part of Canadian National Railways which exists east of
Winnipeg.
Could the minister tell this House today what the position of
the government is with respect to this proposal? Is the minister
prepared today to reject not just the proposal but the idea out of
hand? If he is not, can he tell the House what process he has in
mind for consulting the shareholders, who are basically the
Canadian people, as to what the position of the government
should be with respect to this proposal?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
in answer to the hon. member obviously this proposal submitted
by CP is an unsolicited bid, as the hon. member would know. As
I have indicated, we do not propose to respond to that bid in any
hasty way. We are going to have it analysed very carefully.
The whole question the hon. member raises with respect to the
CP bid is one of government policy. Obviously we will want to
have a lot of input because it would be a major decision if we
were to change the fundamental rail policy in this country as this
bid would have that effect.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the Minister of Transport could guarantee today that
in whatever process the government undertakes to consider this
proposal, the employees who might be affected, the
communities that might be affected, and the regions that might
be affected, that all these stakeholders will be consulted
appropriately and their views will be taken into account.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member would know, a number of steps would have
to be taken. However, I do not want to give any indication as to
how the government is going to respond to an unsolicited bid.
6143
If we were to entertain this kind of change in the rail system in
Canada it would be one that would involve the levels of
government, employees and communities that would be
affected. It would be a major policy decision. Nothing of that
nature would be undertaken hastily.
I do want to reassure the hon. member that the Government of
Canada is undertaking and has been working actively at
reviewing a national rail policy. Obviously with the merger talks
that went on between CN and CP there was a need to address that
entire question and we are going to continue to actively pursue
that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. In December 1992, the
Minister of Transport gave his written agreement in principle to
pay a grant to the city of Trois-Rivières for renovating and
expanding its airport. On April 24, 1993, his colleague, the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, announced his
government's commitment to pay $3 million to the city of
Trois-Rivières for this purpose. Despite these government
commitments-
The Speaker: Order! Will the hon. member please put his
question?
Mr. Rocheleau: Now, despite these commitments and 17
months later, the federal government is still dragging its feet.
Can the Prime Minister explain why, 17 months later, his
government still refuses to honour the previous government's
commitment?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
of course, for nine years, a member of Parliament represented
that riding. The commitments to which my hon. colleague refers
were an agreement in principle, as he said in his question. Even
in Trois-Rivières, it takes money to meet such commitments.
(1455)
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Are we to understand
from the government's attitude that it intends to go back once
again on commitments made by the previous government?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member knows very well, I met with him on this
subject and explained to him that no air service is planned for
Trois-Rivières-that fact remains. Coming up with a solution is
particularly difficult, especially for the runway. I promised the
hon. member that I would look into the matter. I asked him to
contact the man who represented that riding in Parliament for
nine years. I will do what I can so that the people of
Trois-Rivières have an effective service that fits in with the new
airport management system in this country.
[English]
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Justice knows that the merit of gun control
legislation cannot be determined by the claims over reduced
homicides made by one side and the arguments about money and
time costs by the other side. Rational social policy is made by
scientific estimates of the expected benefits in relation to costs.
Can the minister assure us that he will have for debate in this
House and consideration by all Canadians scientific estimates of
the benefits and costs for each gun control measure proposed by
the government?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the process I am following in
putting together proposals for this House involves looking at the
record, the statistics of crime in Canada, the effectiveness of
laws already in place, and consulting broadly with Canadians
interested on a wide variety of these subjects.
I fully expect the proposals we bring forward will be well
grounded in fact and in experience.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
Atlantic fishing communities that depend on the turbot
fishery, such as Canso in my riding, were encouraged to learn
that at the meeting of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization in Dartmouth. The European members agreed to
important conservation measures to protect the turbot resource
outside Canada's 200 mile zone.
Can the minister inform this House how these important
commitments will be enforced?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the member has had a strong interest in the whole
question of turbot for a great deal of time. The plant in Canso is
the major beneficiary of the turbot fishery conducted in area O
which my friend from the Bloc Quebecois was so concerned
about a moment ago.
I want to assure my colleague and through him the people of
Canso whose cause he has raised so eloquently and so frequently
with me and other ministers, that because of the regulation of the
turbot catch and the reduction in the catch from 62,000 tonnes to
27,000 tonnes, Canada will have for the first time the right to
6144
board and to inspect the vessels catching turbot and to ensure
that the proper rules are being followed to conserve this
important stock.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The CRTC approved a
Bell Canada request to increase the fee for its basic telephone
service, as of January 1, 1995.
Will the minister tell us if he intends to ask the CRTC to
review this approval, considering that this new increase will
directly affect the family budget of low-income Quebecers and
Canadians?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for
communications, not telecommunications. The issue raised by
the hon. member comes under the legislation on
telecommunications.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, earlier in
question period in refusing to rule out new taxes on RRSPs and
private pension plans, the Minister of Finance referred to the
necessity to consult Canadians on this issue.
Will the minister tell the House precisely which Canadians
have been demanding new taxes on their RRSPs and private
pension plans? Is it not true in fact that only this government and
this minister want to see these new taxes?
(1500 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, in the consultation process that is about
to ensue we are going to set out all areas of government
spending. We are going to set out all areas of government tax
expenditures.
It is through that process that we will indeed obtain the views
of Canadians.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to draw to members' attention the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Bertie Ahern, Finance Minister of
Ireland.
I also draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery
of Mr. Angelalcala, Minister of the Environment for the
Philippines.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
6144
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that under the
provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act, chapter 42, first
supplement of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, the
membership of the Board of Internal Economy is now as
follows: Mr. Gray (Windsor West) and Mr. Gagliano, members
of the Queen's Privy Council; Mr. Boudria and Mr. Hopkins,
representatives of the government caucus; Mr. Duceppe and Mr.
Gauthier (Roberval), representatives of the Bloc Quebecois
caucus and Mr. Harper, representative of the Reform caucus.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of
order in council appointments made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table, in both official languages, and pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to 16
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the
House today the report on a contract administered on behalf of
the Government of Canada by the Export Development
Corporation for the fiscal year 1992-93.
The report explains the objective and the purpose of financial
services provided under the Canada account. It describes the
administration of the account and the transaction approval
process.
6145
The tabling of this report is not required by statute nor by the
standing orders. It is tabled based on a recommendation made by
the Auditor General in his 1988-89 annual report.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, as
parliamentarians I do not believe we have the authority to deny
the rights of petitioners even if their personal beliefs contradict
our own. MPs should present any and all petitions from their
constituents.
Therefore I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Mrs.
Kathleen Morck who, along with 31 other Calgary Centre
constituents, does not support any government legislation that
would give special favours or rights to homosexuals.
At the beginning of my term I took an oath to represent the
wishes of all constituents to Ottawa and not the wishes of
Ottawa to them.
I thank Mrs. Morck and encourage all concerned Calgarians to
continue to petition this House on concerns that directly affect
their lives so that legislation is drafted from the bottom up and
not the top down.
(1505 )
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today. The first one is from the people of my
riding who pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition is from people in my riding who pray that
Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law
which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, my
third petition is from some good people in town of Frankford,
Ontario, who have asked me to present this petition on their
behalf and I am pleased to do so.
They pray and 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 amending the Human Rights Act to include in the
prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present this petition
bearing 181 signatures from my constituents of Calgary
Northeast.
These petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a petition signed by
some of the residents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore asking that
Parliament inform the Leader of the Official Opposition that he
is not supporting the majority view of the residents of
Etobicoke-Lakeshore when he is travelling to permit and
promote the separation of Quebec from Canada.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, it is my duty today to present a petition pursuant to
Standing Order 36. The petition is signed by residents of my
constituency, primarily from the communities of Paradise Hill
and St. Walburg in northwest Saskatchewan
The petitioners note to Parliament that the majority of
Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and state that
human life at the preborn stage is not protected by Canadian
society. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
today I have three petitions. The first deals with prescription
drugs. The petitioners indicate that the cost of prescription
drugs is excessive and they therefore call upon Parliament to
ensure that lower priced generic drugs are made available.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
these two petitions deal with section 745 of the Criminal Code
which allows for applications for parole after 15 years for first
degree murder.
The petitioners request that section be repealed. There are in
excess of 300 signatures on these two petitions.
6146
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present this petition
containing 2,541 signatures on behalf of the constituents of
Wild Rose.
These petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal of Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I present 25 signatures from people in the
Ottawa area, six from my city of Nepean.
These petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.
(1510)
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present on behalf of
constituents of Vegreville two petitions.
These petitions request Parliament to ensure present
provisions to the Criminal Code prohibiting physician assisted
suicide are enforced and not to make changes to the law which
would allow the aiding or abetting of active or passive
euthanasia.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36 I have two petitions representing the views of over 600
Erie constituents which I wish to present to the House.
The first petition calls on the government to enforce the
existing provisions of Criminal Code prohibiting assisted
suicide. It asks that no change be made which would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is
on the issue of abortion. The petitioners request the government
to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the
Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born
human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I have the privilege of presenting three
petitions.
The first petition has five pages. The majority of Canadians
respect the sanctity of human life and whereas human life at the
preborn stage is not protected in Canadian society, therefore
your petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition reads whereas societal approval including extension of
societal privileges would be given to same sex relationships if
any amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act were to
include the undefined phrase sexual orientation as a grounds of
discrimination, therefore your petitioners pray and request that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human
rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition reads the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of
human life and whereas the majority of Canadians believe that
physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not end
them, therefore your petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that
the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously, and that
Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
I would like my constituents to know that I support all three of
these petitions.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, my
colleagues will know that violence and abuse on radio and
television have become major concerns of the Canadian
population.
These petitioners want government to ensure that the CRTC
regulate the amount of violence and abuse on radio and
television. They point out that very often what occurs in terms of
violence and abuse counteracts the efforts they make in raising
their families.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions with a
total of 156 signatures, both dealing with the same subject,
which I would like to table pursuant to Standing Order 36.
6147
These petitions come from the town of Maple Creek in my
riding and from the towns of Burstall and Leader in my riding.
The petitions are very similar: whereas a majority of
Canadians believe that privileges which society accords to
heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex
relationships, and whereas societal approval including the
extension of-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member would be
kind enough to summarize the petition, as we cannot have
everybody reading petitions; it would take forever.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are praying and
requesting that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships.
I would like my constituents to know that I do endorse these
petitions.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to present a petition to Parliament duly certified by the
clerk of petitions and signed by 87 residents of my constituency
of Okanagan-Shuswap.
This petition raises the concerns shared by many Canadians of
all religious faiths, namely that the government has been
rumoured to be considering amendments to various pieces of
human rights legislation regarding the undefined phrase sexual
orientation.
This petition asks Parliament to take no such action.
* * *
(1515)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 38, in the name of the hon. member for Mercier,
could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled
immediately.
I must say that the hon. member showed a great deal of
patience, but when she sees the answer which I will table today,
she will understand why it took so long.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that
question No. 38 be deemed to have been made an order for
return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 38-Mrs. Lalonde:
What organizations and businesses received a grant under the national literacy
program or any other literacy program, (a) how large were those grants and (b)
where are these organizations and businesses located?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6147
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to
amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-46 respecting
the Department of Industry Act.
In the past few years the world economy has been undergoing
tremendous change. This has resulted in tumultuous conditions
for the Canadian economy and for Canadian workers. For too
long Canadians have watched the industries that have
underpinned our economy eroding while nothing has been
growing in their place.
Today 1.5 million Canadian workers are without jobs, 46 per
cent of our citizens fear for the security of the jobs they hold,
and for the first time in memory parents believe their children
will have a lower standard of living than they themselves have
enjoyed.
Over the last six years I have met with far too many of my
constituents from Nepean concerned about their future. They
call me desperately seeking advice on where to find jobs and
what to do to retrain themselves for the evolving information
based economy.
I have also received calls from entrepreneurs of small and
medium sized businesses complaining about the lack of
willingness on the part of banks to provide them with access to
the capital they require to finance their enterprises. Let us not
forget that small and medium sized businesses are the engines of
growth in our economy.
One key to success in the changing world economy will be our
emphasis on research and development. The track records of
previous governments in this regard have been dismal and we
must reverse that trend.
6148
Nepean is the high tech capital of Canada. Research and
development are particularly important to my Nepean riding
which represents more than 100 high tech industries. Nepean is
the home of Canada's largest research and development
organization called Bell Northern Research. Others such as
Northern Telecom, Computing Devices Canada and Gandalf are
only four of a hundred companies working in the technological
field and employing over 6,000 people.
Co-operation and assistance from the federal government
have been integral parts of their success. The continuation of
their growth and the birth of innovative enterprises in the high
tech field will hinge on the continuation and improvement of the
assistance offered by the government.
Canadians are looking to our government, not as a place to fall
back on when they hit hard times but for leadership and
direction, leadership predicated on development policies to lead
Canadian workers, small and medium sized business and the
high tech sector through these tough and changing times.
This means getting our house in order and getting
expenditures and deficits under control. It means seeking
consensus from Canadians on our economic and social goals and
aspirations. More important, it means the ability to encourage
partnerships in a spirit of co-operation among industrialists,
entrepreneurs, educators, scientists and all levels of government
to meet those goals and aspirations.
Bill C-46 is one of several steps taken by the government to
chart a clear vision toward a renewed economy capable of
providing wealth and prosperity for all Canadians into the 21st
century. It recognizes that to achieve the goal of economic
renewal the appropriate resources and energies of government
must be marshalled in a coherent, efficient and effective way.
(1520)
The bill places in one organization under one minister the key
functions necessary for economic renewal. The Department of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of
Communications, Investment Canada and the Department of
Industry, Science and Technology now become the Ministry of
Industry.
This will establish one minister, one deputy minister and one
departmental team, all dedicated to the achievement of an
innovative economy in Canada. At the same time it will provide
a single forum, a single listening post and a single gathering
place to collect all expressed interests and ideas from all parties
concerned with creating a strong, vibrant economy.
There is much greater opportunity under the organization
provided by the bill to take the interests of various groups into
account during the policy development stage. For example, by
placing the responsibility for consumer and corporate affairs in
the Department of Industry we have guaranteed that consumer
voices will have a place around the table when policies are
established affecting the Canadian marketplace. This way
consumer protection efforts can be focused on preventing
problems rather than correcting them after the fact.
As with consumer interests so it is with science and
technology, with regional development and with small and
medium sized business. All necessary voices will be heard as
policies are being developed, as agreements are being
negotiated and as decisions are being taken.
This organization not only brings effectiveness and cohesion
to government operations. It also seeks to bring about cost
efficiency to government departments. In this era where every
attempt must be made to reduce costs and maximize the
efficiency of our resource utilization we cannot afford the waste
that accompanies duplication and overlap in government
functions.
Bill C-46 reduces the numbers of teams from four to one.
Overhead and support costs are reduced by eliminating the
duplication involved in running four separate organizations.
Internal communications are simplified. Direction and
supervision are made more effective. Finally fewer committees
are necessary.
These kinds of streamlining and cost savings are what
Canadians have been asking for. Under Bill C-46 small and
medium sized business remain at the focal point of policy
development. For example, with the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce the government is exploring the feasibility of
developing a business network strategy to set up some 30
business networks to foster co-operation and collaboration
among small and medium sized firms with common interests.
