CONTENTS
Thursday November 3, 1994
Bill C-50. Report stage. 7595
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 36; Nays, 159. 7595
Motion No. 4 negatived on division: Yeas, 73; Nays, 127 7596
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 6; Nays, 195. 7597
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 45; Nays, 157. 7598
Motion for concurrence 7600
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 157; Nays, 45 7600
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 7601
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7603
Motion for concurrence in 46th report 7604
Motion moved and agreed to 7604
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 7605
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7605
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7605
Bill C-38. Motion for second reading 7605
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.) 7605
Motion for concurrence agreed to 7606
Bill C-50. Motion for third reading 7606
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7607
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 7619
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of second readingmotion. 7619
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 7625
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 7629
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 7630
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 7632
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 7633
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 7635
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 7635
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and amendment 7636
Vote on motion deferred 7643
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 7644
Division on motion deferred 7652
Bill C-54. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 7652
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7655
Division on motion deferred 7658
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 7668
7595
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday November 3, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 2 consideration of Bill
C-50, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred divisions on the motions at the report stage of Bill
C-50, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The first division is on Motion No. 1.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 100)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bouchard
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-36
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chan
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
7596
Wood
Young
Zed-159
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Deshaies
Discepola
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gray (Windsor West)
Guimond
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
McWhinney
Peterson
Plamondon
Serré
St. Denis
Walker
(1035)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 negatived.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 4.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 101)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bouchard
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-73
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-127
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Deshaies
Discepola
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gray (Windsor West)
Guimond
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
McWhinney
Peterson
Plamondon
Serré
St. Denis
Walker
7597
(1045)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 102)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Blaikie
Riis
Solomon
Taylor-6
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fillion
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guarnieri
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marchi
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mercier
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Wappel
Wells
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-195
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Deshaies
Discepola
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gray (Windsor West)
Guimond
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
McWhinney
Peterson
Plamondon
Serré
St. Denis
Walker
7598
(1050)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
(The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 103)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Blaikie
Bouchard
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Riis
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-45
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chan
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Wappel
Wells
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-157
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Deshaies
Discepola
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gray (Windsor West)
Guimond
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
McWhinney
Peterson
Plamondon
Serré
St. Denis
Walker
(1100)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion negatived.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
you would find the House would give its consent to apply the
vote taken on Motion No. 4 to Motion No. 3, save and except that
7599
I think a member of the New Democratic Party may make a
small alteration to that for the purposes of his colleagues.
Mr. Taylor: Mr, Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the
New Democratic Party, I concur that we would accept the
application of the vote taken on Motion No. 4 to Motion No. 3
that is before us.
We would like yes votes to apply to the members for
Kamloops, Winnipeg Transcona, Mackenzie, The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake, Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, and
Regina-Lumsden.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 104)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Blaikie
Bouchard
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-79
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-121
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Deshaies
Discepola
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gray (Windsor West)
Guimond
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
McWhinney
Peterson
Plamondon
Serré
St. Denis
Walker
7600
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred
in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder
if the House would agree to take the vote on Motion No. 5 and
apply it in reverse to this motion. I think you would find the
result is identical.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 105)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chan
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Wappel
Wells
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-157
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Blaikie
Bouchard
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Riis
7601
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-45
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Deshaies
Discepola
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gray (Windsor West)
Guimond
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
McWhinney
Peterson
Plamondon
Serré
St. Denis
Walker
(1110 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of
the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear your question; I
wonder if you could go back to it. Did you ask when shall the bill
be read a third time, and what was the answer?
I ask that with consent it be later this day. I did not hear you
ask the question because of the noise. I think you would find
consent of the House to have the third reading of the bill later
this day.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have the
bill read a third time later today?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is objection to the third reading
of the bill today.
_____________________________________________
7601
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a
number of order in council appointments which were 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.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, six months after historic
elections in South Africa, I am taking this moment to speak
about the government's interim and new program which Canada
is beginning to implement in South Africa.
As members know, Canada has a long and honourable
tradition of support to the people of South Africa. What a joy it
was for those of us Canadians who were privileged to participate
in the election process of April and May.
[Translation]
However, South Africa needs constant support if it is to
successfully emerge as a democratic society, prosper
economically, and develop the potential of its population as a
whole.
The transition from apartheid and conflicts to reconciliation
and rebuilding will bring new challenges.
[English]
I am presenting to the House today an outline of Canada's new
three-year bilateral program with an allocation of up to $20
million for the next fiscal year.
In the past resources from the Canadian International
Development Agency as well as from Canadian NGOs,
churches, academia, businesses, professional groups and unions
have been critical in facilitating the heroic strides of the South
African people toward a more democratic society.
For a number of years we have worked with South African
groups disadvantaged by apartheid to lay the basis for their
involvement in their country's affairs.
(1115 )
CIDA has extended its special South Africa fund. This fund
will next year make available $2.5 million to Canadian
organizations which have already established strong linkages
with partners in South Africa.
With the end of apartheid and the inauguration of Nelson
Mandela as president, the Canadian government has acted
promptly to re-establish bilateral relations in a number of areas.
We have extended the general preferential tariff to South Africa.
A Canadian trade office was opened in Johannesburg in
February 1994 during a visit by the Minister for International
Trade.
Subsequently Canadian exports to South Africa for the first
six months of the year were about 75 per cent higher than they
were for the same period last year. A significant portion of these
exports is in the form of manufactured and high technology
Canadian products.
7602
Throughout the transition period there has been a strong level
of interest in Canadian models of government and experiences.
This interest continues.
In July of this year the South African minister of
constitutional development led a high level delegation of
ministers, MPs and academics to study our system. This week
another group of South African public servants is visiting
Canada to acquaint themselves with how we develop our foreign
policy.
[Translation]
Moreover, South Africa asked for and was given advice on
various issues, especially on the refugee status claims
processing system it is setting up. Canada offered to help South
Africa become an active member of several multilateral
organizations.
[English]
For our efforts and our expertise Canada has been singled out.
On September 1 South Africa's minister of arts, culture, science
and technology, Dr. B.S. Ngubane, speaking in his country's
Parliament acknowledged the contribution through Canada's
International Development Research Centre to the creation of a
science and technology initiative.
The government has made a commitment to open the process
of foreign policy making to all Canadians. In May of this year
we held a major consultation in Ottawa and invited
representatives of academia, the business community, church
groups, unions and developmental non-government
organizations to discuss priorities for the new South Africa.
Their input has been vital in establishing the four key priorities
for the next three years in South Africa.
The first priority is governance. We will continue with our
$10 million public service policy project funded by CIDA and
managed by the International Development Research Centre. In
addition we will begin more intensive training of senior civil
servants and government officials from among groups
previously excluded from top government positions.
[Translation]
The second priority is human resource training to improve the
education sector and correct the past injustices of apartheid. As
we all know, it is critical to raise the general skill level of the
population. To work efficiently, a society needs a more open and
tolerant political culture.
[English]
Third, we will have strengthened civil society. With the
transition to a new government many of the old organizations
which were organized around resistance now need to transform
themselves into bodies which can represent their constituents in
a more peaceful but effective manner. We will support them in
making this transition.
The fourth priority will emphasize economic growth in South
Africa with a particular focus on the participation of black
business people in various sectors of the economy as well as the
consolidation of Canadian linkages.
We believe that linking our four priorities with the help of all
our Canadian partners is the only way Canada can ensure
coherent, broad based development which will promote
enduring peace and security in South Africa. We need to protect
and nourish the South African beacon of hope on the African
continent for the sake of all on that continent.