This is good news for aspiring entrepreneurs in Canada and in
my riding of Nepean. Underpinning our economic renewal
efforts the government has recognized the importance of science
and technology. This is good news for the city of Nepean and the
high tech industry in Nepean.
A major science and technology review is under way. This
will ensure the $6 billion we spend in this area every year is
producing maximum value in our efforts to institute an
innovative economy.
The government is listening to Canadians. It is prepared to
take tough decisions to reduce or cut funding in programs that
are not essential to economic renewal. We are interested in
setting our house in order and reducing the burden of debt on
Canadian taxpayers.
The government will not try to force economic growth by
fertilizing it with massive sums of money we do not have.
Instead Canadians can expect leadership and co-operation
among the federal government and all interested groups
necessary for the achievement of our reachable objective: the
development of sustained growth and prosperity for all
Canadians.
6149
Bill C-46 is merely one of many steps being proposed and
followed by the government in achieving its number one goal of
job creation. I commend the Minister of Industry for taking
these steps. I support his steps. I wish him well and offer him my
assistance in this and all future economic endeavours for this
wonderful country of Canada.
(1525 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Nepean for her reasoned discourse
this afternoon.
I have a question concerning the program reviews currently
under way. Why would we have the reorganization and the
consolidation and then have a program review? Would it not
make more sense to do the program review first and then
consolidate on the basis of the review?
Mrs. Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
That is probably a method that could be used, but I believe it
was the government's and the Prime Minister's plan that when
he formed the new Government of Canada it would be much
easier for him to carry on with the reduction. It had already been
put under way by the previous government and a lot of it was
already in place. It was much easier for him to carry on with that
reduction to the degree he has.
Is it much easier for a government to continue on a plan of
reduction if it starts out the term of its mandate not up here with
40-some cabinet ministers but down here with 22 cabinet
ministers and 22 government departments? Then if the need is
there to build upon it, is it not a bit easier to build upon it if the
need is there rather than start at the top and then have to start
chopping back? The chopping back had already started before
we ever took office as the Government of Canada.
I believe it was the appropriate way to do it and I guess only
time will tell.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join in the debate on the reorganization of the
department of industry, Bill C-46.
I would like to take a moment to reflect on the nature of my
riding of London-Middlesex and illustrate just how important
the activities of the department are to my constituents.
This area of small and medium sized business is a part of
Ontario which is a leader in southwestern Ontario in that
economic activity. Whether it is a business that is a spinoff of
the automotive industry or whether it is the agri-food industry,
London-Middlesex is one of the busiest areas of southwestern
Ontario. It is a satellite of the agri-food industry in Middlesex
county, one of the most productive agricultural counties in our
part of Canada.
There is a very wide variety of small and medium size
business activities in the riding of London-Middlesex so the
constituents are very interested in the proposed reorganization.
As well I am pleased to represent a number of major
corporations of national and international repute: General
Motors Diesel of Canada, 3M Corporation and Cuddy Foods, to
mention only three. In mentioning these three corporations one
can easily recognize the scope of activities which take place in
the riding of London-Middlesex. I say again it is with great
interest my constituents hear of the proposed changes and await
the reorganization of the department of industry.
It is all too obvious that we have had an erosion of the
Canadian economy. We know that on all sides of the House. We
hear it daily. As well we should, because Canadians have a right
to expect these important issues will be aired.
The so-called corporate downsizing that has been taking
place as part of global reorganization has caused a job crisis of
major proportions in the country. Frankly my constituents feel
the previous government was the government of the big
corporations. It put all its eggs in that basket and now Canadians
have paid the price in the last few years for that foolish approach
to government.
All too often small and medium sized businesses were
ignored. This is simply the wrong way to go if we are going to
pull out of this economic crisis.
People well know the unemployment numbers and all too
often we can disregard them as statistics. Day after day in my
riding office like hon. members in all parts of the House I have
seen the human face of unemployment, men and women young
and old alike, highly educated and well trained, and those
untrained and unskilled. Day after day the human face of
unemployment has come into my riding office crying for some
kind of help from the government. As a member of Parliament
you wish you had a magic phone that you could pick up and
instantly produce a job.
(1530)
This contact has served to reinforce the real need to
concentrate on small and medium sized business. That is how we
will get Canadians working again, not by following the agenda
of the previous Tory government which all too often ignored
these sectors of the economy and simply focused on corporate
Canada.
Canadians well know that we have been living beyond our
means and that certainly includes government. Government has
been part of the problem and it is high time we became part of
the solution.
No party in the House has a monopoly on knowing that the
debt and deficit are major preoccupations of the citizens of
Canada. If anyone listens even a little bit to the concerns of
Canadians he or she knows it is right at the top of the list of
6150
concerns. Indeed it dominated, as well it should, much of the
debate in the last federal election a year ago.
One problem that needs to be addressed is the fact that so
much of our debt is in the hands of foreigners. I was amazed in
the campaign to not have this recognized by some of the
opposition candidates. They simply felt debt was debt and that
was all there was to it. Would that it were that simple, but it
simply is not. It is a grave concern that so much of our
indebtedness as a nation is to foreign nationals.
The Liberal commitment in the red book and during the
election campaign, endorsed from coast to coast to coast by
Canadians, was a sensible, gradual approach to the reduction of
the deficit to no more than 3 per cent of GDP by the end of our
first term and then total elimination is the ultimate goal of the
government.
I heard a member opposite-I do not recall exactly who
now-propose that somehow the government was going to lock
in 3 per cent as its overall target and that simply is incorrect. My
colleagues and I have heard time and again the hon. Minister of
Finance speak to the fact that this is the interim goal of the
Liberal government and that the ultimate goal would be to
completely pull out of an indebtedness situation.
How will we achieve such a goal? Obviously the first step is to
reduce government spending. The right hon. Prime Minister has
shown outstanding leadership in that regard in the few short
months he has been the Prime Minister. He started with the size
of the cabinet and scaled it away back from what was the
situation previously. He also scaled back the size of ministerial
offices.
Perhaps huge amounts of money have not been saved but they
are not insignificant millions either. However they set a tone
that the government is prepared to lead by example in reducing
spending.
Concomitant with that is the need to encourage new jobs. If
we are really going to pull out of the economic problems we face
as a country we must get Canadians back to work. We must get
them off the tax rolls and change them into taxpayers because
they now have a meaningful and well-paying job.
This two-pronged approach of the Liberal government was
endorsed nationally in the last federal election campaign. I am
proud to be a member who is helping to advance that agenda.
It was no mean consideration recently when London, Ontario
was awarded the Institute of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology. This will be a very important organization to
London and to southwestern Ontario. It will help co-ordinate
the activities of the private sector, of the University of Western
Ontario in London, of the city council and indeed of the
surrounding areas of southwestern Ontario with the federal
government. This is the kind of partnership that is necessary if
we are to move forward into the new economy and start to get
Canadians working again.
The question needs to be posed: What is the proper role of
government in this new economy? One only needs to reflect to
know that there are several shades of opinion on this question.
From some parts of the House we hear the socialist point of view
that the government should do everything. The government
should run the economy, it should own it, and there is no place
for the private sector because all it will do is hoard the profits. I
reject that view. Liberals reject that view.
(1535)
Equally we have the view at the far right which says that
governments should do nothing, that there is no place for
government. It is the other extreme. I equally and even more
forcefully reject that view. One might say that in this House
today we have perhaps the most conservative of the
conservatives with the view that there really is no role to be
played by government.
I hope that no one party embraces that philosophy but I hear
that view from certain members opposite so often I have become
concerned. Surely they cannot feel there is no role for
government in running the economy of this nation. To the
contrary the Liberal view is that there must be a balanced
approach.
There must be and there is a role for government to play in
partnership with the private sector. The private sector is the
engine, as it must be, but there will be a positive role for
government to play in creating the proper environment for the
private sector to succeed. Only a balanced common sense
approach best enunciated by the Liberal Party throughout the
history of this country will ensure fair and equitable treatment in
our economy.
I see that my time is coming to an end. I would simply say that
as a member of the Liberal Party it will be my pleasure to do
everything possible to help advance a balanced approach to this
economic situation.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, when I spoke
last week on the criminal justice Bill C-41, I suggested that
perhaps some of the Liberal members of the frontbench required
some Q-tips because they were having a little difficulty hearing.
I can see that the problem extends past the front bench.
I would like to know when the member ever heard somebody
from my party suggest that the government should do nothing?
That is a very gross misunderstanding of what seemed to be a
very clear way of expressing ourselves.
Because social spending in Canada currently consumes $53
billion a year which is over 50 per cent of our current
expenditures, would he agree that the direction the Reform Party
wants to go, which is to focus social spending on those who are
most in need to make sure that those in our society who are the
most
6151
dependent on that kind of support, are in fact expounding the
correct way to go which is to focus social spending?
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to receive a
question from the hon. member. I would say in response to his
first comment that I am reminded of the statement that if the
shoe fits, wear it. I challenge my friend to find in Hansard or
even in the ``blues'' which will be out shortly that I named the
Reform Party as saying that governments should do nothing.
What I said was that some hon. members opposite-there are
at least four political philosophies opposite-quite often
espouse the idea that government must get out of the way, that it
has no role to play. However, if my friend finds that my
comments were appropriate to the philosophy of the Reform
Party, I will not disagree with him.
On his question of the focus of spending and social services, I
agree that we need to focus spending on social services. Where I
differ with my friend and his party, as I understand their
philosophy, is we will never eliminate the universality of our
programs. The minute you start to say that targeting means we
will eliminate universality we will start to fool with the other
underpinnings of our social security system and the whole thing
is in risk of collapsing. We have to focus it and keep it fair and
available to all Canadians who need it without going to the far
extreme.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I did not hear
the hon. member responsible for regional development in
Ontario and Quebec. I would have liked to hear him, because
this is a section where, in my opinion, we could have avoided
some overlapping.
Regarding subclause 8(a) in Part II, I would like to ask the
hon. member why the government did not give exclusive
authority, either in Quebec or in Ontario, over regional
economic development to already existing structures such as the
FORD?
[English]
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I was not elected to come to this
House to speak exclusively for the views of Ontario, let alone
the views of the province of Quebec. That may be the agenda of
my friend and his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois but it is not
the agenda of the only truly national party in the House of
Commons.
While I understand my colleague's concerns for the people of
Quebec and while I understand his preoccupation with
manpower training, I can only assure him that the government is
equally concerned in making sure that all Quebecers understand.
We did not get to be the best country in the world by not
addressing all the concerns of Canadians. We will continue to do
that, including all the people of Quebec.
The Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Resuming debate. It is one
of the hon. member's own members who is going to speak on
debate. I am sure he does not want to deprive him of that
opportunity.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak on this bill to create the Department of
Industry.
I would like to open with a brief outline of Reform's position
on economic reform, industrial development and
diversification, and how this bill measures up to our vision of
the role to be played by the government as well as to comment on
the potential for reducing government size and increasing
efficiency.
Dealing first with the objective of reduced cost in improved
efficiency, if these were objectives, I do not see any significant
measures to support any meaningful move in this direction.
When one looks at the figures quoted to us at the briefing for
this bill, from a budget of some $3 billion and a staff of some
6,000, the government is only able to save some 230 jobs and
$26 million. When one looks at these figures against the
potential, it shows very clearly that efficiency and cost
reduction were not achieved.
With the bringing together of four departments with some
overlap in duties and responsibilities, the potential was there to
reduce the payroll by a greater number and certainly save
considerably more tax dollars.
When one compares this to what is going on in the private
sector in the name of survival, nothing has been done. The
message that the private sector heard three years ago about
lowering costs and improving efficiency still apparently has not
reached the federal government. I do not think that message will
be lost on industry when this bill goes forward.
Let us look at the Reform vision of economic reform using
some bold brush strokes. We believe an environment to
encourage enterprise and initiative should be created by
government. There should be productive jobs and prosperity. It
is best achieved by a responsible, broadly based, free enterprise
economy in which private property, freedom of contract and the
operating of free markets are encouraged and respected.
We want to minimize politics in economic decision making by
the phasing out of grants, subsidies and lending programs. Let
us break down the barriers designed to insulate our businesses
and industry from domestic and foreign competition.
Competition is healthy and should be encouraged. Of course, we
should
6152
come down hard on enforcement of competition and
anti-combines legislation with severe penalties for price fixing,
certainly the removal of interprovincial trade barriers so that we
can maximize the benefits of free trade and NAFTA.
(1545 )
In examining this bill I decided to look at the Liberal red book
and determine whether or not the act meets red book promises.
One of the first statements made in the red book section on the
economy is that the former Conservative government ``failed to
understand that government has an important role to play in
setting the stage and enabling the private sector to adjust to
changing circumstances. For this reason our competitive
position and our standard of living have declined and jobs are
lost''.
Of course if this statement is true, then this Liberal
government is doomed to fail as well because this act which sets
the stage for the Liberal attempt at industrial central planning
enshrines in law exactly the same department the Conservatives
introduced under Kim Campbell. There is no excuse at this time
for the government not to have come up with an act creating a
smaller, leaner and more efficient department which would have
set the economy on a new course. This government is almost a
quarter of the way through its mandate, yet it is still relying on
the failed Conservative policies of the past.
What else did the Liberals say in their red book? They said:
``Any strategy to foster the growth of a small and medium sized
business sector will fail if it does not recognize the negative
impacts of excessive government debt, interprovincial trade
barriers, and taxation''. I agree 100 per cent, but I fail to see how
this act to enshrine the industry department created by the
former Conservative regime will help to achieve that goal.
It is clear the rationalization of the four agencies and
departments into one should have achieved some efficiencies
but it appears this did not happen. Staff levels fell less than 4 per
cent and spending was cut less than 3 per cent.
As I said, I agree with the red book assertion that debt, trade
barriers, and taxation are big negatives in our economy. The
minister achieved some gains in his recent attempts to reduce
interprovincial trade barriers but I would remind him that much
work needs to be done to remove more barriers that are still
remaining.
In a widely quoted study done by the Canadian
Manufacturers' Association, those interprovincial provincial
trade barriers are costing us approximately $6.5 billion. The
Macdonald commission of the mid-1980s estimated that
Canadian incomes would rise some 1.5 per cent permanently if
barriers were removed.
In my own riding of Simcoe Centre there is a brewery which
can freely export to 50 American states yet cannot send its
products to the provinces next door.
There is another major consideration that this government has
failed to deal with. We have unprecedented deficit and debt
levels yet this act, which reorganizes the department according
to a Conservative plan, fails to achieve any meaningful saving of
tax dollars.
Certainly taxes are too high. They discourage new domestic
and foreign investment and they drive Canadian businesses to
more reasonable tax jurisdictions. I realize that tax relief for
Canadian businesses is still a long way off because of a deficit
based on excessive government spending but I believe that long
term tax relief should be a stated goal of any federal government
industrial strategy.
Where could these efficiencies have been obtained? Are there
areas of spending and staffing which are of no consequence in
our new global economy?
Investment Canada is an organization whose consequence I
would question as its mandate seems to have been to protect
Canadian businesses from foreign control. What that threat from
foreign control was, nobody seems to know. Foreign investment
is clearly not perceived as a threat any more because even
Investment Canada seems to approve every investment made. I
question whether we need to continue to rubber stamp this
rubber stamping body any further.
We need to encourage competition in our banking industry.
Too much power is held by too few banks.
The defence industry productivity program is another area of
spending which we should question. In the government's bid to
centrally plan the economy this is an obvious attempt to favour
one industry over others. To be clearer on this point it must be
recognized that the funding for DIPP came from taxes imposed
on other businesses and industries. I question whether the $158
million given away in 1994 under this program would have been
better left in the pockets of the taxpayers who are currently
financing this scheme.
I question the consequence of spending tax dollars to improve
the image of high technology firms. Surely we are misguided if
we believe that image is what sells Canadian high technology to
Asia-Pacific countries. I believe the quality of our products is
our greatest selling point. This is based on such fundamentals as
research and development.
(1550)
I also question why in 1994 the Department of Industry is still
treating one group of Canadians as though it were different from
all other Canadians. Why does this government continue to
single out one group of Canadians for special treatment? This
patronizing action should be reversed.
I question the consequences of the complicated university
research granting process. Why do we need so many different
granting councils with their different regulations and the
attendant bureaucracy behind each one? Surely this is an area
where
6153
rationalization can occur and efficiencies indeed can result.
This is an obvious area for the government to find savings of tax
dollars.
We should examine the whole grants and contributions
program. What real benefit does the Canadian economy derive
from the $63,000 given to the Shoe Manufacturers Association?
In favouring de Havilland by $10 million over McDonnell
Douglas are we creating inequities in the aerospace industry? Is
it not now time to embark on a new direction where we will treat
all peoples, regions and industries equally?
Our starting point in making changes should be to place our
top priority on reducing government spending while increasing
government efficiency. When industries are asked what
government can do to help them the response I have heard most
often is: ``Get off our backs and out of our pockets''.
Bill C-46 is a small step, too small, on the road to reducing
government spending so that taxes can be lowered, which will
improve the ability of our industries to compete and grow in this
global economy.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): I listened carefully to the member for Simcoe
Centre. I appreciate the member has recognized this bill as a step
in the right direction. He has also recognized the work which had
to be done to date on interprovincial trade barriers as being a
step in the right direction. What puzzles me about the hon.
member's remarks is his failure to recognize the very special
emphasis the government has given to small business and the
tourism sector.
The member comes from one of the most beautiful
communities in all of Canada. I know that riding depends
heavily on a tourism thrust and attention to that sector. Is the
member suggesting that area as one where we would further
diminish our participation, or would he suggest that we
reinvigorate that sector? I am trying to understand what the
member is saying in the sense that we have gone in the right
direction but not far enough. I happen to believe that we should
reinvigorate an area like tourism because that is a way we can
get people back to work right away.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for Broadview-Greenwood for his question. I applaud
some of the steps taken by the government because they were
steps in the right direction, but I make the point that they are
small steps and the time is long past for small steps.
This country is in serious difficulty today and it calls for big
steps. It calls for action against the deficit and the debt. You
cannot jump a huge crevasse in small steps; it takes one giant
leap. That is what is lacking in what is coming forward from the
other side.
Small business is not looking for government intervention.
The best thing government can do for small business is to get out
of their way. Get off their backs as they said and out of their
pockets and the pockets of their customers. Then there will be
more disposable income which will generate the business which
will create the jobs, but that is not happening.
Small businessmen are being taxed to death. They are asking
what is being done to get this tax load under control. The only
way to do that is to get government spending under control. I
was looking for some spending cuts in this bill but they are not
there.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Tourism?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Tourism is very important in
my area. Anything that can be done in tourism is certainly going
to be appreciated in Simcoe Centre. However the importance of
doing something about reducing government spending and
getting it under control is paramount to tourism, small business,
large business. It is not being addressed in this bill, nor is it
being addressed in many of the things the government is doing at
this point.
(1555)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I believe I understood the hon. member correctly when
he indicated if he had undertaken this legislation it would have
ended up much smaller, much leaner and much less costly than it
is. He gave as examples Investment Canada and the defence
industry productivity program which he thought should have
been looked at.
Is the member saying that Investment Canada and the defence
industry productivity program would have been cut out along
with the other examples he gave, or would he simply look at
them? That is my first question.
Second, because he did state initially that it would have been
much neater, much smaller, much less costly, could he give
specifics? How much leaner? How much smaller? How much
less costly? Could we have specifics please?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, obviously
government members do not have the answers and are coming to
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for them.
If I were running a corporation of 6,000 employees with a
budget of $3 billion and my back was to the wall and I had to
effect some cost savings-and I suggest our backs are to the wall
right now-230 employees out of 6,000 is a drop in the bucket.
That is not really an attack, if it was intended to be an attack, at
getting the spending and efficiencies under control. I would cut
jobs. We would have to cut back.
An hon. member: What sector, small business, tourism?
6154
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): No. It is called efficiency of
operation. If that was the purpose of the exercise then it was not
achieved. It is a long way from being achieved. The dollars and
the jobs that are being saved will have no real impact on doing
something about the deficit and the debt that everyone says they
are concerned about but they do nothing about.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak on Bill C-46, the Department of Industry Act.
Bill C-46 creates a remarkable organization with wide
ranging responsibilities and a far reaching mandate. There are
many tasks in the government's agenda for growth and job
creation that it will perform. Not the least of these is the slate of
initiatives the Prime Minister announced to the Canadian
Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City on September 18,
namely: to improve the climate for entrepreneurship; to help
business profit from new technologies; to seek expanding
markets; and to promote the tourism industry that is so
important in Halifax West and throughout the maritimes.
The successful pursuit of that agenda requires a concerted
effort of all major players in the economic development game.
The Department of Industry created by this bill is well designed
to rally that kind of effort. Incorporating within one
organization the very functions of industry, technology, science,
communications, foreign investment, and consumer and
corporate affairs permits a powerful focus of related interests in
the formulation and implementation of our economic
development strategies. Some may fear that this new
department will not do as much in individual areas like
communications, corporate affairs or consumer affairs as under
the old setup. An impression of that sort is just that first and last,
a mere impression.
While titles are important symbolically, they must not be
mistaken for substance. Bill C-46 could not possibly include the
names of all the functions in its title. In substance we do have a
department of industry, science, technology, communications,
investment, and consumer and corporate affairs. To include all
of its concerns we would have to add small and medium sized
enterprises, tourism, sustainable development and many other
areas. These are all key functions in the pursuit of an innovative
economy and in the pursuit of growth and job creation.
(1600 )
However the essence of the this new department is not found
in the title. We have a Department of Industry. What does that
name symbolize? Industry is not merely heavy industry nor
manufacturing. Industry is whatever provides wealth and
well-being in our society. Teachers, accountants and fishers are
as much an essential part of industry in this country as
employers, for example Litton, Pratt and Whitney, Farmers
Co-operative Dairy and Dynatek in my riding.
[Translation]
We have to consider the interests of consumers as well. We
want to give Canadian consumers the assurance that although
the word ``consumer'' does not appear in the department's new
title, their interests are still central to the concerns of the
Department of Industry.
[English]
Many of us will recall when the federal government in the
seventies decided to create the Department of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs. Many will recall there was much concern that
putting the affairs of consumers under the same roof as
corporations was a bit like putting the chickens in with the
foxes. Those fears proved groundless, as we well know.
In retrospect it was wise to incorporate the concern for
consumer interests into policies and decisions affecting
corporations. It is now recognized by governments and
corporations more and more that attention to consumer interests
must underpin sound corporate strategies. Increased consumer
awareness, increasing competition and the relentless demand
for ever higher quality of goods and services are leading
businesses in the direction of more attention to consumer needs
and consumer service.
This bill on the Department of Industry is built on that
principle of common interest. The bill extends the same logic to
the consideration of all economic development strategies.
[Translation]
By making the Department of Industry responsible for
consumer policy, the government guarantees that the voice of
consumers will be heard and considered when policies affecting
the Canadian market are discussed in cabinet.
[English]
The Minister of Industry has a clear mandate to act as the
advocate for consumer issues at the cabinet table. To do that
effectively he has to seek input of consumers and advocacy
groups across the country on all issues affecting growth. The
Consumers Association of Canada for example plays a strong
leadership role in consumer education and in raising concerns
about products.
With advancing technology, consumer issues are becoming
ever more complex. Issues like the access and cost for
consumers to the information highway, the protection of
privacy, electronic funds transfer, and biotechnology and
genetic engineering are all new complex issues that require
close examination from the point of view of consumer interest.
6155
In the light of these complex issues an integrated process is
needed to ensure that consumer concerns are incorporated as
early as possible in policy development. In this way consumer
protection efforts can focus on preventing problems before they
happen instead of exposing them after the fact.
The government's priority is growth and job creation, but
these goals must depend on efficiently functioning markets. Our
consumers share with the business world a common interest in
achieving that kind of efficiency. Both should welcome
initiatives that help our businesses to be more efficient,
effective and competitive.
The recently announced internal trade agreement which will
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of trade in goods and
services and the movement of people among provinces and
territories will save businesses and governments millions of
dollars. It is good for consumers.
All of us who take part in the economy have an interest in the
actions of government directed toward consumer protection and
promotion of competition. These actions not only right wrongs,
they also enhance our overall economic performance.
We should all be glad the twin pillars of consumer and
corporate affairs are under the same roof at Industry Canada.
This bill in my view is well designed to help guide the efforts of
Team Canada. I recommend its speedy approval.
(1605 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
again commend the member for Halifax West for his comments.
I recognize the hon. member for Halifax West did not make
these comments, but being from the same party as the member
who did earlier that member had difficulty finding the
appropriate role of government in business. He did not like too
little and of course did not like too much. What would the hon.
member say is the appropriate role for government in the
business affairs of the nation?
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, it is a real challenge, as the hon.
member knows, to define exactly in a few words or a few
moments what the role of government is in our economy because
it is a complex question. Certainly my view would probably be
for a little bit more involvement than his view. My view would
be that government has a very important role in terms of
consumer protection. I do not know if he would put the same
emphasis or as much effort in that regard as I would, but that is
for him to answer I suppose. However, it seems to me that is an
important consideration.
In Atlantic Canada there is a need for government
involvement. There is a need for investment capital. There is a
great problem in Atlantic Canada with the lack of that kind of
capital. Many business people come to me with the problem of
getting capital to expand their businesses. Those businesses are
doing well but they cannot quite get to the next level and cannot
find the capital in Atlantic Canada to expand.
That is why agencies like ACOA which provides about 40 per
cent of the business financing in Atlantic Canada are so
important. In fact overall it has been very successful. We do hear
about the failures which are sensationalized by the media, but
the large majority of its programs and efforts in creating jobs
and assisting businesses to expand and create more jobs have
been very successful.
I gather sometimes there is the impression in the rest of
Canada that all we do in Atlantic Canada is fish or collect
unemployment and that is a great myth. It certainly is untrue in
my riding where there are many businesses and people are hard
at work doing a variety of things. Things are being done for
example in high technology at Dynatek which produces
computer memory systems. Pratt and Whitney produces some of
the best aircraft jet engines in the world. There are Litton
Systems and Farmers Co-operative Dairy and many others.
People are working hard.
I agree that government cannot be the one to create the jobs. It
is absolutely true that we have to rely on the private sector to do
the main job creation. I also agree we have to make efforts and
we have to reduce our debts so we can get off their backs, but we
cannot do it overnight.
At the same time there is still a role for government to assist
those companies in areas like R and D and international
information. We receive information from our embassies about
what is happening overseas, what opportunities are available for
our companies elsewhere. There are many roles government can
play.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask
the hon. member a question concerning the role of government.
He mentioned Pratt and Whitney in his constituency. Pratt and
Whitney is also in my constituency. It received a loan guarantee
of $50 million to come into the city of Lethbridge.
Would the member and the government support that kind of a
government policy in terms of loan guarantees to encourage
industries to locate in a variety of areas in Canada?
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member
that I certainly prefer it to grants. I am concerned about that size
of a guarantee. I think we should see companies locating where
they think is best.
Companies are coming to Nova Scotia. People like the quality
of life we provide. They do not like having to sit in traffic for
four hours on the 401 into Toronto, or what have you.
Companies are coming for reasons other than government
assistance. In fact we are seeing that governments at all levels
are finding it harder to provide that kind of incentive.
(1610 )
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-46. I commend the
member for Broadview-Greenwood for sitting here all day and
listening to some of the great doomsday scenarios that have
fallen on him from the opposition and also some of the points
6156
which have been made from this side of the House and from
Liberal members on the other side of the House.
Bill C-46 is one I have looked forward to debating. Anything
that will streamline the operation of a government department
and make it more clear to carry out its mandate is welcomed.
In particular I look at the improved business climate for
entrepreneurs and the promotion of the tourism industry. The
member for Broadview-Greenwood and I among other
members have sat and talked in many long meetings about how
to reinvent tourism in Canada. In the last 10 years the previous
government almost eliminated tourism totally.
As a private individual I watched the bottom fall out of the
real estate industry in Ontario, where a person's cottage all of a
sudden was not worth anything or there was no market for it. I
saw that and hoped that somewhere, some way this government I
was elected to would take some initiative and try to re-establish
some of the important sectors of our society. That is done with
bills such as Bill C-46 which include provisions of the old act
and yet become something new.
In the last 10 years there has certainly been a great decline in
the initiative of entrepreneurs and people who are willing to
come forward to finance small business, of which I was a part. I
look at anything that will make that a clearer mandate or an
easier path to follow, anything that will establish rules and say
that yes, we do want to take a positive step in streamlining
legislation. I speak to it for that reason and I look forward to the
passage of the bill.
Victoria-Haliburton region has lost a tremendous number of
jobs. Victoria-Haliburton is in Ontario; it is not in Victoria and
it is not on the east coast. I do not speak as a person who has had
the advantage of the financing of the east coast entrepreneurs.
Ontario, particularly the central part where I am from, relies
more on people in private industry to provide initiative.
In the last two years, for example, there has been almost 30
per cent constant unemployment in Haliburton county. The
county is almost devastated. It swells the rolls of the number of
people needed to administer the social assistance plan. It does
not help anyone's self worth. It does not help anyone try to do
anything.
I look at the tremendous loss since 1988 in Victoria county,
the 2,400 jobs that were taken from there and I remember
reading some of the articles by the member for
Broadview-Greenwood at that time. He wrote about the things
that could happen. He thought the branch plant economy was
going to disappear, and it happened. Jobs were lost. This
government has to take the initiative, has to go ahead and make
the changes we need and that we believe will turn around that
loss of jobs.
It will come through tourism in my riding. I hope it will come
through other things and I will certainly work as hard as I can to
bring industry and commerce to the most beautiful part of
Ontario. I do not mean to speak disparagingly about any other
part of Ontario; it just so happens that I do live in an area where
the Kawartha Lakes depend on the rejuvenation of the tourism
industry.
People ask how you service a riding of 10,460 square
kilometres, 35 municipalities which take in a lot of
Peterborough county and a lot of areas which should be in other
ridings. Redistribution has given me areas of Brock township
where I deal with boaters on Lake Simcoe, all the way through
the Trent canal system right to the side of the city of
Peterborough where that riding is looked after by another
Liberal member. If you are in Ontario and you guess that anyone
is a Liberal you are probably right 99 per cent of the time.
(1615)
When we deal with the Haliburton County Lakes, the
Kawartha Lakes and the Trent-Severn waterway, the Rideau
system that connects to it, look at how that has been decimated.