I thank all Canadians for their collaboration in this process.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of all the Bloc members, I am pleased to speak on the
issue of South Africa. The Secretary of State is giving us this
opportunity, this morning, with her outline of the new interim
program Canada is beginning to implement in that country. We
must welcome this new Canadian commitment very favourably.
Indeed, South Africa needs the constant support of the
international community to be able to pursue successfully its
democratization process.
(1120)
As I mentioned in this House on April 26, while for the first
time, Blacks in all the villages, towns and cities of South Africa
were starting to vote in order to elect representatives, as
parliamentarians, we cannot remain indifferent to the testimony
of an elderly citizen who told us: ``Now that I have voted for the
first time in my life, I can die''.
As indicated by the Secretary of State, governance, human
resources training, strengthening the civil society, and
economic growth in South Africa seem to be well-targeted
priorities. We are confident that they will make it possible to
sustain coherent development, which will bolster lasting peace
and social justice.
This three-year $20 million program is very timely. We
believe that Canada, in addition to its foreign aid action and its
remarkable involvement in UN peacekeeping, must make the
promotion of human rights and democracy one of the key areas,
if not the cornerstone of its foreign policy.
Canada's recent turnaround on this fundamental issue does
not augur well. If the Secretary of State is as concerned about
promoting democracy as she would have us believe this
morning, can she tell us what she really thinks of her
government's drastic change of direction on this issue, a change
which is far from identifying democracy and human rights as
one of the main elements shaping Canada's foreign policy?
7603
I want to take the opportunity given to us this morning to call
upon the Secretary of State to intervene. Her government's lack
of leadership on the issue of human rights is an outright shame. I
urge her to ask her Prime Minister not to renege on Canada's
international commitments such as those made at the 1989
Dakar Francophone Summit, where the 42 French-speaking
countries passed a Canadian resolution to give basic objective
status to the protection of human rights in the international
community.
Indeed, respect of individual rights was confirmed as a
determining factor in the granting of international assistance at
the 1991 Commonwealth Summit in Zimbabwe. So, on behalf of
the thousands of Chinese people who have been left to rot in
prison unjustly, I call upon her, I urge her to ask her Prime
Minister to raise publicly the issue of human rights violation
during his visit to China. It is her duty to do so, unless she too is
afraid that Canada will be laughed at.
But the example of South Africa speaks for itself. This shift
the government is making will unfortunately cause the issue of
human rights to be discussed behind the scenes, to humour
certain nations, particularly potential commercial channels for
Canada. We suggest that Canadian action should be consistent.
Canada should have the courage of its convictions if it hopes to
be respected and to maintain its credibility around the world.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. Secretary of State for African and
Central American Affairs for recognizing the need of South
Africa and continuing the longstanding relationship that our
countries have had.
Having spent time working and travelling in the country, I am
always struck by the enormous amount of potential that the
country has both in terms of human and material resources. It
can be the powerhouse that drives the whole southern half of a
continent, a continent tragically that is littered with the
carcasses of countries in various states of economic and
political ruin.
The end of apartheid done so admirably by the country and
with such extraordinary restraint is a resolution to only one-half
of their problem. The other half, perhaps the more difficult one,
still faces them. This is where our country can have an
extraordinary effect.
We must do this given the constraints of the economic woes
that we have within our own country.
(1125 )
The trick of course will be for the South African government
to guide its country through the mine field of economic and
societal problems that face it toward a productive, vibrant
economy that is safe and peaceful, a society where everybody
has equal rights under the law, a society where everybody has
the opportunity to achieve their greatest potential.
We must do this to ensure that South Africa does not wind up on
the tragic heap of African countries that have fallen to such a
state of disrepair and I am optimistic that South Africa will not
be one of them.
I have some questions for the hon. member. I see no amount as
to the total amount of the aid package which will be given. This
must be known. I would like to know exactly what projects are
going to be funded and on behalf of the taxpayer request that
accountability be set into the system.
I would also like to know exactly where these dollars are
going in order to ensure that they are going to go to the people
intended. I would encourage the member to involve a review
process of the project so that we can assess and determine
whether the moneys that we are spending are going to help the
people who truly need them.
However, if I can synthesize the major problem that affects
South Africa in its near natal stage, in its new South Africa, it
will be the income disparity that exists between whites and
blacks. This disparity and the extraordinary high expectations
that have come post-election and how the government deals
with this will be an incredibly important determining factor in
the success or failure of the new South Africa.
Under the yoke of apartheid and through the sanctions, there
have been bred at least two generations of people without
money, without jobs and without hope which in turn has bred an
extraordinarily high level of violence and many areas of siege
mentality.
These expectations are asking for immediate gratification,
expectations that unfortunately cannot be met in the short term.
The cure for this lies in real sustainable jobs for the future which
will provide the people with the funds to produce the necessities
for life, education, good health and food and provide the tax
structure and tax base that the government can utilize to provide
for the infrastructure required.
It will also provide for a vibrant middle class, especially
among the poor black populace. This is exceptionally important
and cannot be underestimated. It will help to make the transition
from the era of apartheid to a new South Africa one that is
coherent and one that will be moving in the future for safety and
prosperity for all.
I would however encourage our government and the
Government of South Africa to listen to the following. Income
distribution does not involve soaking the rich. It will be
ineffective and counterproductive and will only drive out the
skilled business sector and be counterproductive to those people
who are meant to help.
7604
It is only by retaining these skills and the goodwill of the
business sector that help will be provided for the larger, broader
poor and essentially the black population and enable them to
improve their living standard.
It is important also for South Africa to encourage foreign
investment and foreign investment from lending institutions.
We must avoid quick social fixes because they do not work.
Social reform is imperative with education and primary
health care and widely accessible birth control and public
housing being at the top of the list. This cannot come at the
expense of a free market economy but must occur in tandem.
In 1993 the government developed a $12 billion deficit. It
must learn from our mistakes and not continue to spend in a
deficit fashion. What it does is this. We know from our own
sorry experience that it only seeks to compromise the very social
programs and services that we hope to provide as governments.
It must also avoid greater government intervention. It is as we
know a country that has an extraordinary amount of government
intervention in its private sector. We must help it as a country to
move away from that. We must therefore encourage its people to
move toward privatization. We must also encourage the drop in
tariff barriers and decrease the tariffs according to GATT.
Canada can indeed help this and I applaud the government in
extension of the general preferential tariff. I would encourage it
to remove as soon as possible the double taxation system that
exists for companies that wish to invest in South Africa. This
will go a long way toward helping our companies as well as their
country toward a more productive, economic discourse between
our two countries.
South Africa in essence needs trade, not aid, and the
liberalization of trade between our two countries is of greatest
importance.
(1130 )
I will conclude by saying that what has happened in that
country has been truly extraordinary, the move by themselves
away from apartheid with extraordinary divisions among the
people and doing it in a peaceful fashion to move toward an era
of hope and prosperity for all. I hope our country will enable
them to do this within the constraints of our country's economic
woes. I hope the hon. member will provide the information I
asked for on the aid package that has been given.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 46th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Health.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent of
the House to dispense with the reading of the 46th report of the
standing committee. I move that the 46th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That the name of the following member be deleted from the list of associate
members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Mr.
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing); and that the name of the following
member be added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs: Mr. Solomon.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many Canadians
asking Parliament to 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 that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
This petition is signed by Ontario residents from Cobden,
Kitchener, Haleys Station, Pembroke, Eganville, and CFB
Borden, Mississauga, Chalk River, Calabogie, Bancroft and also
from Low, Quebec.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to present a petition signed by over 5,000 people from the
riding of York North and throughout the greater Toronto area in
response to the murder of Brian Baylen, an employee in the town
of Richmond Hill.
The petition calls for amendments to the Young Offenders
Act. The petition urges the government to allow more realistic
maximum penalties for violent crimes, to redefine the term
young persons and reform sentencing in the Young Offenders
Act.
I thank the residents of York North and in particular Susan
Chase, a constituent of York North who made such great efforts
to bring these concerns to the attention of Parliament. I
personally will undertake to bring this petition to the attention
of the Minister of Justice.
7605
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present a petition on behalf of Jo Congdon and 50 others
in which the 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 of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
(1135 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my responsibility today to present two petitions. The first
petition is signed by 416 people from the riding of Calgary West
and mainly other parts of the city of Calgary.
It asks that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the
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 code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from 135 electors also mainly in Calgary
West and other parts of the city of Calgary.
This petition asks that Parliament continue to reject
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada, that the
present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code of
Canada which forbids the counselling, procuring, aiding or
abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced vigorously
and that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that
would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions on behalf
of 185 constituents.
In the first petition I would like to draw the attention of the
House to the inadequacies of the Young Offenders Act. The
petitioners are requesting that a complete and thorough review
of existing legislation take place particularly aimed at changes
to sentencing length on repeat offenders.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition would like to draw the attention of
the House to the issue of sexual orientation.
My constituents are requesting that Parliament not amend the
human rights code or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the
attention of the House that Question No. 47 on the Order Paper
has been there now for some 200 days. I would like to ask the
government when we might expect an answer to that question.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I regret that there has been some
delay in replying to some of the questions on the Order Paper.
The particular question to which the hon. member refers is
one to which I have received a partial answer. Because the
answer was incomplete I sent it back to the various departments
requesting that a complete and full answer be furnished for the
hon. member.
I do not know whether that request will be answered fully or
not. However, when I receive further replies from the
departments I will bring the answer I have to the House and
make it available to the hon. member by depositing it in the
House. If there is a further question of course he may want to ask
it at that time.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all the questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that,
because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended by 15 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b).
_____________________________________________
7605
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-38, an act
to provide for the security of marine transportation, as reported
(with amendments) from the committee.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for the Minister of Transport)
moved that the bill, amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
7606
Mr. Robichaud (for the Minister of Transport) moved that
the bill be read the second time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.)
(1140 )
The Deputy Speaker: This is a new procedure, colleagues,
which is why we have confusion up here.
Mr. Fontana: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. You alluded to the
fact that it was a new procedure with respect to Bill C-38. I do
want to thank all members of the House who worked on this bill
at the standing committee for their co-operation. That is why
this bill is moving so positively through the House. I convey that
message of thanks to all members of all parties.
Mr. Milliken: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you would
find unanimous consent to proceed with third reading of Bill
C-50 at this time. If that could be the next item of business
called, I think it would be appropriate.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
with third reading of Bill C-50 at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.) moved that Bill
C-50, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read
the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, grain production in Canada has never
been a static industry. From the time wheat was first introduced
to Western Canada in 1812 by the Selkirk Settlers in Manitoba's
Red River Valley, the crop has been in a state of change. It has
been adapted and improved to meet the needs of producers and
consumers. Producers are always looking for improvements in
qualities such as plant vigour, early maturity, resistance to
shatter and resistance to rust. Consumers, in turn, look for the
qualities they need to use the product in a variety of ways.
Here in Canada, we have been successful in breeding new
crop varieties to meet these changing needs. Since the early
1930s, over 600 new crop varieties have been introduced.
Canada has set international standards for quality with the wheat
and barley we have developed. Still, as the needs of consumers
and producers have become more finely focused, more
sophisticated plant-breeding techniques have become
necessary. While our research scientists may find varieties
which fill our current needs, we cannot afford to rest on our past
successes. Our grain crops must be able to adapt to the
requirements of an ever-changing world.
For producers, it is important that the crops grow efficiently
with excellent field performance.
(1145)
From an environmental standpoint, this means high-yielding
crops so we can free land resources for other uses. It also means
crops which require reduced amounts of pesticides, fertilizers
and other chemicals to reach their maximum potential.
The results of continued research allow prairie farmers to
effectively produce the grain crops our customers demand. The
need for this research comes from our industry and from
producers. Grain growers across the prairies have told the
minister that they want to play an important role in research
since the results of research directly affect their operations and
their livelihood.
This is why the Minister of Agriculture recommends
amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow voluntary
levies to be deducted for the express purpose of supporting plant
breeding research. An amendment is necessary since such
deductions are not possible under the existing Canadian Wheat
Board Act.
This check-off program has been developed in close
consultation with the 12 prairie farm organizations that make up
the Western Grains Research Foundation. These supporters
include the United Grain Growers, Western Canadian Wheat
Growers Association, Manitoba Pool Elevators, Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool, Alberta Wheat Pool, Prairie Canola Growers
Council, Flax Growers Western Canada, Keystone Agricultural
Producers, Western Barley Growers Association, Oat Producers
Association of Alberta, Canadian Seed Growers Association and
Unifarm. Scientists from universities and from the department
have also participated in planning this program.
With the passage of Bill C-50, research funds would be
generated through voluntary levies on wheat and barley sales.
The proposed check-off program would apply a voluntary
levy of 20 cents a tonne on wheat and 40 cents a tonne on barley.
It is anticipated that this would generate about $4.7 million
annually in funds to be applied directly to wheat and barley plant
breeding research. This would be in addition to the over $21.5
million on wheat research in the 1993-94 crop year and a further
$8 million on barley research which this government is already
committed to.
Levies would be applied to producers' final payment cheques
from the Canadian Wheat Board and placed in a special account.
Funds from this account would be transferred to the Western
Grains Research Foundation (WGRF), which will administer the
research funding program. It is important to note that in
maintaining our fiscal responsibility to all Canadians, this new
program will create no new agency, institution or bureaucracy.
This means that more producer dollars will go to research.
7607
(1150)
The administrative structure already in place at the Canadian
Wheat Board would be used to collect the levy and a proven
producer-driven research funding agency would distribute the
funds. Total incremental administrative costs associated with
this program are estimated to be in the range of 2 per cent of total
levies collected.
By using structures already in place, we would be able to
maximize producers' investments in research. The Foundation
will report to all CWB permit book-holders so that they can see
whether it is using their funds wisely. In a sense, the ultimate
accountability of this program is that it is voluntary.
If a CWB permit book-holder does not agree with what the
Western Grains Research Foundation is doing, he can withdraw
from the program. The Foundation needs to demonstrate to
producers that it is using their funds wisely, in order to maintain
their support. At this point, I should add that the WGRF, a
federally chartered public organization, has a proven track
record in supporting effective pure research.
The importance of the investments made by our grain
producers in research cannot be overestimated. This research
has the potential to increase yields by 15 per cent, which could
translate into additional gross earnings of $400 million a year
for western grain farmers. This $400 million is not hyperbole,
especially when you consider that a one-bushel-per-acre
increase in wheat yields in Western Canada at today's prices
would increase revenues by $100 million.
This program will help Canada remain competitive in the
international market and help us maintain our position with
other exporters. Just as important, research like this will help
further the development of value-added products in the grains
sectors. I mentioned earlier the increased income of potential
international customers. It is these value-added products which
will give us a distinct advantage when we are dealing with these
customers, and it is research which will give Canada an
advantage in developing new products.