The Trent-Severn waterway and the Rideau waterway were even
offered to the provincial governments to see if they would
promote them and they turned it down. At one time the
Government of Ontario did a large job in promoting tourism in
Ontario and now its budget has gone the other way and it sees no
benefits to tourism. It indicated that tourism is not something it
wants to get involved in.
The federal government has to step in and provide some
leadership in promoting tourism, not only in Ontario but in all of
Canada as Canada is obviously the best country in the world to
live in. It has been written. People all over the world have
commented that they would love to live in Canada, as we can tell
by the number of people who apply.
As I watch the vestiges of the last government being taken
apart by this government in a slow orderly fashion to try to
promote and better the lifestyle of people in Canada through the
promotion of streamlining of government and changing the
system, it is hard for me to listen to the opposition. I know it is
paid well to oppose and I know its opposition sometimes is
well-meaning and I know also that some of its members
probably have some good ideas and I am very anxious to hear
what they are.
None of them has come forward yet with the changes to any of
this legislation that has been proposed. I was looking forward to
seeing if there was some concrete results that would come out of
the opposition's chance to change and refine and turn this
6157
legislation into something it feels is better than what is being
offered.
I feel what is being offered is once again a step in the right
direction and will cause the rejuvenation of the department and
in particular the slow and steady step of a government that is in
control, that is going to turn the economy around. It is not going
to do it by trying to jump over some huge gorge that has been
mentioned. It is going to do it one step at a time, in an orderly
fashion, looking at the various things affected by government
change, taking into account all the municipalities that are
involved, all of the various agencies affected by it and hopefully
come out with a clear mandate for making this country the place
we all want it to be, a better place to live.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank my colleague for his excellent remarks and I
would like to add a little to them and perhaps get a comment
from him.
I wonder if he would agree that the incentives for tourism are
something that apply to this country nationally and are as
relevant and advantageous not only to the country at large but to
the country in its parts, to the west, represented by the Reform
Party opposite and also to Quebec, represented by the Bloc
Quebecois.
Does my colleague not agree that this kind of incentive for
national tourism is something that is very good for Canada and
for national unity?
Mr. O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
question.
I find it hard to change from my thinking. Quebec is a
province in my country and when I go to Quebec I try to speak
French. I try to converse with the people there and I certainly
hope that their culture will be maintained.
(1620 )
I see nothing wrong with that. That is commendable. I am of
Irish Canadian heritage but I have to tell members that my
mother was born in Birmingham, England. I also have an
affection for the English. I have to be very careful with that, too.
I have travelled across Canada many times. I have been on the
east coast and I have been on the west coast. There are some
beautiful mountain ranges on the west coast, the fishing
industry. Who could find anything more beautiful than Long
Beach on the island, the beautiful Tofino and some of the places
over there? The member obviously is from there and knows what
I am talking about. I keep getting accused of being from
Victoria.
As a government we have to promote all of Canada, Canada as
a whole, as the best country in the world. When one goes into
Quebec, one has to enjoy the cultural heritage and the beauty of
Quebec as I do. There are no nicer regions to be in. There is
skiing at beautiful Mont Ste. Anne, not to put down any other
areas of Quebec.
One can go up the autoroute above Montreal and find some
beautiful country. Even La Prairie as my friend has pointed out
is also a beautiful area of the country.
When one promotes the prairies and shows tourists what is in
the prairies, what is in the Northwest Territories, when one
offers train packages from sea to sea to sea, when one takes this
country as a whole and tries to sell it, being a salesman would be
the easiest job in the world.
It is such an area, such a culture, such a diversity that I could
expand upon that part and talk about our great country. I
consider Quebec part of my country. I consider New Brunswick
as part of my country along with Manitoba and the Northwest
Territories. All that beautiful country is what makes Canada
such a great place.
I am very proud to stand up and say that I am a Canadian. I am
from Ontario but you cannot be perfect. It is as close as you can
get.
As the Speaker has indicated, my time is almost up. I have
complimented everyone in the House and that is what I meant to
do. I want to fight for a promotion of tourism in Canada as a
whole and each individual component has its own strength that
draws from the promotion of Canada as a country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate as the
member for Richmond-Wolfe and official critic for regional
development. As such, it is my privilege to second the motion by
my colleague from Trois-Rivières that we refrain from
supporting second reading of the bill because it does not stop
program duplication and overlap and fails to recognize that
Quebec alone is responsible for its regional development.
Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry,
does, I must admit, reflect some desire on the part of the
government to rationalize its operations. It is also interesting to
see that the Department of Industry is given a legislative
mandate and that the legislation defining the former Department
of Industry, Science and Technology and Investment Canada has
been amalgamated with the legislation to establish the
Department of Industry.
However, I was astonished to see that in Part II of the bill, the
minister's powers also extend to regional development in
Ontario and Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois is strenuously
opposed to this centralizing action by the federal government.
We emphatically disagree with the new powers and
responsibility of the Department of Industry to formulate and
implement policies,
6158
plans and integrated federal approaches with respect to regional
development in Quebec, as indicated in section 9(a).
(1625)
We also decry the powers enabling the minister to lead and
co-ordinate the activities of the Government of Canada in the
establishment of co-operative relationships with Ontario and
Quebec and with business, labour and other public and private
bodies as stipulated under clause 9(1)(c). By passing and
implementing this bill respecting the Department of Industry,
the Liberal government is flying in the face of Quebec's
fundamental claim to manage its own development.
I would remind the members of this House that regional
economic development is a residual jurisdiction and therefore
not enshrined in the Constitution. Because of its power
respecting economic planning, Quebec is demanding exclusive
authority in this area. Ever since the Quiet Revolution, we deem
the federal government's infringement in this jurisdiction that is
exclusive to Quebec to be totally unacceptable and
inadmissible.
The Liberal government must withdraw from this sphere of
action and transfer to Quebec regional development funding in a
fair and equitable manner. The sterile competition between
Quebec and Ottawa regarding regional development and the
policies of the Federal Office of Regional Development are
costly, as you know, and result in overlapping due to the
duplication of decision-making centres.
This maze of jurisdictions consumes so much energy that
none is left to deal with the real problems. In the meantime, the
money does not go where it should. There is an obvious
contradiction in the claim by the Liberal government to the
effect that it wants to eliminate overlapping while it makes sure
with this bill that overlapping will continue to exist.
Regional economic development is an area which the federal
government has taken over through its spending power, without
taking into account Quebec's desire to take full responsibility
for it. To conclude, I will say that I support and second the
motion by my colleague from Trois-Rivières denouncing
federal involvement in Quebec's regional development.
I would like to take advantage of the few minutes allotted to
me in this debate to raise two basic points which are particularly
relevant to the dynamics of regional development in Quebec.
Let us first review briefly the federal involvement in regional
development in that province. I will then deal in greater detail
with the Quebec regional development policies which are
clearly superior to any other policy developed elsewhere in
Canada in that respect, this being said without false modesty.
As the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development, I ask
this House the following question: what has the federal
government accomplished in this respect? Between 1982 and
1987, DRIE, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion,
the federal agency responsible for regional development in
Quebec adopted a sterile centralizing policy.
The regions were simply excluded from the financial
assistance application development and evaluation process.
Often, useless programs were subsidized, while initiatives
having meaningful local value were not. The DREI
decision-making process was dominated by sectorial concerns,
with the result that more funds and energy were devoted to
industrial development in central regions than to regional
development.
When this became obvious, the federal government claims it
reoriented its policy through a new strategy based on master
agreements. This course of action proved no better than the
previous one. Our unemployment rates bear witness to that.
According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in
1993, unemployment cost the Canadian economy over $109
billion. That is what the federal government involvement in the
area of regional development has accomplished.
Let us take a look at what the master agreements do. Instead of
giving the regional development resource envelopes directly to
Quebec, allowing for income tax points to be repatriated, the
federal government withdraws and cuts back budgets to such an
extent that a structural vacuum is created with respect to
regional development in Quebec. The Economic and Regional
Development Agreement, or ERDA, for the 1994-2004 decade
proves the point. It has not yet been signed and will apparently
never be.
Last summer, the Federal Office of Regional Development for
Quebec refused to sign the agreement, arguing that the time was
not right in view of the upcoming elections in Quebec and
considering it had signed an agreement respecting the free
movement of goods between provinces the same week. Too
much work for the same people in one week. That is how serious
FORD is in Quebec; it only brings confusion to Quebec regional
development.
(1630)
The FORD structure has been impossible to define ever since
it was founded. It is always being reorganized. In short, it is like
Jell-O. Now that the ERDA is no longer in effect, we are facing a
structural vacuum. It would be very effective and much more
serious for the Liberal government to recognize Quebec's
jurisdiction over regional development. Accordingly, the
government should transfer all monies set aside for this purpose.
It would be in the federal government's interest to admit that
its involvement in regional development is unacceptable. The
economic foundation of outlying regions-and they are
different from major centres-is decaying, the social fabric is
disintegrating, the rural exodus is continuing and young people
are the first to leave their regions. The number of
demographically shrinking municipalities has risen alarmingly
in the last 25
6159
years so that it is now higher than the number of growing
communities.
The federal government's current involvement in regional
development is therefore most unfair, as the figures from the
FORDQ itself tell us. Atlantic provinces receive $920 in
spending per resident, Western Canada, $240 and Quebec, $230.
As far as umbrella agreements such as ERDA are concerned, the
federal government's record of involvement in Quebec is
disastrous. In 1987, the total was $431 per capita in the
Maritimes, $259 in Western Canada and $64 in Quebec.
I should also point out that in the remaining subsidiary
agreements with good results, the federal government backed
out of $75 million worth of financial commitments. I refer
specifically to the withdrawal of funds for the Eastern Plan,
which affects over 5,800 timber owners. However, since the
federal government intervened in an area of provincial
jurisdiction, we demand that the funds be repatriated in the form
of tax points to be managed by Quebec.
Let us look at reality: cuts worth $70 million are called for in
the finance minister's February 1994 budget. Quebec regional
development cutbacks will be spread over the next three years:
$14 million in 1994-95, $32 million in 1995-96, and $24
million in 1996-97. A FORD internal document issued at the
same time as the budget states that the objective pursued is to cut
financial commitments by half. Since the 1993-94 fiscal year,
the financial commitment has averaged some $20 million a
month. The same document says that as of March 1, 1994,
FORD's funding level should be reduced to $10 million a year.
The federal government is leaving the field of economic
development in Quebec and I want to mention the cuts in
transfers to companies. In 1994, Quebec will lose $70 million in
funding; this situation is intolerable. We demand that funding be
transferred to Quebec and that Quebec alone manage its
development and its regional development organizations.
From another perspective, we can say that the federal
government's involvement in development is just a way to show
its presence. It is a way of showing the Canadian flag with
everything it is doing in all sectors of the economy and in all the
present constitutional fields. With its involvement, the federal
government increases its visibility but its action remains
ineffective.
FORD's action is not based on a comprehensive vision of
local development. It more often takes a scattergun approach.
From reading some FORD documents, we get the feeling that it
is a federal propaganda agency in Quebec. Thus, in a document
published in January on a new approach for programs
concerning small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, we
read that FORD is well placed to represent the federal
government to small and medium-sized businesses and, a little
further, that these specific agreements are intended to establish
a properly co-ordinated federal presence.
(1635)
So, the Federal Office for Regional Development becomes the
co-ordinator of the federal activity in an area of provincial
jurisdiction. This duplication is interesting in that it says much
about the centralizing objectives of the federal government.
From now on, it is clear that, under the cover of FORD, every
federal department wants to extend the scope of its activities in
Quebec.
This is why Part II of Bill C-46 includes a set of specific
objectives regarding FORD and regional development in
Quebec. This is a case of shameless interference in a Quebec
constitutional jurisdiction. The new mandate of FORD is clear:
that office gives up any type of core agreement to concentrate
instead on specific agreements. While freeing itself of financial
commitments, FORD takes on the responsibility of an
information broker for small and medium businesses, thus
limiting its activities to searching for new markets, promoting
research and development as well as export markets for regional
businesses, thereby duplicating the role of already existing
organizations.
FORD is fulfilling the responsibilities of already existing
organizations such as industrial commissioner offices and
development corporations in several regions. This duplication is
confirmed by an act. Why yet another duplication of institutions
and structures? Why this waste of energy and human resources?
The federal system is the initiator of a series of disastrous
money-wasting schemes which are largely responsible for this
country's excessive debt.
In Quebec, the future of regional development is dependent
on respecting Quebec's jurisdiction in that all-important sector.
In our province, the future is contingent upon a decentralization
of power. Does the word decentralization suggest anything to
you? I am referring to a decentralization in favour of regional
decision-making levels which are well aware of their situation,
including regional county municipalities, which form the first
level of government. The Quebec government recognized the
primary decision-making role to be given to regional
development councils to ensure that regions would have control
over decisions which directly affect the socio-economic life of
their communities.
The federal government should pledge to withdraw from that
sector and not interfere with the priorities of the strategic
planning done by every regional county municipality and every
region in Quebec. The creation of regional county
municipalities by the Parti Quebecois in 1980 was one of the
first elements of the current regional development structure in
Quebec. The first socio-economic summits of 1985, as well as
the reform undertaken by Liberal minister Yvon Picotte, are
other important elements of this very particular structure which
led Quebec to the creation of regional development councils.
These councils have the mandate of planning, co-ordinating
and programming
6160
the development and to ensure joint accountability with local
authorities and the provincial government.
In short, these councils are regional consultative and
decision-making assemblies. Because of its dynamic role,
regional economic development in Quebec is at the centre of the
issue of global development in that province. In 1988, the
Government of Quebec developed and published its own
regional development policy that, even before the Federal
Office of Regional Development existed, concentrated on the
development of regional enterprises. Its goal, to stimulate
entrepreneurship and create jobs in the regions, was a distinct
departure from the traditional approach that emphasized the
construction of public utilities and infrastructures. There is
nothing particularly new or innovative about the new focus of
the Federal Office of Regional Development.
(1640)
Once again, the federal government is merely setting up the
same kind of regional development infrastructures that already
exist in Quebec, and it has clearly confirmed it has no intention
and no desire to remove overlap and respect Quebec's wishes.
In a world where free trade has lowered trade barriers and
exposed regional economies to fiercer competition, the new
government in Quebec wants to promote local responsibility for
regional development. The policy of the Parti Quebecois now in
power is clear and unambiguous. It provides for a new sharing of
responsibilities by the Government of Quebec with regional
governments represented by the l'Union des municipalités du
Québec and l'Union des municipalités régionales de comté du
Québec among others.
From now on, regional development in Quebec is to be
focused on the authority of the regions, a far cry from the
endless hesitation of a federal government that does not know
where it is going. The Parizeau government has made regional
decentralization a priority, and the federal government should
be aware of that.
The policy of the new government in Quebec is clear:
decentralization will be the responsibility of authorities who are
accountable and must include autonomous resources and fiscal
powers. The regional municipality will become the
decision-making centre and, as such, the new basis for regional
and social economic development in Quebec.
To deal with the various aspects of regional issues, a planning
and consultation instrument is absolutely necessary, and so we
have the Conseil régional de développement, the Regional
Development Council. If the federal government will not
recognize what is being done in Quebec to give the
government's decision-makers the responsibility, funding and
power to make those decisions, it is not on the right track and
merely confirms its decision to centralize all powers in the
centre of the country and ignore what is being done in Quebec.
Finally, we demand transfer of funding and full recognition of
Quebec's exclusive responsibility for regional development.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to hear the hon. member.