This initiative is an excellent example of industry taking the
lead in research funding. It also illustrates this government's
willingness to address needs Canadians themselves have
identified and to form strong partnerships for the good of all
Canadians. With producers and government working together,
all Canadians will share in the benefits of this program. I
therefore recommend that the House approve Bill C-50,
amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow voluntary
levies to be deducted in support of this important research
program.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
the outset I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague
from Beauséjour, the Secretary of State for Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans, for his great history lesson
on the development of Western Canada.
He traced its evolution from 1812 through the dark years of
the economic crisis in the 1930s to the subsequent development
of 600 new wheat varieties.
(1155)
We are participating in this afternoon's third reading of Bill
C-50 in the light of the discussions held and the amendments
debated a little earlier this week. I doubt we will learn anything
new today. We covered all the bases and I am still convinced that
this bill could be improved.
This bill amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act did not in
the end give rise to a great debate. There was a good exchange of
ideas but nothing revolutionary, although it is unusual to see the
producers themselves propose that deductions be made from
their earnings in order to finance wheat and barley research.
This initiative of Western farmers deserves to be encouraged
and commended.
I remember that former Liberal Minister of Agriculture
Eugene Whelan-who left his mark, as all parliamentarians will
agree-once told us that every dollar invested in agricultural
research and development brings in $7. This is an investment
that even you would not hesitate to make, if you could lend your
money to a bank in return for a 700 per cent profit.
At the very beginning of the process involving this bill, we
had an informal meeting with senior officials from Agriculture
Canada. They explained to us that this bill was based on an
initiative of Western grain producers. Of course, my colleague
from Beauséjour insisted several times that the amendment to
the Canadian Wheat Board Act was a voluntary initiative of
these farmers who, by filling out a form specifically designed
for this purpose, could opt out of contributing to the private
research fund.
Officials from the Department of Agriculture estimate the
participation rate at 90 per cent. I was, I admit, very surprised to
hear that 90 per cent of them would agree to pay 40 cents a ton on
barley and 20 cents a ton on wheat to set up a private research
fund.
However, I would advise my colleague from Beauséjour, the
Secretary of State, as well as the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food to be very vigilant because, although 90 per cent is a
lot, 10 per cent of farmers will benefit from research and
development but without paying for it. If participating farmers
are pushed around, they will opt out. And if the participation
rate drops to somewhere around 50 per cent, it will no longer
make any sense for these farmers to contribute voluntarily.
7608
At first glance, it would seem very inappropriate for the Bloc
Quebecois to go against the will of producers, who wish to take
control of their future. What they want is simple. They are
prepared to take a part of their profits and invest it in wheat and
barley breeding research.
(1200)
This bill is necessary because it will allow the Canadian
Wheat Board to make deductions from wheat and barley
producers' final payment cheques for the explicit purpose of
plant breeding research. The Minister of Agriculture tabled Bill
C-50, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, because
the Board does not currently have the right to make such
deductions.
The check-off will be made on the payment at the time of
delivery. The rate is currently set at 40 cents for one ton of
barley and at 20 cents for one ton of wheat. These rates were
arrived at by estimating research costs, in millions of dollars,
and dividing the total by the number of tons bought. I was
surprised to see that, although the bill only refers to wheat, the
amendments will affect wheat and also automatically barley,
because of the regulations. It seems that two distinct funds will
be set up, one for wheat and one for barley.
The rates which I just mentioned will be fixed by the
Governor in Council; they will not be specified in the act. That
provision will allow certain classes of grain or certain provinces
to be excluded. For example, Alberta will not participate in the
check-off program for barley, since the Alberta Barley
Commission already makes such deductions.
If necessary, the amount of the deduction will simply be
changed by order in council. Again, I tell the minister and his
parliamentary secretary that if they are too greedy and if they
lower the government's contribution in order to force greater
direct funding from agricultural producers, they might see a
number of these farmers withdraw from the program.
Since the issue was raised when the member for Mackenzie
tabled his amendment, I will state my position again. If the
CWB starts competing with a province and jeopardizes its
efforts, it would be preferable for that province to be able to opt
out of this voluntary contribution program.
Based on the 90 per cent participation rate anticipated by the
minister, the Board expects to collect $4.7 million, that is $3.8
million for wheat and $900,000 for barley. That money will be
used to finance research on four basic aspects: wheat and barley
breeding, as well as ways to improve acre yield. I may point out
that finding a way to increase the yield per acre of wheat or
barley by only one bushel would mean an additional $100
million earned.
As anyone in business will tell you, your profit is not on the
first hot dog but on the last one you sell that day. Farmers know
perfectly well that when they start taking the crop off a field, the
first bushel does not pay but the last bushel is pure profit. The
same applies to milk. The last cow you milked pays for that
meal at a restaurant or a show on the weekend.
(1205)
The third component would be to enhance the resistance of
varieties to disease and parasites and the fourth, to find new
varieties that are better able to meet new market demands.
There is still one question: Why is Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada's research budget unable to meet the needs of grain
producers? Why? The government tells us that the budget for
research is $18.7 million. In that case, why should producers pay
for parallel research? Please do not misunderstand me. I think it
is an excellent idea to encourage producers to take the initiative
and go ahead with solutions which they know will be to their
advantage.
However, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
should not use the private sector as a way to get out of its
commitments or, even worse, let it run the show.
A few weeks ago, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
tabled a bill that clarified his department's role, including its
involvement in research and development. Despite this
restructuring, Western grain producers will conclude that they
have to pay twice to get the kind of research they need. We
moved an amendment in order to solve that problem, and to
avoid duplication between research made in centres which will
get contracts and research being done by the Department of
Agriculture.
Under this bill, the Canadian Wheat Board would distribute
money received through deductions to research centres breeding
new strains of wheat and improving existing ones.
Under our amendment, the agency would have had to make
enquiries and determine that the information being sought by
the research would not become available as a result of other
similar research. We are just trying to avoid paying twice for the
same research.
As taxpayers, producers already pour $18.7 million into
research and development projects on wheat and barley.
However, they will have to invest an additional $4.7 million to
direct the research according to their own priorities.
The Department of Agriculture maintains that, with the
research and development budget being eroded, it is important
that the private sector takes over. Unfortunately, I am always
afraid that, over the years, we will see the emergence of a certain
mindset, and that the federal contribution to research and
development activities will diminish while that of the producers
will increase. This a real threat, and only time will tell if the
Bloc Quebecois was right to be so concerned.
7609
Research and development are key elements to our staying
competitive on foreign markets, and it is no secret that in order
to increase our exports, we will need to produce more at a lower
cost.
(1210)
It is important to encourage such initiatives. The private
sector, that is the producers as well as the industrial
entrepreneurs, must play a more active role if research and
development activities are to increase. However, it is crucial
that the government fulfil its mandate, by continuing to finance
research and development on a fair basis. In this case, we are
talking about subsidizing a private research organization.
This research agency is the Western Grains Research
Foundation and it has already studied the issue. In the grain
industry, there are some benefits to private funding for research
projects which I would like to list. It meets specific needs
identified by those who finance the research activities.
However, we must be careful so that the bigger producers do
not get to control the research at the expense of smaller
producers. Since voluntary contribution is based on the number
of tons of wheat sold, the main producers will, of course, invest
more. With the amendment we proposed, the Canadian Wheat
Board would have had to check the research being done before
awarding the contracts.
Then, if the research being conducted did not sufficiently
meet the needs of small producers, the Canadian Wheat Board
would have been able to do something about it, since it would
have known what research it wanted to further. Also, the
information remains confidential.
But whatever we say about it, the fact is that two elements can
influence the choice made by grain producers. First, the budget
allocated by the department for this purpose is not enough. Even
though the department advocates new market opportunities, it
does not provide the tools needed to access new markets.
Second, the research and development projects on wheat and
barley that the department is financing do not reflect the
priorities of the industry. This goes to show that the needs of the
industry are somewhat misunderstood.
Before I conclude, I want to say a few words about the
amendments that were before the House yesterday afternoon.
You see, a political party cannot pretend to know everything.
Acting in a very fair manner, the Bloc Quebecois came up with
two amendments to Bill C-50 in order to help farmers. My
colleague for Vegreville also presented, on behalf of the Reform
Party, two amendments that make a lot of sense and are very fair,
and my colleague for Mackenzie also put forward an amendment
to Bill C-50.
This morning, I watched very closely the results of the vote
and, to my surprise, the government party, led by the minister,
defeated all five amendments thanks to its majority. I admit that
the opposition may sometimes move conflicting amendments
that do not agree but, in this case at least, it seems to me that we
found a very positive way to lend a hand to the government
party, not to criticize but to improve its bill. It refused. It said
no.
(1215)
For example, we asked the minister to submit the report of the
Canadian Wheat Board to us, the elected representatives, within
15 days following the day he receives it. This was a suggestion
from my colleague for Vegreville. It seems to me that elected
representatives like the hon. member for Frontenac, the hon.
member for Vaudreuil and the hon. member for Vegreville
should not have to wait six months before seeing this report. A
fifteen days delay would have been reasonable. No. The
government does not want restrictions or limits. Could it be that
it has something to hide? Why did it refuse? The fact is it
refused.
I will conclude by stressing how important it is to avoid
duplication and overlap of research projects conducted by the
department and by the private sector even if it is stated that
research plans will be discussed between concerned
stakeholders to avoid such a thing. It would seem that the
projects funded will be complementary but, unfortunately, there
is nothing to that effect in the law.
Again, I urge the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to
better protect the interests of the farmers across the country and
especially in Quebec. You see, Bill C-50 will not be costly for
the public purse. Bill C-49 neither, but it will not do a lot of
good. All it did was to change the name of the department from
the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Agriculture
and Agri-Food.
I dream of the day when the Department of Agriculture will
take concrete steps to make our farmers whose living depends on
supply-managed products feel secure. Quebec farmers are a bit
worried about the implementation of the GATT agreements on
January 1, 1995, less than two months from now.
I was reading this morning a press release from the
Department of Agriculture announcing the elimination of the
surtax on beef imports from New Zealand and Australia. This 25
per cent surtax was abolished on October 7. In May, the minister
had increased import quotas to 85,000 tons of beef carcasses
from New Zealand and Australia.
And I was interested this fall in the sale of our young steers. I
kept track of what was going on in Quebec, particularly in
Sawyerville, Victoriaville, Princeville, Sainte-Marie de Beauce
and Saint-Hyacinthe, and our producers were proud because, for
once, we could sell our cull cows, that is our dairy cows that are
no longer productive. These cull cows are sold for beef. The
price was 60 to 62 cents a pound and up to 65 cents in some
cases. Immediately after the minister announced the elimination
of the 25 per cent surtax, the price dropped.
7610
(1220)
In the case of slaughter calves, they sold for $1.25, $1.30 and
up to $1.35 at the beginning of September, but as soon as meat
processors were informed of the elimination of the 25 per cent
surtax, the price started to drop to a point where, today, Quebec
producers sell their steers for about the same price as in 1980.
Fourteen years later, the price per pound is the same while
production costs continue to increase.
I was visiting a farm last week and the producer showed me a
small plastic container that is used to milk cows. He told me
that, on average, he breaks about two of these a year and that he
has to be very careful. That small plastic container looks like a
plain drinking glass. He showed it to me and asked: ``How much
do you think this plastic container costs, Jean-Guy?''
Obviously, I gave a higher figure than what seemed a fair price:
``Seven or eight dollars''. That was not it. The salesman from
Laval was there. The farmer said: ``It is not $7 or $8. You know,
farmers are used to that. Spare parts are always very
expensive''. The real cost, as indicated on the bill, was $45.
I told him: ``The day you break that small plastic container,
Laurent, you would be better not to get out of bed, because with
that mishap, your profit for the day is gone''. He agreed. The
same thing is true for tractors and farm machinery. It is always
amazing. Input and operating costs keep going up, but there has
been no increase in beef prices over the last 14 years.
The Minister of Agriculture is trying to justify the reduction
and elimination of the 25 per cent tariff on beef imports from
New Zealand and Australia. In conclusion, I fear that, once the
GATT agreement is in force and tariffication applies, as is the
case with negotiations with our neighbours- Tariffs have been
set at a very high level, I agree, and they will deter imports, but
let us take cheese, for example.
Right now the tariff on cheese in 287 per cent under the GATT
agreement that should normally come into force on January 1. If
we prove to the Minister of Agriculture there is not enough
cheddar cheese in Canada, he will order a lowering of the tariff
from 287 to 100 or even 40 per cent or he will simply do as he did
for the New Zealand beef and will abolish it altogether.
That is a real concern. I said earlier I was looking forward to
the day when the Minister of Agriculture will rise in this House
and change the legislation in order to give a feeling of security to
farmers. Nearly 85 per cent of all farmers in Canada have to
work outside their farms to make ends meet. Only 15 per cent of
the agricultural community can earn a living with farming.
We cannot say agriculture is sick, but we can certainly say it is
not healthy. There is discontent, serious discontent, and it is
undoubtedly one of the reasons why it is so difficult for farmers
at retirement age to find someone, whether one of their children
or someone else, to buy the farm at a fair price and to take over
the business.
(1225)
There are no new farmers to take over the business, and when
you look at the way things are, when you look at the future with
open eyes, you realize that maybe young people are right to
wonder whether there is still a future on the farm.
I am one of those who believe there might be a future in
farming, but our governments would have to take a stance and
stick to it.
Just think about what happened as recently as last winter,
when we negotiated with the United States for the export of
durum wheat. We had a flush in our hands, we had everything we
needed to win on that issue, but we lost. We just lost. Will it
always be like this? In the course of negotiations, we give some,
but we also win some.
In the case of the durum wheat, it was a perfect case. We lost
it. In Quebec, our farming industry is based almost entirely on
supply management. Quotas will disappear, after tariffs have
been set at a rather high level. We hope that it will not be
dramatically reduced year after year, because our Quebec
farmers would be thrown on welfare or unemployment or onto
the streets. We do not know exactly what will happen to quotas,
but for many farmers they were their pension funds. I do not
know what will happen six years down the road, when the value
of quotas will be virtually down to zero.
All this to tell you that the Bloc Quebecois, despite the flaws
in Bill C-50, will vote for it, because that is what farmers want.
They are the ones who demanded it. Of course, the bill is not
perfect. But, between asking for perfection and voting against it,
the Bloc Quebecois has chosen to support it, even if it means
amending it next year, because with time, we will see what goes
wrong with Bill C-50.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to be speaking on Bill C-50, a bill to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act. In my presentation today I will talk
about the bill itself, what is in the bill. I will talk a bit about the
improvements that should have been made to the bill, some of
the amendments that were put forward but unfortunately were
not made. I will talk about the missed opportunity at a time when
the Canadian Wheat Board Act has been opened up to change
and the real missed opportunity because there were not more
substantial changes made to the bill.
I will start today by talking about the bill itself, Bill C-50, the
bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The purpose of the
bill is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board by allowing
refundable check offs on wheat and barley on sales of wheat and
barley to the board.
7611
This refundable check off is to be used for plant breeding
research. I will summarize some of the provisions of the bill.