Rather than a member serving his constituents, he seems to be
representing bureaucrats. Frankly, the number one priority
among Quebecers, and in particular those living in remote areas,
is job creation. When he dares say-
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Ask your question.
Mr. Gagnon): True, I should get to my question; I will have
another opportunity to talk about this issue.
Could the hon. member name the federal government failures
in eastern Quebec, when we know that over the last 20 years
major investments were made in all kinds of port, airport and
tourism infrastructures, as well as in small businesses? Does he
refuse to acknowledge that more than 1,000 small businesses
took advantage of the liberalities-yes, ``liberalities''-of the
federal government? Could he name some who might have been
resounding failures? There may be some but I doubt it. I would
like him to tell us who are these 500 eastern Quebec companies
who were not well served by the federal government.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, first of all I
would like to remind the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine that, as regional
development critic for the Official Opposition, I am not without
experience. I worked in that field. If the hon. member knows his
area, he will acknowledge that tens, hundreds of people in his
region, his RCM, took part in the development of strategic plans
for their area, in the analysis of strengths and weaknesses in the
riding and the region. The results were then discussed at the
regional council level and prioritized before inclusion into a
concrete regional development plan. This is what I call working
with people, not bureaucrats.
(1645)
What I would like to stress to the hon. member, who is long on
rhetoric, is that our main concern is to ensure that the proper
regional development organizations in Quebec are recognized,
region by region, and to ensure also that the central government,
in Ottawa, recognizes Quebec's intention to decentralize its
services towards the regions, bringing them closer to the people.
6161
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
very much enjoyed the impassioned address of my hon.
colleague from Richmond-Wolfe. If Quebec were to have
exclusive jurisdiction in regional development, should Quebec
also have exclusive responsibility for raising funds in Quebec
for disbursement in Quebec? If so, would Quebec be able to
maintain spending at current levels?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I did
mention in my speech that this is not covered by the
Constitution. The involvement of the federal government in
regional development is only due to its spending power and is
not enshrined in the Constitution.
The regional development initiatives taken by the Quebec
government in the last 10 years have resulted in more
co-operation between all the major economic, social, health and
education stakeholders and a learning process during
socio-economic summits, followed by consultations, which
ensure that the reform introduced by Liberal minister Picotte, in
Quebec, really led to some money transfers to the regions.
The current situation is best described as follows: the regions
can decide and have real budgets. What we want now is to go
beyond tax transfers and have the power to levy taxes through
regional county municipalities. That would give us a real tax
base and enable us to make real decisions and solve regional
problems which would have been analyzed at once by people in
the regions. So, as you see, tax points are important.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, since we only have a few seconds left, I will be brief. I
just want to assure my hon. colleague that this government
respects all provinces, including Quebec.
I want to ask him a question about a very important issue he
raised. It has to do with overlap and duplication. Given the
changes undergone by the machinery of government during the
last ten years, would he not agree that progress has been made?
It seems to me that we have less problems than we used to have. I
have been examining this whole situation for a while and I
wonder if the hon. member has come to the same conclusion as I
have and would agree that progress has been made and there are
less overlap and duplication than before.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): As my hon. colleague just
said, it is true, Mr. Speaker, that some progress has been made
and that individuals have co-operated with federal agencies in
that area, but the fact is that nothing really happened. I cannot
answer yes to his question. Directives and standards applied
within federal agencies are never quite in sync with standards
applied elsewhere. So, civil servants are always on business
trips, travelling throughout the country to meet their
counterparts and say: Your standard does not meet mine. We will
have to meet again next week, because I have to go over this
with my boss and see what can be done.
This is not only duplication, but also a waste of human
resources and money.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Bourassa-Immigration.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased
to take a few minutes to speak on the subject of Bill C-46, the
Department of Industry Act. This is very comprehensive
legislation providing for a department with far-reaching
responsibilities and a wide array of instruments to carry them
out.
The department it creates is a necessary tool in the agenda of
the government to generate economic growth and job creation
and to prepare for the innovative and, indeed, very different
economy of the 21st century.
Bill C-46 recognizes once again what are the real needs of the
new economy, what is demanded of Canadians if we are to
continue to enjoy the economic well-being that a resource rich
past has made possible.
(1650 )
This bill provides the organizational structure to permit a
consistent, coherent focus on those strategies which will assist
Canadians in the transition from a resource based to an
information based economy.
This organization will have the lead role in generating the
consensus and gathering the studied advice of the main players
in the economic development game, whether they are business
people, scientists, engineers, educators, consumers or other
governments.
The bill recognizes that at the heart of economic development
and job creation are science and technology, research and
development, technological and managerial innovation, areas
that have for far too long been neglected in this country.
Attention to these issues and approaches to the challenges
they present are long overdue. Canada has been slow to
recognize the importance of innovation and technology to
competitiveness. Technology has transformed the economy
dramatically with increasing growth in the knowledge and
information based industries.
Also technology is revolutionizing the way we do business in
manufacturing, in resource industries, and the service sector.
Thus innovation has become the key to growth in both the new
and traditional sectors of the economy. Our performance in
embracing innovation has not been spectacular.
6162
For example, the percentage of Canadian firms that carry out
any research and development activities is less than one-half of
1 per cent of Canadian enterprises. That is unacceptable.
Further, not only do we have too few leading edge firms
developing new technologies, we do not have enough Canadian
firms searching the world marketplaces to find technology and
bring it home, using it here to build our innovative capacity, in
other words adapting it to the Canadian experience.
Canadian businesses, scientists, and Canadian workers are
becoming increasingly aware of these needs and yet they cannot
meet such challenges by themselves individually and separately.
Somehow the concerted, co-operative effort of all the
participants must be brought to bear in addressing the problem.
That is precisely what the government has recognized and is
taking steps to bring about.
The red book that first outlined the agenda that the
government is following pointed out the need for an innovative
economy. It also pointed out that innovation does not just
happen. It thrives in countries that consciously understand the
innovative process and take measures to create a national
system of innovation.
It stated that the role of the federal government is to work with
the private sector, to identify strategic opportunities for the
future, and then to redirect existing resources toward their
fulfilment. Common sense, a hallmark of the government.
That is the spirit in which the government has approached the
science and technology sector as a key to development of an
innovative economy. The February budget illustrates that spirit
in action. Again, common sense.
The federal government spends about $6 billion per year on
science and technology. Tax expenditures account for about $1
billion more. One of the measures announced in the budget is a
true strategy to maximize the benefits of these expenditures, a
strategy for research and development with priorities, direction
and review of results.
The Minister of Industry was charged with the task of
preparing a paper on science and technology clearly stating the
government's priorities, to set the stage for a national dialogue
on a new national science and technology strategy. This paper
was released on June 28. In the meantime a full review of
science and technology programs is under way.
The February budget also announced a number of initiatives
to further the cause of an innovative economy. The Canadian
technology network to help small businesses get access to new
technology to compete in world markets was announced, as was
a technology partnership program to help smaller firms gain
access to research results done in government and university
labs.
An engineers and scientists program will help small
businesses get the technological expertise they need.
Development of a Canadian strategy for the information
highway was announced. Again, common sense.
Other decisions and initiatives have followed. Negotiations
were completed with the United States for participation in the
space station resulting in an excellent deal for both countries.
A new long-term space plan was announced. The National
Centres of Excellence funding was extended, 10 networks
renewed and the second round of competitions for new networks
launched.
(1655 )
A new president of the National Research Council was
appointed and the council's declining budget was stabilized, as
were those of the granting councils.
Initiatives aimed at helping young Canadians adapt to an
innovation economy such as SchoolNet, Computers for Schools
and Innovators in the Schools have met with great success.
The evidence is clear to me that the government is on the right
track and well-launched on the route to assisting in the creation
of an innovative economy. The bill which officially establishes
the chief instrument of the federal government's role in this task
is yet another step along the route.
The Department of Industry created by this bill will be
uniquely equipped to become the workshop in which the major
players in the innovative economy can forge their weapons. This
is the organization that will be able to provide the listening post,
host the consultations, lead the discussion and develop the
resultant policies.
It will be able to provide the consistent, continued attention
required to develop and implement coherent strategies over the
time required for them to be effective. Common sense once
again.
I have every confidence in the abilities and creative energies
of Canadians. I do not find the idea of common sense funny. I
find it, again, common sensible. I am sure we have the capacity
to create an innovative economy capable of competing in the
global marketplace well into the 21st century, as long as we do
not spend a lot of time laughing.
What Canadians need to get the job done is the kind of
common sense leadership that the government is providing;
leadership with clear objectives and concrete measures to
achieve them. Bill C-46 is one of these concrete measures. I
firmly recommend its approval by the House.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
mentioned that we have a new president at NRC. The
gentleman's name is Dr. Arthur Carty. He was vice-president in
charge
6163
of research at the University of Waterloo. That is most
significant because the University of Waterloo has very much
been an innovator in the new technology.
I wonder if the hon. member would like a comment on the
following. So often we hear the laissez-faire approach from the
Reform Party but when we look at successful economies
presently able to compete internationally they are economies
with a national strategy.
Would the hon. member agree this puts us in a position of
being able to have a national strategy with a Team Canada
concept as we go out and compete in the international
marketplace, exporting, bringing business to this country,
putting people to work?
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
Waterloo for his question. Indeed I would agree most
particularly. As the hon. member is aware, my riding of Halifax
as well has universities that have been part of the kind of
development that his well respected University of Waterloo has
been.
Without an industrial strategy such as the one proposed
through the Department of Industry in concert with the
Department of Finance and other departments, we will not be
prepared for the next century. I know this perhaps better than
some because I come from an area of the country that suffered a
great deal when we agreed to choose Canada and become part of
this great country in Confederation.
We had a north-south bias. We had the days of wooden ships
and iron persons as we now call them. Many things happened in
the way of transportation, the passage of goods and other things
that were not always to the financial benefit of Atlantic
Canadians.
However, being part of this great Confederation has always
been to the benefit of Atlantic Canadians. We are perhaps not the
proudest but among the proudest citizens of this country. We are
glad we chose it and would do so again and again.
(1700 )
We also know that to ensure our region is healthy, to ensure
that Ontario, the engine that drives the country, is healthy and to
ensure that the great Canadian west and north are healthy, an
industrial strategy is an absolute necessity.
I applaud the minister and the department for the work they
are doing in this area.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to speak on the subject of second reading of Bill C-46, the
Department of Industry Act.
Like other members who have spoken on this topic, I am
convinced that this bill is a sound strategic initiative by this
government and an excellent piece of legislation. I like this bill
for its comprehensive inclusion of the chief functions necessary
to achieving the government's agenda for economic growth and
job creation, for its incorporating under one organizational
umbrella the many concerns related to growth.
I take particular satisfaction from the recognition by the bill
of the importance of small and medium size businesses and
tourism. My riding has many small businesses and I believe
firmly that this bill will be of great assistance to them.
In recent months as I met and spoke with small and medium
size businesses in the metro Toronto area one of the recurring
things that came through consistently was that is was very
difficult for them to access government programs. It meant
going from department to department and most small and
medium size businesses do not have the resources to research
what government programs are available, how to access them,
who to talk to and how to research them and whether or not their
company is eligible for any of these aids or partnerships that we
offer.
It is important and critical that the four departments are now
coming together, that there will be one stop shopping and that
the businesses will be able to access these programs and work
collectively.
In order for Canada to succeed in the global economy and to
create the jobs that we need it is important that there be one
consistent vision and one cohesive approach to strategic
planning. To me it is important that when we put together R and
D, the manufacturing, marketing, the promotion of mobility
across this country and all of the things that this department will
be grouping within it, these things work together, that one
augments the other and supplements the other, and that business
can access all of it at the same time.
Some of the examples that were given to me by business were
things such as research and development is great but you can
develop a product and not be able to bring it to market. One
example was given where there was some research done by a
university but where the product was in the end manufactured in
the U.S. The jobs are in the manufacturing, not just in the
research. That is where a large number of jobs are. It is critical
that these kinds of things happen within our country and that
kind of linkage exists.
It is also very important to me and I am very pleased to see
that sustainable development and the environment are included
in clause 5 of this bill. Putting together the environment and
industries in the same clause, dealing with it very aggressively
in making it a partnership is very critical. We have to be leaders
in this country. The environmental industry is job creation. It is
a plus. It is not a detriment, as some people might think.
To me it is extremely important that industry will be working
together with the environment and that the environment is part
of the planning of industry so that it is not something separate
that one does as an adjunct to the industrial strategy of this
country.
6164
The red book which detailed this government's agenda before
the last election foresaw this bill. It announced that the
government would focus on small and medium size businesses
as the determining factor in turning around the economy. The
speech from the throne made good our electoral commitment by
placing small and medium size businesses at the top of the
agenda, focusing on them for long term job creation.
The February budget followed through, announcing a long list
of small business related initiatives. With the February budget
papers the government published its action plan entitled
growing small businesses. This publication was meant to
stimulate discussion and get the business community actively
engaged in helping to create an environment more conducive to
small business and entrepreneurship. For example, Industry
Canada is exploring with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce
the feasibility of developing a business network strategy to set
up some 30 business networks to foster co-operation and
collaboration among small and medium size firms with common
interests.
Also, an array of initiatives has been announced as part of the
small and medium size enterprise agenda.
(1705 )
A pilot program will be launched under the technology
partnership program, exploring the feasibility of incentives for
universities to enter into partnerships, the small and medium
size firms to develop emerging technologies for industrial
application.
As part of the science and technology review, the Secretary of
State for Science, Research and Development will conduct
consultations on a program to provide small and medium size
firms with cost shared salary support for hiring scientists,
engineers, technologists and industrial designers, as my
colleague said previously.
A new fund has been established to help expand existing
business through the Federal Business Development Bank. The
Canada community investment fund has been announced, one of
the aims of which is to ensure availability of equity financing for
small firms.
Industry Canada is working with a private sector coalition to
set up a national business network demonstration program. The
program will help business create networks to foster
co-operation and collaboration and better prepare Canadian
small and medium size businesses to compete at home and
internationally.
Another example of our recognition is the hospitality
industry. The key role of tourism in the economy is clear. Five
per cent of the Canadian workforce is employed in some
500,000 full time equivalent tourism jobs in more than 60,000
enterprises.
Employment in tourism is growing one and a half times faster
than industries as a whole. Visitors to Canada last year
contributed approximately $9 billion in foreign exchange and
Canadians added about $18 billion while travelling within
Canada.
I want to point out that it is not simply in work within this
ministry that co-operation is happening. We look at the HRD
department and how it is going to be complimenting what we are
doing in this department. Look at the hospitality industry. That
department has recently signed an agreement with the National
Tourism Human Resource Council. Its objective will be to
co-ordinate and support research and analysis of the industry's
training needs. It will formulate national occupational standards
and certification programs. It will provide the means for the
sharing of information initiatives and it will be a national
advocate on behalf of the tourism industry for human resource
issues.
Human Resources Development Canada endorses the council
and the goals that it has set for itself. The federal government is
contributing over $977,000, the tourism industry is providing
over $2.2 million or thereabouts. This is only one of 13 sectoral
agreements that had been signed. Since the hospitality industry
agreement was signed a great many more have been signed.
This shows that we are not just looking at the industrial side
which is absolutely necessary. Coupled with that we are also
looking at the manpower required in order to create the jobs in
these industries. There cannot be one without the other. We have
a new bill and new department pulling together all of the
industrial strategies necessary for the country.