The bill would allow for deductions from the farmer's final
payment checks for each pool period, unless the farmer filed
each year to the Canadian Wheat Board to be exempted from the
refundable check off, from the deduction. The bill places this
revenue in a fund with the Canadian Wheat Board which will be
distributed to the Western Grains Research Foundation.
The Canadian Wheat Board must estimate how much money it
will take from farmers per tonne for the grain to provide the $4.7
million it wants to raise from this bill for research, again
funding that will be directed to the Western Grains Research
Foundation.
(1230 )
The research funding agency would distribute the money to
people or organizations for research based on what the board of
directors for the foundation determined.
There will be an additional reserve account set up which will
put money into a special fund, a contingency fund intended to
cover shortfalls from any particular year, shortfalls in funding,
in case of a higher opt out rate or poor production on the prairies
or just lower shipment levels through the Canadian Wheat
Board.
There is to be an annual report provided to the minister from
the Western Grains Research Foundation each year and under
the present provisions of the bill, the bill that we are going to
vote on, this report must be presented by the minister within six
months. One of the amendments I will talk about later states this
report should be made public more quickly and the report should
be made public as soon as it is presented to the minister from the
foundation.
In terms of the rationale behind the bill, the purpose for the
bill, it is assumed that the benefits will be accrued to farmers for
the following reasons. It will give farmers a role in supporting
and directing research into new varieties of wheat and barley. It
will link more closely the wishes of the agriculture industry, in
particular farmers but others as well. It will give them more
responsibility in directing where the research funding goes. I
think this is an important part of this bill.
It will provide $4.7 million of additional research for
development of new varieties of wheat and barley, varieties
which will be grown in western Canada.
It may improve the development of new marketing
alternatives, new marketing opportunities through the
development of better varieties that are more readily
marketable. Hopefully it will improve farm income through
increased returns to farmers and a higher profit margin to
farmers.
That is the intent of the bill. Reform does support this bill. I
support this bill and the Reform Party supports this bill for the
following reasons. We believe that research does benefit
farmers and we believe that research money collected through
the Canadian Wheat Board presented to the Western Grains
Research Foundation will benefit farmers. Not only do we
believe that but many farm groups believe that and have
supported this bill.
In talking to individual farmers in my constituency it seems
that most individual farmers also support this refundable check
off that will go to research.
There are some conditions put on this and really some
hesitation on the part of farmers, I have found. They hesitate
because the number of check offs on the sales of their
commodities is increasing all the time and they are concerned
that there are too many.
Farmers do recognize very well the importance of research.
Farmers are willing to do their part in directly funding research.
Farmers are also becoming concerned about the number of
check offs, and this is another one.
I believe the support is there but it is becoming hesitant and I
think with new check offs there will be strong resistance at some
point.
This bill would have been improved substantially through
amendments that were presented. I would like to speak briefly
first about the second Bloc amendment, Motion No. 2. I believe
the intent of that amendment was good. Reform did not support
that amendment because the interpretation which we got from
the legislation was unclear. Because of that we just found that
we could not support the amendment.
I think the intent would have been to ensure that the Western
Grains Research Foundation funding is not duplicated, is not
already done somewhere in Canada or somewhere else. Overlap
and duplication would have been prevented.
(1235 )
I think the intention of that motion was good but again,
because of the way it fit into the legislation, we found that it was
unclear. We were afraid that the Canadian Wheat Board would
have been given the responsibility of making sure that money
spent by the Western Grains Research Foundation was not on
research already being done.
We were afraid-I was certainly concerned-that the
Canadian Wheat Board would be given that responsibility. We
do not want the wheat board to be involved in any way other than
providing a convenient collecting mechanism.
7612
Reform put forward two amendments to the bill, both of
which I believe would have strengthened the bill. The first one
was accountability. What we proposed is that the minister's
report which he receives from Western Grains Research
Foundation would be made public in a very short time through
this House. I believe that accountability is needed. The hon.
member for Malpeque on previous bills has pushed for a very
similar type of accountability.
Our second motion was to simplify the process that farmers
would go through to opt out of making their contributions to the
wheat board and ultimately to the research foundation through
this check off. What we proposed was adding one small box to
the Canadian Wheat Board's permit application form which a
farmer could check off if they wanted to opt out of the program
for that year.
Some in the industry and some other members in this House
opposed that method of opting out because they said that it is too
easy to do. I am very concerned when government supports
action whereby a bureaucracy interferes unnecessarily with
decision making.
In other words, in this case the people who opposed our
amendment to make this easy said let us make it more difficult
for farmers to opt out through added bureaucracy. I believe that
is morally wrong.
In too many places in our lives and especially in the lives of
business people we have government interfering through the
bureaucracy to make business more difficult to do. I am really
quite upset that this motion was not supported, especially
considering the reasons that were given for not supporting this
motion.
I believe these two motions and the intent of the second
motion would have substantially improved this bill but they did
not pass.
What I would like to talk about now is the missed opportunity.
The Canadian Wheat Board Act was opened. Why did we not
make substantial changes to the act?
My colleague, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, and
I went to a Canadian Wheat Board rally in Regina about two
weeks ago. What did we see at this rally? Did we see a bunch of
radical farmers out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, this
body which has been a very important body in western Canada
for marketing grains? No, that is not what we saw.
We saw very reasonable people speaking on changing the
Canadian Wheat Board to improve it, to make it better for
farmers. After all, this organization exists for farmers and it is
funded by farmers. It is their organization. They wanted
improvement.
I want to just talk about what a couple of speakers said at this
rally in this regard. One gentleman talking about needed
changes talked about how the Canadian Wheat Board was
established in the first place. It was established originally in the
1930s. It disappeared and came back during the war under the
War Measures Act as a monopoly.
That is when the wheat board first gained its monopoly power.
It was in 1942 under the War Measures Act. It gained monopoly
power so that Britain in particular could buy cheap food from
Canadian farmers. Like so many pieces of legislation, instead of
having a grandfather clause which would have the legislation
end after a certain period of time it just continued.
(1240)
Again I want to say that the Canadian Wheat Board has served
a useful purpose. When the Canadian Wheat Board was set up
we had a situation in the world first of all in western Canada in
which farmers had a very poor communication system, very
poor transportation and the grain buying companies were taking
advantage of farmers because of the world they lived in, with
poor information, poor transportation.
The Canadian Wheat Board, as did the wheat pool, served a
very useful purpose in dealing with this problem. Back then we
were dealing in a world where we had central desk buyers and
central desk sellers. It worked well having a central desk seller
selling to a central desk buyer. What wheat really was at that
time was basically one commodity with a few different grades.
This wheat board was marketing a fairly uniform commodity to
a world that was not all that concerned with getting exactly a
certain quality or a certain type of wheat. Under those
conditions the wheat board worked well.
What has happened is that the marketplace has changed. The
world has changed. Now we have farmers who have extremely
good communication systems. We have wheat which is no
longer just wheat but is dozens and dozens of different
commodities.
Buyers buying wheat want a very specific product and we are
looking at dozens of different products. Are we selling to central
desk buyers any more? No, we are not. There are very few
central desk buyers in the world so what we have now are
mini-sellers because farmers want to become more active in
selling. Grain companies servicing farmers want to become
more active in selling outside of Canada as well. We have these
mini-buyers and mini-sellers funnelling through the Canadian
Wheat Board and the Canadian Wheat Board not selling to few
buyers but selling to many buyers.
We have the wheat board now which has become a funnel
which takes a product from mini-sellers and sells to
mini-buyers and again it is not just wheat or barley. There are
many different, very specific products that these buyers want.
We live in a different world.
7613
I believe that the Canadian Wheat Board still can serve a
useful purpose and so did these farmers at the rally. They said
they were not out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, they
were out to improve it. They talked about a voluntary wheat
board and I thought they presented their case for a voluntary
wheat board as they called it very well.
There was one other farmer who really explained very well
some of the problems we have with the board as it is. This story
is going to sound really silly to anyone familiar with the grain
industry but it is true. This farmer talked about his own
situation. He had built a flour mill on his farm. He was
processing flour, wheat, strictly from his farm. He was selling
flour all across western Canada but he was selling specialty
flour so he had to mill this flour from a very select type of wheat,
his own wheat.
The problem is that to operate within the law he has to market
his wheat through the Canadian Wheat Board to sell to his mill.
It is absurd but it is true. Not only that, he would only be allowed
to sell as much wheat as the quota levels would allow. In spite of
the fact he is milling his own wheat in his own mill he would be
restricted by a quota level. It is absurd but that is what has
happened.
This story I believe demonstrates very well why we need to
open the Canadian Wheat Board to change, to positive change,
to changes that farmers support.
This rally in Regina would have been an excellent meeting for
the minister to have attended as it was in the minister's riding in
Regina. It was really unfortunate I think and the farmers felt
really cheated that the minister was not there. They were very
pleased to see us there. They saw MPs who do understand there
is a need for change to the Canadian Wheat Board.
I want to ask a question of farmers and other small business
people, managers, owners. Would a farmer or another small
business person allow a government agency to come in and
manage their farm? They own the farm and they fund it. How
many small business people would allow a government agency
to come in and manage their operations? I say very few.
(1245)
The Canadian Wheat Board is owned by farmers, funded by
farmers and is supposedly for farmers. Then why on earth is it
managed by government appointed commissioners? That is
exactly what is happening and it does not make any sense.
With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers want to be
able to elect a board of directors. Recent polls have shown that
over 90 per cent of western Canadian farmers want an elected
board of directors to replace the government appointed
commissioners. Does that sound so unreasonable?
The minister must act very quickly to allow for a farmer elected
board of directors. After the farmers have elected the board of
directors, the farmers should be allowed through referendum to
determine what type of wheat board they want to serve them.
They could choose to keep the board as is, which they certainly
will not do from everything I have heard. They could choose to
eliminate the board completely, which they certainly would not
do from everything I have heard.
There is a new movement to completely eliminate the board. I
do not believe it is a strong movement. I do not believe a
majority of farmers support it. I believe the options that would
be chosen are somewhere in between. The first option would be
to open the wheat board to competition on a continental basis. A
continental market in barley and wheat is the first realistic
option.
The second realistic option would be to open the Canadian
Wheat Board to competition anywhere in the world. More and
more farmers are supporting this all the time.
Another possible option would be to open the board to
competition but allow the Canadian Wheat Board only to buy in
export positions. It would eliminate the interference that the
Canadian Wheat Board has in our transportation system, car
allocation system and grain marketing system. It would let it
stay in place to do its job in the export market. I believe it could
serve a useful role in that regard.
Let farmers decide that. It is not for me to decide. If they have
another option that suits them, let them put the option forward to
be voted on in a referendum. Let them choose the option they
want.
I would like to ask a rhetorical question: Why is the minister
so opposed to making the changes that farmers want? I am not
going to try to say what his motives are for refusing this change.
I would like to end today with a story. It is a story about a
farmer I know who is the anxious type. Some say he has an
attitude problem. To relieve his anxiety, on Sunday mornings he
goes out to his road. He calls it his road because he was the one
who pushed to have it built and the one who pushed to have it
paved. He likes to go to the end of his driveway and on to his
road on his five-speed. On Sunday mornings the road is his.
There is a curve down the road. He likes to get the car going
about 100 before he gets to the curve and by the time he hits the
curve have it up to 140. It makes him feel good; it relieves his
anxiety.
One Sunday morning he went out on his road, started to
accelerate, and what does he see around the bend? A car was
coming down his road on Sunday morning. He was upset. He
was more anxious than ever. He started down his road and the
approaching car swerved. He said: ``My God, a drunk on my
road on Sunday morning''. As the car got closer he saw that it
was a lady driver. He said: ``Oh my, a lady driver on my road on a
7614
Sunday morning''. As the car got closer, the lady stopped the car
and opened her window. He slowed down but did not stop. As he
went by he heard the lady shout ``pig''. He was really anxious
then and said: ``sow'' and he went on. He was more anxious than
ever and hit the curve at 120 and as he started to accelerate into
the curve he hit the pig.
(1250)
When that story was told to me it was to demonstrate how an
attitude problem can interfere with the ability to change, but I
am not so sure that is the only way to interpret the story.
I believe that pig in the way of that farmer is in fact
government. The biggest interference farmers have with doing
business is government. Certainly, if that pig is not government,
that pig and other pigs are being dropped in front of farmers by
government and are interfering with them doing business. I
believe government must stop dropping these pigs in front of
farmers and other business people.
In closing, we support Bill C-50, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board. We would have liked the bill amended,
but I believe it is supported widely by farmers and I am looking
forward to the legislation being enacted.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
rising to speak at third reading of Bill C-50. I note several of the
previous speakers have wandered considerably off the topic of
the bill.
I want to make a quick allusion to the story we just heard
concerning the man who presumed it was his road and all the
problems he got into as a result of that false assumption. That is
one of the basic problems of many people who are opposed to the
wheat board and want what they call change. They too fall into
the trap of making false assumptions about reality.
The man presumed that it was his road and that no one else
should be on it on a Sunday morning. What they presume is that
the wheat board is just another buyer, just another grain
company in the market, when in fact it is marketing the grain for
all growers in western Canada. Once they get their heads around
that space it will begin to make a lot more sense. That is one of
the difficulties of my friend from Vegreville and his colleagues.
The bill deals with how to finance plant breeding. It is a
further proposal by government, following some proposals of
the last government and some that were put forward in the
Trudeau administration, to extract itself from publicly financed
plant breeding. Publicly financed plant breeding has a long
history in Canada, going back well over a hundred years. When
John Wise was the minister of agriculture we celebrated a
hundred years of plant breeding under the Department of
Agriculture in Canada.
In my region of western Canada it was an extremely exciting
initiative that was taken more than 100 years ago. Without the
publicly sponsored plant breeding effort that occurred at the
central research station in Ottawa and the varieties that were
developed for early maturing hard spring wheat, my region
would not have had a reason to exist in the world of agriculture.
The varieties that existed prior to that time were not suitable
for my region with its relatively short growing season. The
development of Marquis wheat attracted the population there
and made it possible for it to be economically viable. It made
agriculture on the prairies the bread basket of the world,
according to publicity at the turn of the century. Of course we
were never that big.
(1255 )
Many countries grow more wheat and more grain than does
Canada, but few countries export as much of their production as
we do. We export about 80 per cent of our production. None of
the other countries are forced to do that because they have larger
populations and consume it at home.
Because of this we developed the marketing institutions to
which some of my friends in the House have been referring.
Essentially we built on that success by continuing the publicly
financed breeding program to get around diseases that came up,
rust that developed and insects that developed over time. As the
region continues to grow grains, some of these pests and hazards
insert themselves into the land and into the environment. It is a
constant struggle to change varieties so they will be resistant to
insects, pests, rusts, fungi and so on.
I noticed the minister made reference to the fact that it was
possible to get as much as a 15 per cent increase in yield due to
plant breeding. It is on paper and it is in the test plot. However
when we go on to the farms and start dealing with the exigencies
of the overall environment and the climactic changes that occur
over time, it requires a lot of other attendant improvements in
agriculture to keep yields up. Some older varieties will still
yield almost as well as the newer varieties by using the
techniques available now.