However, we also have another department that is looking at
the manpower required and arranging sectoral agreements with
various sectors of the economy to create the kinds of skills and
manpower required for the jobs we are creating for the future.
I am very much in support of this bill and I want to
congratulate the minister for pulling this together. I hope the
House will support it.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-46 is a balanced, streamlined and positive bill. The
country is ready for a new industrial, scientific revolution.
I would like to share briefly with members some of the signs
that are occurring in Mississauga and I would like to ask for her
comments at the end.
Mississauga is the ninth largest city in the country and is a
microcosm of Canadian society. The forecast for housing in
Mississauga was $600 million. It was revised today to $850
6165
million in new starts. The industrial growth has been revised
from 2.2 million square feet to 3.5 million square feet for next
year.
Does the member for Beaches-Woodbine believe that Bill
C-46 and all this wonderful economic activity going on in
Mississauga balance or co-ordinate at all with the election of a
sensible, positive Liberal government?
(1710 )
Ms. Minna: Mr. Speaker, obviously it does compliment. I
suppose that is a leading question if I ever had one but it is a
great question.
The member is quite right. We talk a great deal in this House
about getting rid of duplication and cutbacks. There are all kinds
of comments coming from the opposition about the overlap. In
this case we are doing exactly what a great many people have
been saying, let us get rid of the overlap of the duplication and
let us pull together into one bill all of those aspects which are
necessary to deal with the new strategies of the global economy
and the new technologies of today. We are dealing with
technology. We are dealing with all of the different aspects that
involve these things.
At the same time we are looking at the manpower needs for
the future in the new strategies of industry. Small and medium
size businesses need this kind of assistance and infrastructure.
They are working with us. We are not coming up with these
solutions or policies in isolation without consultations with
small and medium size businesses and business in general in this
country.
As I said, the sectoral agreements which were signed by the
Minister of Human Resources Development were signed in
agreement. We are working together and sharing the
responsibilities. That is how this country was built and where
the future of this country lies, in a partnership with business.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on this bill.
Bill C-46 provided the federal government a chance to do
more to change the status quo. This bill will give the Minister of
Industry powers relating to regional economic development
programs in Ontario and Quebec. This is outlined in part I,
subclause 4(2) of the bill.
Will these powers actually extend to the Minister of Industry
and will he retain these powers or will the Governor General
continue to vest to the Minister of Finance control over the
federal office of regional development Quebec? We will be
watching these developments very closely.
It is clear that present ways of administering government lack
effectiveness and efficiency. I need only point to the federal debt
which is well over the $500 billion mark and rising to illustrate
that point.
By the end of the next three years this government will have
added approximately $97 billion to the federal debt. That is the
highest increase in the history of Canada for any three year
period. The so-called fiscal plan of the government
shortchanges all Canadians. The plain fact is that fixing the
deficit targeted at 3 per cent of GDP is not good enough when
our federal debt is at 71 per cent and the total public debt is
nearly 100 per cent of GDP respectively.
The government must change the way it operates now if it is
going to bring the country's financial house in order. Bill C-46
does little to achieve this goal which is the main reason we
cannot support it.
Bill C-46 is a statement of what the Department of Industry
does. This bill gives the minister sweeping powers to create an
environment where government is the central tool of economic
development and deeply involved in the private sector. My
colleague from Okanagan Centre went into great detail in that
area.
There were 52 Reform MPs elected for some very
fundamental reasons. The Canadian electorate wants change to
the system. Last year's election was the first wave to bring about
that change. One of the reasons Reformers were elected has to
do with our policy regarding private enterprise. Reformers
believe that private enterprise must be the engine which drives
the economy. A dollar left in the pocket of the businessman is
more efficiently spent than a dollar spent by the government.
This is common sense. Businesses are in the business of creating
jobs, making and investing money and unfortunately
governments are in the habit of spending it, very often
frivolously.
(1715 )
Reformers value enterprise and initiative. We see the
government's role as fostering and protecting an environment in
which initiative and enterprise can be exercised by individuals
and groups. Regional development programs have the potential
to create waste and abuse. It is no surprise that a senior cabinet
minister from Quebec is currently in charge of FORD-Q. Nor is
it a surprise that a senior cabinet minister from the west is in
charge of Western Economic Diversification. And the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency is administered by the Minister of
Public Works and Government Services.
These regional development programs, which account for
well over $1 billion per year, do little for the long term benefit of
the country. They are supposed to enhance employment
opportunities, strengthen the national economy, stimulate
investment and promote the interests and protection of Canadian
consumers.
These are not my musings, they come straight from Bill C-46.
However I submit that these programs do very little to achieve
their self-proclaimed goals. FORD-Q is an example of how a
regional development program just does not stack up. The
objective of FORD-Q, as outlined in the 1994-95 main
estimates, part III, is to promote the economic development of
the regions of Quebec with low incomes, slow economic growth
or
6166
inadequate possibilities for productive employment, by
emphasizing long term economic development and sustainable
employment and income creation.
In an address to the Standing Committee on Industry in May
the finance minister waxed eloquent, as he usually does when he
speaks, about the so-called merits of FORD-Q. He told the
committee:
Over the last six years FORD-Q's activities in all the regions of Quebec have
created remarkable spin-offs: $1.1 billion invested in more than 3,600 projects, a
total investment of nearly $5.8 billion and 56,000 jobs. We have enjoyed
outstanding success.
I find it very interesting that the finance minister considers
spending over $103,000 for one job to be an efficient use of
taxpayers' money. What is even more interesting is what the
finance minister said to the committee in his next breath:
Quebec is nonetheless saddled with an unemployment rate that approaches 13
per cent.
The evidence is there. In the last six years FORD-Q has done
little to promote long term economic development and
sustainable employment. Quebec has an unemployment rate
higher than the national average, yet part of FORD-Q's mandate
is to promote sustainable employment.
Additionally, FORD-Q was to help convince Quebec to stay
in Canada. It is a miserable failure in that area as well.
It is important to point out that FORD-Q is not the only
regional development program which falls short of its mandate.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency also merits
comment. Since ACOA launched its co-operative program in
1989, a program of federal-provincial economic development
initiatives, two things have happened: first, the average
unemployment rate in the Atlantic region has increased by
nearly 2 per cent; second, the number of people on welfare has
grown by nearly 3 per cent.
I ask the question: Has ACOA really made the Atlantic
economy more viable? The numbers would seem to indicate
otherwise, as would the deplorable state of the fishing industry,
especially in Newfoundland.
Western Economic Diversification is another example of a
regional development program engaging in huge expenditures
of taxpayers' dollars. This year's budget for WED is over $452
million. Its mandate is to promote the development and
diversification of western Canada's economy. Since its
inception in 1987 to the end of fiscal 1993 WED has doled out
more than $1 billion to over 3,000 projects. That is over
$330,000 per project, never mind the fact that only 40,000 jobs,
many of them short term, have resulted from this huge
expenditure.
The average welfare rate in some of the western provinces has
gone up by almost 2 per cent in the last three years, and the
unemployment rate has followed a similar path. Again the
numbers indicate that regional development programs are not
very effective.
As a critic for regional economic development, I would like to
relate some information we obtained which shows why these
programs are questionable expenditures of taxpayers' dollars.
(1720 )
FORD-Q recently finished up its support program for fashion
design. This program committed $2.9 million to raise the profile
of fashion design from the Montreal region. Of that $2.9
million, $2.6 million was in the form of grants, money which is
not repaid. On researching this particular program we found that
three companies went out of business shortly after receiving
their grants. There were three additional companies for which
FORD-Q officials could not account. Why would FORD-Q give
money to these companies without keeping tabs on their
progress?
We looked into the whereabouts of these companies and found
that only two of the companies were still in operation.
Combined, the grants for these companies totalled over
$234,000. That money has gone up in smoke. FORD-Q officials
cannot even keep track of where the money is going. FORD-Q
under the Montreal development fund program is now handing
out another $1.5 million to the fashion design sector. How much
of that money will go unaccounted?
Taxpayers would rather manage their own money than have
one branch of the government take it and pump it back into
programs that just do not seem to work. There are examples this
kind right across the country. Taxpayers deserve a better fate
than having their money squandered on so-called regional
development programs. It is no wonder division exists in the
country when questionable programs for every region of Canada
waste taxpayers' dollars.
As a new government the Liberals have a chance to truly
change the way things are done. These regional development
programs were used by the Tories as pork-barrelling tools. I
would encourage the Minister of Industry to do a thorough
review of all the regional economic development programs,
including western economic diversification.
In fact I ask the minister to go even a step further and turn all
economic development over to the provinces.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
the suggestion of the hon. member in his speech dealing with
western diversification is that there should be a review. That is
presently taking place. The review is being conducted.
During this review and while visiting communities in Alberta
and British Columbia, the business people in those provinces
have indicated that there is a need for western diversification
funding during a certain time in the development of product. In
Saskatchewan the biotech industry exists because of western
6167
diversification. It has become the envy of other science
communities and has become one of the leading biotech centres
in the world.
Does the hon. member feel that all funding for all purposes in
the development of industry in western Canada should be cut off
by western diversification? If so, does he see any role
whatsoever for western diversification in western Canada?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, in so far as the
human resources review is concerned it has been so on and off
that no one really knows where it is right now.
Our policy is to cease funding to regional economic
development. The reason why Alberta and to some extent B.C.
have diversified their economies so well has not so much to do
with federal funding, it has to do with the provinces providing
the right kind of atmosphere and climate for these
diversifications to occur.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, this bill that is before the House today-
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe that my hon. colleague was splitting time with me so that
I should probably be up at this time.
(1725 )
The Deputy Speaker: The lists change all the time. It was the
Chair's understanding that the Reform Party was not splitting
time and that the member for Edmonton Southwest was going to
go for the full 20 minutes if he so wished after the two members
on the other side.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I will follow the Liberal
speaker.
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry Act in
Bill C-46 that is before the House today combines many things
into one department. There is not too much wrong with that
because in the last Parliament-at least in 1984-we saw 40
ministries represented in the House of Commons. It was the
largest cabinet in Canadian history.
Today we have 22 ministers in the House of Commons. The
Department of Industry Act will provide a clear, comprehensive,
legislative mandate and some co-ordination for many of those
departments that were before separated and divided among 40
people.
Some people have the idea that everything the Department of
Industry will be doing was listed by the parliamentary secretary
today when he was speaking. Why should it be all listed? I
believe we can safely say that such an impression is just that, it
is an impression. While titles ideally should be symbolic, they
should not be mistaken for substance.
If a number of subjects are built into one department and the
minister has some initiative, some vision and some leadership
ability, as we have in the Department of Industry, all those
things are going to be co-ordinated very well.
The minister has many challenges in the proper co-ordination
of all the various agendas that have been handed to him in one
department. Let us take tourism for example. One of his jobs is
to promote the tourism industry.
I have seen a very good group of tourism people put together
in former departments shoved from one department to another.
In recent years, they have been chopped to pieces and now just a
few of them are left.
I sat in on a committee in the last Parliament where even
representatives of big tourist industries were saying: ``We do not
need Tourism Canada at all. We can look after ourselves. We
would rather promote ourselves.'' That is fine if you are one of
the big tourism industries. They can look after themselves at
home and they can do their advertising abroad. The small and
medium sized industries are not in the same favourable position.
We should be promoting tourism in every nation of the world.
Canadian citizens represent a lot of people from various
countries. We should be zeroing in on those countries because
there is a friendship base to go on. We should invite those people
to come over here to visit their relatives and to travel. We also
should go into the massive population areas of the world as well
and advertise there.
Seventy per cent of the world's population will be living on
the Pacific rim in the year 2000. That is the area where
Canadians should be zeroing in for tourist business as well as for
international trade.
In every phase of the Department of Industry that this bill is
setting up today, we are going to require that vision, that breadth
of mind, the determination that we mentioned in the red book
during the election campaign. New initiatives are necessary. We
cannot stay with the status quo. We cannot promote the status
quo. We have to change with the demands of the international
market. That should be no big problem.
(1730)
Under the new legislation we will have sections in the
department of industry such as science, development of new
technology, communications, investments, consumer and
corporate affairs and industrial development generally. They are
not the total department by any means. We need some
co-ordination. In the Public Service of Canada and other sectors
there have to be people with some imagination, and real life
experience does not hurt once in a while.
We talk about high technology. Many people think of it only
in terms of industry, that is the old term industry. They forget
that agriculture is an industry. We have large farms today that
are industries in their own right. We have the dairy industry. We
6168
have new technologies in the dairy industry, the beef industry
and in cash crops. We could talk about any of them. There are
new developments.
If members want to see the change in the agricultural industry
over the years they should go to a modern day ploughing match
such as the one we had in Renfrew county this past week. They
will see all kinds of changes. Even the faces of members of
Parliament who go there change. I am proud to say that 17
members of the House saw fit to plough. I congratulate the hon.
member who came first, a member of the Reform Party from
British Columbia. I compliment my colleague from
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington who came
second. I congratulate the hon. member for Erie who came third.
However it would do us a lot of good if we kept up with modern
technology. Maybe we would make better ploughers.
Nevertheless we have all this equipment and advertising, 42
city blocks of it, and people talk about agriculture as if it is a
way of life. It is a real industry in itself and that is what every
parliamentarian has to realize.
I notice investment is a very important part of the new
Ministry of Industry we are setting up today. If there is anything
that businesses need today, it is stable financial sources to work
with. If there is anything we have to do in Parliament, it is to
provide a source of money for industry to operate, to develop
and to progress.
The Federal Business Development Bank will have to change.
There must be reforms. We have to move into a new era. In my
view Parliament, the 35th Parliament of Canada, and the present
government have the greatest opportunity. Yes, they have many
challenges but along with the many challenges are the great
opportunities. The Government of Canada, ministers and
members of the House have a great opportunity to bring a new
deal to our nation of Canada. We have to do it with some vision.
We have to look forward. We cannot be antsy about changing our
ways.
Recently a Japanese homebuilder along with a Canadian
entrepreneur visited my office. The Japanese want to buy houses
from Canada, but they do not want to buy houses that will North
Americanize the Japanese culture. They want Canadians to
produce parts for their housing that will retain the Japanese
culture. If that is what they want and if there is a big market
there, it is up to Canadian entrepreneurs and the department of
industry to work with them to develop new housing to suit the
Japanese culture.
(1735)
China is opening up. There are all kinds of new ideas and new
opportunities. The message the Minister of Industry has to send
to industries and entrepreneurs in Canada is that it is for them to
make their product fit the demand.
The Minister for International Trade is going around the
world. He has to find opportunities, bring them back to Canada
and give them to our entrepreneurs. They should be flexible.
With the expertise in the department of industry they should be
able to meet that market, make a great success for Canada and
provide jobs, great opportunities and growth right in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-46, an Act to establish the Department of
Industry, is yet another initiative, another attempt by this
government to achieve the targets it had set itself in terms of
economic growth, job creation and federal administration
restructuring.
Whether we like it or not, Canada is rapidly moving away
from the widely resource-based and strongly labour-intensive
economy we have had so far and towards an economy based on
information, knowledge and innovation. The economic standard
calls for the restructuring of not only our industry and trade, but
also our society. It also calls for greater attention being paid to
basic factors, that is to say the underlying sources of growth and
competitiveness as well as to the establishment of a climate
conducive to entrepreneurship and less reliance on government
financial assistance.
We must do better in the areas of education and training and
emphasize research and development. Today more than ever
before, we must face changes with an innovative and flexible
attitude. We must take an international perspective which opens
the door to both unforeseen opportunities and stiff competition
on the globalized markets. The infrastructure will have to be
capable of supporting tomorrow's economy, which
pre-supposes making available to the Canadian public in
general world-class communication and information
technologies.
We must also make all of our activities more effective, in the
private and public sectors alike. Business and industry must
eliminate waste, reduce costs and make the most of Canadians'
skills and talents. More generally, in order to revive the
economy, the government must give priority to fostering a
climate in which businesses can create more jobs for Canadians,
and that is just what the Prime Minister did on September 18
when he announced the program to be developed by the
Department of Industry by the end of October.
(1740)
This program is aimed among other things at improving the
business climate for entrepreneurs, helping businesses take
advantage of the new technology, searching for growing
markets, and promoting the tourism industry in particular.
6169
It will not be easy to meet all these requirements. All
participants will have to work together continuously.
Furthermore, the government will have to adopt a consistent
approach to the allocation of our resources and to the
development and implementation of these same policies. That is
why we have brought together in one department all the
effective economic development tools that previously came
under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the
Department of Communications, Investment Canada and the
Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
First, this reorganization will increase efficiency by
eliminating duplication and overlap. Second, it will lead to more
coherent policy development and thus greater effectiveness. The
mandate of the Department of Industry is to promote economic
development in Canada and to continue to keep the commitment
made in this regard. Instead of simply distributing money to
solve problems, the Department of Industry will work in
conjunction with industry, teachers, scientists, technologists,
researchers, consumers as well as other governments to reach
these objectives.
By giving responsibility for the consumer affairs policy to the
Department of Industry, we will ensure that consumers have a
say in the development of policies influencing our marketplace.
Efficient market operation is essential to economic renewal, and
will benefit consumers as much as businesses. The Department
of Industry Act sets up an integrated process in which
consumers' concerns will be addressed as early as possible in
the policy development process.
Efforts to protect consumers can thus be focused on
preventing problems, rather than on solving them after the fact.
In areas of vital interest for all Canadians, such as
biotechnology and genetic engineering, the Labelling Act, and
the regulation reform, our action will be based on consumers'
interests. The co-operation of the Consumers' Association of
Canada in many initiatives reflects consumer representation in
the policy development process.
Let me mention, among others, the consultative committee on
the information highway, the drafting of a new privacy
protection code, the discussions between the federal
government, the provinces and the industry on a code of practice
for electronic funds transfer, as well as a pilot project to set up
an alternative to dispute resolution, so as to allow consumers
easier access to small claims court.
Those departmental initiatives are well underway, as shown
by recent announcements made. As you know, the action plan
unveiled by the Prime Minister to create an innovative economy,
is consistent with our guiding principle. The Minister of
Industry will soon announce the details of that important
initiative. You are also well aware that Industry Canada
participates actively in various program and policy reviews
which will help us fulfill our mandate under the law.
Here are a few examples of our activities. We have finally
made real progress regarding the domestic trade issue. Indeed,
the Minister of Industry recently had the pleasure and the
honour of contributing to the signing of an agreement between
the provinces, the territories and the federal government on the
first measures to eliminate the obstacles to domestic trade which
have been created in our country over the last 127 years.
(1745)
The agreement on domestic trade signed by the first ministers
on June 28 is a good thing for all Canadians. Obstacles to
domestic trade cost Canadians up to $7 billion a year. Having the
goal of allowing for freer movement of individuals, goods,
services and capital, this agreement provides for the elimination
of trade barriers by July 1995.
The agreement sets general rules prohibiting the
implementation of any new obstacles and abolishing existing
barriers in ten areas, including transportation, government
contracts, investment and workforce mobility. The agreement
provides for another very important feature, a dispute
settlement mechanism for these areas. Obviously, there is still
much to be done. However, some of the provisions in this
agreement will help us make more progress. The kind of
co-operation we got in preparing the agreement allows us to
hope for free movement of goods, services and workforce in
Canada within a true economic union.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
it has been a very interesting morning and afternoon in the
House as this debate unfolded.
I am moved to ask rhetorically one question. What is it about
getting elected that makes politicians venture capitalists? Is
there some magic laying on of hands or something that we go
through that I missed, that all of a sudden somehow we have the
right to extract tax dollars out of the hides of people who are
barely getting by earning $8 or $10 a hour, take it into
government and then regurgitate about 20 cents to give it to
somebody to go into competition with the people who gave us
the money in the first place?
What is it about getting elected that gives us the wherewithal
to start taking money from individuals and giving it to other
individuals or giving it, worse, to corporations?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): How did you get
elected?
Mr. McClelland: By saying that we are going to put a stop to
this foolishness. We got elected by saying we have had enough
of that. People in Alberta have learned that you cannot get
yourself elected by continuing to spend other taxpayers' money
6170
like it was someone else's. We have to start treating this money
like it is our own.
I will give three reasons why we should not be in this
business, MagCan, NovAtel and Gainers. We have no business
being in business.
How did we get here? It is 1994. Here we are sitting in the
Parliament of Canada. Many of us are sitting here because the
last government imploded upon itself-Kim Campbell. How did
we get into this reorganization in the first place? I guess that is
the first question we have to ask ourselves. How did we get here
in the first place to do this reorganization?
We got here because Kim Campbell noticed that there were a
few bumps on the road ahead and she figured that perhaps one of
the things that she could do is reduce the size of government,
reduce the size of the cabinet which had grown to 40 or so
members.
It makes sense, right? It does not make sense if you do it for
the wrong reasons. It should have been done for the policy
reason, not because they wanted to get elected, not for political
reasons, but because it was the right thing to do.
Most people realize that before you make substantive
organizational change you would do a review to make sure that
you are making the change in the correct way and going at it
carefully.
What did we do? The Liberal government inherited Kim
Campbell's last gasp to get herself elected. It then had the
opportunity and, recognizing the wisdom of downsizing
government which was definitely a step in the right direction,
carried forward and added to it.
(1750 )
Let me quote from Organizing to Govern. This is a book
written by Gordon Osbaldeston and most people in this House
would certainly recognize that name. For the benefit of people
watching, Gordon Osbaldeston had a distinguished career in the
Canadian public service. He has held posts in the foreign trade
commission service and was a deputy minister in the
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the
Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
He was secretary to the Treasury Board, Minister of State for
Economic Development, under-secretary of state, Department
of External Affairs, Clerk of the Privy Council, on and on-35
years of distinguished service to our country.
He wrote a book called Organizing to Govern.
I heard him being interviewed on the news the other day and it
was interesting because the radio interviewer said if he was a
proponent of radically downsizing government and retracting
the tentacles of government from the daily life of Canadian
business, how is it that he for the best part of his life was
involved in the expansion of the government's role in
everybody's business.
His response was that as we age we sometimes learn
something and he hoped he had learned something over his long
career in the public service.
In any event, rule number one in organizing and governing,
three rules to live by, is resist proposals to reorganize unless you
are certain the benefits of the proposed change outweigh the
costs. He goes on to say organizing is not as free lunch, adding
new organizations or ministerial portfolios adds complexity and
reorganizing existing ones causes disruption. Neither of these
costs should be taken lightly. At minimum it can take three years
to implement a major organizational change and in many cases
five years.
Our public servants, all 6,000 involved in this reorganization
just in industry, and all of the public servants all over the
country deserve some kind of a medal for the chaos they have
had to live in and endure over these last 20 or so years.
If we believe Mr. Osbaldeston to be accurate, and there is no
reason to think we should not, look what has happened in the
Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce since 1892 when
the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mackenzie
Bowell, went to Australia and drummed up business for the
CPR. We are still doing it. We started in 1892.
In any event remember, according to Mr. Osbaldeston, it takes
at least three to five years to be able to accommodate change and
so here we have industry trade and commerce from 1892 to
1969-virtually nothing. They probably ran the thing out of a
reasonably small room. Then it started to grow.
In 1963 it changed; 1965, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1978, 1983, 1983
again, and then we started adding to it and adding to it. What
happened was that all of a sudden after the war C.D. Howe really
ran the whole government from his position in the Department
of Defence Production. He became the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Commerce and a very powerful figure in government.
Through his seat of power it started to expand the department
of industry. The department of industry did not become
obtrusive and get its tentacles into everything. For those of you
in business who have a daily relationship with Statistics Canada
you know exactly what I am talking about when we talk about
intrusive.
Walter Gordon became the minister and I am going to quote
again from the book Organizing to Govern by Gordon
Osbaldeston: ``Since their defeat in 1957 the Liberal Party have
been honing ideas for the next election campaign. One
individual who played a key role in ensuring that a new
department of industry was part of the Liberal platform was
Walter Gordon''.
If it sounds like déja vu, it is déja vu. Someone lifted the red
book over there and there it was all over again-how are we
6171
going to go about getting elected? We are going to hone the
Department of Industry. We are going to get more intrusive. We
are going to make sure that we can say, let us get on with it.
(1755)
I am quoting again: ``Gordon lead a royal commission
appointed in 1955 to look at the economy. Few of the
commission's recommendations were adopted by the St.
Laurent government. When Lester B. Pearson became the new
party leader, Gordon's ideas came to the fore and in a party that
was looking for new ideas and keen on economic reform he
found fertile ground. He had long been a friend of Pearson and
now he became a trusted adviser''.
It is really interesting to see how we got to where we are today.
Nobody really planned it. It just sort of happened. All of a
sudden we have $3 billion a year going through the Department
of Industry, with that department's civil servants, bureaucrats
and politicians picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
I will get back to my quotation: ``The reason the Department
of Industry was created was because Walter Gordon wanted one
and he had the personal influence with Pearson and those close
to him to ensure that he got it. But why did he want it? What
pushed Gordon's thinking to a new department? Undoubtedly
Gordon's overriding motivation was his personal philosophy
regarding government and industry. When his royal commission
reported in 1957 it described severe problems with foreign
investment in Canada and an associated weakness in the
Canadian industrial sector.
A senior official who worked closely with Gordon on the
royal commission described Gordon's views as follows: ``The
whole idea of a separate governmental entity to concern itself
with Canadian secondary industry really was inspired by Walter
Gordon. He was an interventionist, a bit of a nationalist with a
protectionist kind of mentality''.
Is this not the same Liberal government opposite that signed
the NAFTA? I will quote again: ``His protectionism took the
form of using-'' Listen to this. This will send chills down the
back of everyone here. You people in television land may want
to turn your TV sets off, folks. You are not going to like what you
hear.
``His protectionism took the form of using government power,
government funds, government leverage and pushing these
things in one direction rather than another. Almost all of it had
protectionist overtones, albeit in the form of subsidies rather
than higher tariffs''. Where has that put us today?
Mr. Abbott: That is where the debt came from.
Mr. McClelland: It is a clue. The question is, where did the
debt come from? We have a clue here. We are narrowing in on
how we got a debt of $500 billion and how we are going into the
hole. This year alone the debate is $40 billion and $110 million
every single day.
It is debt we are putting on to our children, our grandchildren
and their children. Their standard of living is not going to be
nearly as good as ours because we have been living beyond our
means. It is immoral. It is not right. Our generation has to take
responsibility for that debt.
One of the things we have to do is recognize the window of
opportunity, change and get our economy back on track, get the
government back on track doing what government should do.
An hon. member: What should government do?
Mr. McClelland: That raises the question. What should
government do and what should the real role of government be
in a free economy? I would submit that it is a whole lot less than
we are doing today.
Let me give an example of the extension of what we started
with all the good ideas of Walter Gordon. They were well
meaning. He certainly did not get up the morning and say: ``How
can I wreck the country? Do you know what I would really like
to do? I would really like to make sure my great grandchildren
cannot afford to buy a car''. C.D. Howe did not say: ``We beat
the Germans but we are sure going to destroy our future
generations''. It just sort of happened but look what it has led to.
Transfer payments in the Department of Industry. Contributions
under technology for environmental solutions initiative, $10
million; contributions to defence industry productivity
programs, $158 million; contributions to Bombardier de
Havilland.
(1800)
It should not be called the department of industry; it should be
called the department of grants to Bombardier, de Havilland and
SNC-Lavalin.
Here is another one. It is over a number of years. It is
$143,682,285. It is a 1994-95 disbursement forecast for
contracts signed with SNC-Lavalin and subsidiaries for
geographic programs all over the world. The $143 million is
subsidized by little people earning 8, 10 or 12 bucks an hour.
David Lewis, a member of the New Democratic Party in this
House, Stephen's father, coined the phrase corporate welfare
bums. It is true there are corporate welfare bums. We have to
wean corporations away from the public trough. If we are stupid
enough to make it available they are going to be smart enough to
take it because it is their tax money as well.
What do we do? It is fairly simple, fairly straightforward. We
pay attention to what is going on in Alberta. There is no point in
going through the trials and tribulations of what is going on in
Alberta and not learning from it. The very least we can do is
6172
learn from what is going on in Alberta and carry that forward to
the whole country.
Government must reduce its intrusion into the marketplace
and get back to basics. Our job is to look after the infrastructure
of the country that cannot be looked after other than through the
national government. Above all, we should have in the
department of industry some kind of overriding mission
statement so that we can look at it every day and ask whether
what we intend to do or are trying to do fits with what our plan
should be. Do we have a goal? Do we have even clue one about
where we want to be at the end of the day? The first thing we
need is a mission statement.
I submit this might be a place to start to establish and maintain
a culture which rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and
research and which ensures a level, honest, competitive
marketplace. Nothing more, nothing less.
Business people in Canada do not want a free handout from
the government, but if we are stupid enough to give it to them
they are going to be smart enough to take it. It is up to us to say
no.
Therefore I would like to move a subamendment to the Bloc
amendment. I move:
That the amendment be amended by striking out the word ``Quebec's'' and
substituting the following therefor ``each province's'' and by deleting the word
``regional''.
The Deputy Speaker: I understand the subamendment of the
hon. member for Edmonton Southwest was seconded by the hon.
member for Okanagan Centre.
The subamendment has already been submitted to the Clerk
and has been found to be acceptable.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton
Southwest talked specifically about the grants that were
processed through the department of industry and mentioned a
few names. Most Canadians would realize that even though
three or four names were mentioned, thousands of small and
medium sized businesses across the country benefit from
support from Industry Canada.
I have a question for the member. He seems to have the point
of view that the notion of grants should be phased out or
eliminated. In the tax act of Canada there are tax expenditures in
the billions of dollars to the oil and gas sector of the country that
are the same as tax grants. Is the member suggesting that all tax
grants in the tax act of Canada be abolished?
(1805)
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
his very salient question. We cannot have one rule for one and a
different rule for everybody else. Then we would be hypocrites.
We must have one rule for everyone.
It is interesting we use the term grants which presupposes that
it is our money. If I have $10 and I want to give it to one of my
kids, that is a grant; but if I am taking somebody else's money
and giving it to someone else, that is a loan.
I will answer the member's question directly. I think we
should have a flat tax, yes. Without question we cannot have one
set of rules, for example, on depletion allowances and all the rest
of it. Income earned is income earned and we pay tax on it. Tax
points and tax credits are exactly the same as cash that does not
come in.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): You would abolish all
tax credits.
Mr. McClelland: Every one of them.
An hon. member: Right after you gave back the $70 billion
you took under the NEP.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, since
this amendment was proposed by the opposition, I would like to
know, for the benefit of the Official Opposition, what the hon.
member for Edmonton means by the terms ``each province'' and
by the word ``regional''. What do these two terms mean to him?
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the principle
of the amendment, what is good for the goose is good for the
gander. We are talking about the country as a whole, not just
about Quebec. If it makes sense for Quebec it makes sense for
everyone.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member's speech was very eloquent and very
interesting. He indicated the requirement that all grants be
reduced or eliminated to all businesses, et cetera. If all such
moneys are eliminated I take it there would be an elimination of
moneys and benefits to everyone, not just corporations across
the board.
Could the hon. member indicate whether the elimination of
benefits to corporations are any different from the elimination
of tax benefits such as RRSPs to individuals?
Mr. McClelland: Yes, of course they are. They are entirely
different. When we talk about eliminating grants to businesses
which artificially change the marketplace and allow the
government in its wisdom or lack thereof to pick winners and
losers, it is entirely different from our fiduciary responsibility
as citizens to look after those who are not able to look after
themselves. We are talking about individuals who need help, not
corporations that want help.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest. Given his proposal, how does he intend to reestab-
6173
lish a balance between rich areas and underprivileged areas with
high unemployment if the government does not do anything?
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, if the solution implied in my
hon. colleague's question is that regional economic expansion is
key to preventing and eliminating regional disparity in the
country or in any other country, for that matter, I would send the
question back by saying that we have been sending scads of
money to depressed areas of the country for years. Has it
changed anything? I submit it has not.
I would also submit there is a situation that parallels the one
we are talking about between the northern and the southern
states of the United States.
(1810 )
The fastest growing economic area in North America today is
the southern states. For years they were depressed. Gradually
over time their economies were such that their labour rates and
the cost of housing were lower. They had a highly motivated
workforce and businesses started to invest in that area. Now it is
booming.
If trying to eliminate disparities in Canada by taking money
from a wealthier area and transmitting it through business to a
less favoured area works, we would not have a problem today.
However we do. The statistics quoted by my hon. colleague from
Yellowhead indicated that nothing has changed after years of
sending money to these various areas through ACOA, FORD-Q,
DREE and all such things.
We are in exactly the same situation except we are in the hole
by $500 billion. Even if we wanted to, we cannot afford it any
more. We are creating and perpetuating dependency. We have to
look for new solutions.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I join many of my colleagues on this
side of the House in supporting the establishment of a
Department of Industry and I hope that this support will be
unanimous. This new department will give Canada and
Canadians the new tools they need to help them create jobs and
build a more secure future.
However, before we go any further, I think that we have to
take into consideration the history of our country. We can
always think of the first settlers who were supported by the
church or by people who were put there to help them develop an
area-in my case it was the Gaspé Peninsula-and that is how
Quebec and Canada were built.
There is always some degree of co-operation between the
various elements of our society in any area, whether it be
industry, education or, of course, the public service. But since
then, since the 17th and 18th centuries, there was Confederation
in 1867 and the National Policy was established under Sir John
A. Macdonald. It was a very ambitious plan. It all started with
the construction of the railway better known today as CN and
VIA Rail. This great project to link our country from east to west
did not go unnoticed in other parts of the world.
It was undertaken to give some impetus to the Canadian
economy, but it could not have been done without the support of
governments, without money being spent on the construction of
this trans-Canada railway. Indeed, if we look at the debates held
in 1867 in this House, we will see that there have always been
critics of this avant-garde vision of the federal government at
that time. But by developing the railway, that government
believed that it was giving itself the means to develop this
country. The resources were developed afterwards; then, thanks
to the railway, Western Canada was populated, as well as
Ontario and part of Quebec. Links were made between these new
provinces, and this marked the beginning of the Canadian
federation.
This is a primary example of a massive intervention by the
federal government, but in consultation and co-operation with
business interests and also with provincial governments.
(1815)
Then came the first world war. Once again we found some
unanimity, a will to fight for our rights, for our country, but still
in a spirit of generalized co-operation. The same thing
happened at the time of the Second World War when, over a
period of five or six years, our industry, with government
support, went from a third-rate position to making Canada the
third or fourth greatest economic power of the time.
As you know, before 1945, before the war, over 45 per cent of
the Canadian population was rural. After the war years, Canada
became an industrial power. We went through an urbanization
phase with people leaving rural areas to settle in the city. After
the war and initiatives like the Victory Loan Bonds to raise
money, the government took the same approach. After six years
of substantial interest rates, Canadians were able to invest in
their country's own economy because they had faith in it. They
bought into Canada.
In 1945, 1946, and 1947, we were in a position to implement a
demilitarization policy to foster an economy based on consumer
spending. We became a consumer society, but that did not
happen without the help, involvement and commitment of the
federal government.
My colleague opposite mentioned C. D. Howe, who
master-minded Canadian industrial development in those years,
and Walter Gordon. They were men of vision who laid the
foundation of the Canadian society as we know it. Those
developments should be seen in their historical context so we
can better
6174
explain the goal of the present government in revitalizing the
Canadian industry as we enter the next century.
The 1950s came. You know that those years are often called
the dark ages in Quebec. The province was ruled by the Union
nationale, under Duplessis. Quebec was undergoing changes,
but changes similar to those outside Canada.
We then had the Quiet Revolution which, obviously, met
many Quebecers' aspirations. We should never forget that the
Quiet Revolution took place under a Liberal government, within
the Canadian context and the Canadian federation. We were able
to show Quebecers that federalism is a flexible and generous
system which fulfils the deep-rooted aspirations of all
Canadians.
During the 1960s, new schools were built. University
education was popularized and made accessible to all
Quebecers. Of course, we must not forget that education-as is
the case today-was financed in large part by the federal
government. Never did the federal government dare intervene in
this quiet revolution, never did the federal government dare
hinder the material progress, the economic progress of all
Quebecers. This fact must be recognized.
In the late 1960s, more specifically in 1966, the people
elected another Union Nationale government which claimed
that the premier of the day, Jean Lesage, went too fast for
Quebec. We must not forget either that Jean Lesage served as a
minister in the federal government in the 1950s. Surely, he must
have borrowed some ideas and solutions from his colleagues
from Ontario and the Maritimes. I believe we must
recognize-and I think that many researchers and specialists
interested in Jean Lesage do recognize-that Jean Lesage's
tenure in Ottawa served him well in developing Quebec as we
know it today.
(1820)
That being said, more progress was made in the 1970s. In
those days, we believed more and more in the welfare state. It is
not a concept exclusive to Quebec or Canada, but a concept also
known in Germany, Scandinavia, France and even England. The
purpose of the welfare state is to make sure that everybody's
interests, not only the interests of financiers, or people from
Montreal and Quebec City, are taken into account.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order please. We
are supposed to be talking to Bill C-46, the Act to establish the
Department of Industry, tabled pursuant to decisions made in
91-92 by Mrs. Campbell, former Prime Minister of Canada.
Instead we are being given a history lecture which goes back
to the Jesuits, the Quiet Revolution and the Plains of Abraham.
We will talk about that during the upcoming referendum
campaign. Then we will give classes in Canadian history. But
for now, we should be talking about this Department of Industry
Act and the member for Bonaventure-îles-de-la-Madeleine is
completely off the subject.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to thank the member. He is
right, according to Standing Orders, comments should be related
to the matter at hand. As the member, I fail to see the relevance
of the comments. However, since my nomination here, I have
noticed that few people abide by that rule.
Therefore, the parliamentary secretary has the floor once
again.
Mr. Gagnon: As a Quebecer, as a younger member, Mr.
Speaker-
Mr. Rocheleau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If he wants
to go on with the lecture, I hope the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will not forget the
October Crisis.
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to deal with that
issue. I find it unfortunate that we often have weird-minded
historians. In order to understand today's society-and I
challenge the Bloc Quebecois on this-we must fully
understand its history, we must be very clear on our intentions to
explain history, because it is through history that we can explain
to the people the situation as we know it today. Nobody can
disagree with me on some historical issues that I have raised,
and I want to say this to you: Ask Europeans, Asians,
Americans, and they will all tell you that Canada is a resounding
success.
French Canadians were able to overcome their difficulties
when they first arrived in New France and established their own
community. These French Canadians became part of the larger
Canadian family, thanks to newcomers, Eastern Europeans,
English-speaking people, even people from the United States,
from Europe, Asian people who are coming to this country,
because they are well aware that Canada is a country of freedom,
of progress, a good place to live.
That is why I demand that we take into account the historical
value of industry, but also the history of Canada, which
somewhat explains this bill and the objective of this
government.
Of course, industry is important. We are entering the 21st
century and I believe that we must prepare ourselves
accordingly. But instead of telling you about history, I will tell
you about global reality. I know that it is an issue which deeply
concerns members of the opposition parties.
The Prime Minister of Canada is setting up Team Canada. We
had a hockey team called Team Canada and we were very
successful. Now, we are going to have an industrial and
economic Team Canada whose mandate will be to create new
markets for all Canadians. Besides, as you know, we even asked
the newly elected Premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, to be part of
the team, because what we are trying to do is make sure we get
the contracts and ensure sustainable economic development for
all Canadians. This is what we must kept in mind.
6175
(1825)
Again, why China, why go to China, why are Canadians so
welcome in China? I want to know. I bet that some of you never
heard of Dr. Bethune, a Montrealer, a Quebecer who did a lot for
China during the 1949 revolution. It is because we have built ties
with that country as with others.
By creating this department, we are saying that there are
changes, that we are increasingly recognizing that 80 percent of
the jobs today are created by small businesses. We know that we
have invested in megaprojects in the past, at both the federal and
provincial levels. This was a joint endeavour. Quebec invested
in James Bay. In Montreal, there were substantial municipal
investments in the Metro. There were also large investments in
regional economic development, but I will come back to that.
We must recognize that industrial development requires close
co-operation between governments and companies in order to
make Canadians more competitive on the eve of the 21st
century. As you know, Canadians, Quebecers, the Western
World in general, are faced with extremely strong, well
organized competition. Look at the seven small tigers. Who had
heard of Singapore ten years ago? Who would have thought
twenty years ago that South Korea would rise to the point it is
now? Who talked about Taiwan? Who would have imagined
China as a competitor? Who could have predicted the fall of the
Berlin wall?
We have lived through tremendous changes these past few
years. Free enterprise won over the tyrannic powers of the world
without a fight. Changes are occurring and I believe that this
reorganization of Industry Canada will take them into account.
Although the opposition was saying that we were still in the
1960s, I believe they are sticking to a nationalistic view which,
in my opinion, does not represent the real aspirations of
Quebecers and Canadians who want jobs.
With the new Department of Industry and the help of new
technologies, we will be able to steer small businesses towards
new markets. Our advantage is that Canada is a well-known
entity. When you go to your banker to ask for a loan, he wants to
know your past history, he wants to know if you have a good
credit rating. Do you have any business experience? Do you
have any experience in your present field of endeavour? Do you
have resources-In any case, I am grateful to the members of the
opposition for talking a little bit about the natural resources of
this country. It is important for investors, it is important to
realize that Canada possesses not only natural resources but also
a qualified population to meet challenges.
The basic role of Industry Canada is to bring together those
various participants of the federal government and to improve
planning.
As you know-I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I only have one
minute left although I could have spoken for half an
hour-history is important in order to better explain to the
opposition and enlighten it on the real issues that all Canadians
expect to come to the fore: job creation, close co-operation, and
not the upheaval or modification of a well-known system.
There will be a referendum in Quebec and I can assure you
federalism will not be put on trial. It will be our task to explain
to you, loud and clear, the essence of federalism as we all know
it today.
_____________________________________________
6175
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1830)
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I have often
mentioned in the House the dramatic situation in Rwanda.
Among other things I asked the government to help the
thousands of Rwandan refugees. On June 13, I asked the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration a question concerning the case of Léon Mugesera,
a Rwandan national who came to Canada in 1993 and who some
believe is responsible for slaughters that have taken place in
Rwanda. The Quebec association of Rwandan immigrants has
made very serious allegations to this effect.
The parliamentary secretary told me that Immigration Canada
was conducting an investigation into this case. I hope the
investigation results will be made public today.
[English]
The situation is still extremely difficult in Rwanda. The UN
High Commissioner for Refugees has denounced the massacres
perpetrated by the Rwandan Patriotic Army. These massacres
have resulted in the deaths and maimings of thousands of
Rwandans. The refugee camps in Ngara, Tanzania are full of
Rwandans. Half a million Rwandans have been massacred. Over
two million Rwandans are refugees in Zaire, Uganda and
Burundi. Unfortunately the genocide of the Rwandan people is
not yet over. Many relatives of the victims live in Canada.
Through humanitarian action Canada has tried to do its part.
However concerning the level of acceptance of Rwandan
refugees into Canada, the actions of the Canadian government
are still very insufficient. Only 96 refugee status claims have
been referred between January 1 and June 30, 1994 of which the
majority, 63, have been in Quebec. However the majority of the
accepted cases were students who had already been in Canada.
6176
There is no special program to receive Rwandan refugees, as
was the case for the former Yugoslavia and for other countries.
Our country must be more generous with regard to the Rwandan
victims and those being persecuted. A lot of criticism has been
expressed regarding the embassy at Nairobi; many Rwandan
refugees are not even able to put forward a visa application
there.
[Translation]
I wish to thank the Canadian NGOs for their excellent job in
helping the people of Rwanda, including the following
organizations from Quebec: YMCA, Oxfam Québec, Catholic
Organization for Development and Peace, as well as several
religious communities, particularly the Jesuits. I also want to
underline the great job done by the four
organizations-Proveda, Oxfam, CECI and Amitié
Rwanda-Canada-which created Urgence Canada-Rwanda and
contributed generously to the more than four million dollars in
humanitarian aid collected in Québec.
Development and Peace alone already collected $1,800,000 to
finance emergency relief programs. From now on, the
government of Canada, particularly through CIDA, and the
NGOs should direct their efforts to encouraging the safe return
of the refugees who presently live in inhumane conditions in
neighbouring countries. They should encourage national
reconciliation programs in Rwanda and give strong support to
the democratization process in that country devastated by civil
war.
I want to reiterate my solidarity with the people and the
victims of the tragedy in Rwanda.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for his comments and give a very brief
response, as the member's statement did not relate specifically
to the question he had asked at the time.
As we all know, the situation in Rwanda has been in turmoil
for months. The world watched horrified as thousands were
butchered, most of them Tutsis targeted by Hutu rivals. Now
there are reports of Hutus being tracked down by vengeful
Tutsis. In such a situation it is obviously very, very difficult to
operate under the normal conditions of the immigration and
refugee process. There is no question that Canada is deeply
concerned.
The hon. member asks us to see the peaceful relocation or
return to their homes of those who are in neighbouring
countries. That may or may not as yet be possible because of the
turmoil and difficulties. As he says, a great many of the refugees
or those who would be refugees to Canada are not able to get to
the Canadian offices in Zaire or neighbouring countries. There
is the problem that there are dangers for Canadian personnel as
well.
The situation is extremely tumultuous. The minister and the
government are looking at it very closely. We are very aware of
our humanitarian duties and will carry them out as best we can.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn is now deemed to have been adopted. This
House stand adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)