The advantages have been better but have not been terribly
dramatic. They have been incremental to the point of producing
huge benefits when compared to the pittance invested in them.
Any economic research on the cost and benefit of plant breeding
shows that for every $1 put in there is as a conservative estimate
a minimum of $7 to other estimates that run as high as $15 or
$20. The payback is extremely high. In spite of that, previous
governments, administrations and popular wisdom have it that
government has to get out of plant breeding and there has been a
constant cutting back of share of the department's investment in
that area.
We have not kept up publicly financed plant breeding and
because we have not done so government has come up with
various ways of assuaging its conscience about it. During the
late seventies and early eighties they talked about plant
7615
breeders' rights. The last government finally implemented plant
breeders' rights. That has paid the developers of new varieties
for their cost and trouble by virtue of giving them what amounts
to a patent to extract a fee from anyone who uses their varieties
of seed during the next 15 years.
On top of that we have the bill before us proposing to extract
what some people call a voluntary payment and what others call
a refundable payment from each tonne of grain sold in the wheat
board region through the wheat board. The act does not say so,
but the government indicates its intention is to extract $20 per
tonne on all wheats and $40 per tonne on all barleys from the
final payment paid out in January, following the closing of the
previous crop year's pool. Producers would have the option
before the end of February to inform the board that they wanted
their deductions sent to them rather than to the research
foundation if they disapproved of the activities of the research
foundation.
It is difficult to oppose a proposal that permits individuals to
make up their own minds on whether they want to submit
payments to such a scheme.
(1300 )
I want to make it quite clear to the House that what we are
doing here as governments, as politicians, as ministries of
agriculture, is layering one more cost on to farmers that was not
there 20 years ago. Farmers are now financing plant breeders,
first as taxpayers through public financing albeit not quite as
adequate as it could be because of government cutbacks. We are
asked to finance plant breeding through the payments under
plant breeders' rights for the use of the newly developed seeds.
Now we are being asked to finance plant breeding a third way by
a check off on our sales of wheat and barley through the
Canadian Wheat Board.
I think that we have a right to ask how many more times we
have to keep up this financing. The clear beneficiaries of this
increased productivity are the consumers of the product. My
friend from Frontenac indicated that it is the last bushels that
create the profit, and that is true, but it is those last bushels that
are used to depress the price. As we increase our production the
supply is increased and the price for all of the production begins
to fall.
The beneficiary of this increased production is always the
consumers. They have been getting cheaper and cheaper food.
The cost of groceries and basic foods that go into the groceries
has been falling all through this century.
That has not been the case for a whole lot of other
commodities and things that we use. Even housing has gone up
in that period of time. With regard to transport, I hark back to
just 15 or 20 years ago in making comparisons since today at the
agriculture committee we were talking about cattle prices. In
1977 I remember buying a new car. It cost me I think seven
800-pound steers to buy a brand new car. It was a full size car,
had everything going for it. Today that car would take
something in the order of 25 or 30 800-pound steers.
We were being told in the committee that cattle prices had
held up pretty well. They certainly have, have they not?
The technology for cars has changed somewhat. I saw an
article in the press recently which said that because of demands
from government for environmental improvements to the
emission controls and other requirements by government, the
cost of a car is now about $4,500 more than in 1977. This was for
all the technical improvements. If everything else were equal
the car would be about half the price that it is now.
When I look at what labour received out of that car between
1977 and today, it gets about the same amount of money. The
input in hours has dropped dramatically but labour gets about
the same amount of money. Somewhere there has been a
doubling of the real price of that car and the beef has dropped in
what it will really buy to about a third. It has dropped
two-thirds. Eight would buy a car and now it takes 25.
I just present that to show that consumers have taken real
advantage of the productivity of agriculture. I do not see the
rationale for farmers to continue to have to pay a bigger and
bigger chunk of the research to make productivity gains that
consumers are going to benefit from.
I think there will be a great deal of angst among farmers when
they see the amount of deduction that there will be on their final
payment cheques after January 1996.
(1305 )
A lot of them will have to think long and hard whether they
want to have their research deduction returned to them or go into
the research group. One of the things that will be a factor for
farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba at least will be the
fairness of the extraction process.
Members will know from the debate yesterday that there has
been a special dispensation granted to Alberta and some B.C.
producers because they have a different form of deduction
already in place. Their deduction is for research in general. It is
not for plant breeding research specifically.
All the funds from this deduction will go into developing new
plant varieties. We are told that perhaps 2 per cent will be used
for administration purposes. The rest will be transferred directly
for scientific work on developing new plant varieties.
7616
We know from the public annual statement on the Alberta
check off for instance that much less than 50 per cent of the
funds collected are even allocated to research and there is no
distinction made as to whether the research is economic
research, marketing research or actual plant development
research.
We have one set of oranges and one set of apples coming in for
these deductions. Yet the government refused to make a change
yesterday and so did the established parties in the House. They
did not see any problem with this. They seem to be quite happy
that Manitoba and Saskatchewan producers will pay 20 cents a
tonne for plant breeding research. Alberta producers will pay an
unspecified amount for research. They will pay the 20 cents for
wheat but not for barley research.
We will be paying 40 cents. What will they be paying?
Nobody seems to know. As long as that stays very fuzzy, there
will be a lot of people saying: ``Why should I contribute? If
Alberta farmers are going to be getting the same benefits from
those new plants as I am, why can they not pay the same
amount?'' We were trying to have that dichotomy straightened
out in the act. Yet the government refused to take any action on
it.
One of the problems that this federal government always has
is a problem of treating people in each region the same within
the region. I would argue that it failed this test miserably
yesterday when it proposed to continue with this bill.
I find it very difficult to see why we should be pushing for
support for this bill. I find it very difficult to go out and tell my
producers that this is a good bill for them when I see that we are
simply taking step three as a way of continuing to back off
public responsibility for plant breeding and put it on to the hands
of producers.
It is really a form of government offloading on to producers. It
becomes a form of additional directed taxation that is a bad
precedent to begin with. I have great difficulty supporting the
whole concept that has been put forward in this bill.
It is laying out a system that is inequitable. It is treating some
farmers different than other farmers who live in the same region
and who will all benefit the same from the research. It is putting
what amounts to a third tax on producers who have some interest
in upgrading the genetic material that they work with.
It is also true that the final consumer is the one who reaps all
the benefit from that new research. I find it very difficult to
justify making an additional charge to the producer in those
instances.
(1310 )
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on third reading of Bill C-50,
legislation that will produce a voluntary producer levy or check
off program for plant breeding research.
I have a number of comments to make today, some of which are
based on the bill before us, some of which are based on the
debate that we had yesterday in this Chamber specific to report
stage of the bill and as well some comments about the Canadian
Wheat Board which I believe is central to this debate and is
crucial to the future of agriculture in this country.
First I would like to address the specifics of the bill which are
before us for third reading today. Essentially, as we have heard
in this Chamber already, the federal government has launched an
agriculture initiative, depending on how we want to look at it,
either as a tax grab from farmers or an opportunity for farmers to
participate financially in the development of new grains
research.
The new legislation proposed here sets out what is called a
voluntary producer levy or check off program to support plant
breeding research programs for wheat and barley.
As the minister of agriculture indicated in the Chamber
during his comments at second reading, if passed the legislation
would call for the first collection of this levy to take place in
January 1995.
The idea of the check off is not a new one. It is already in
practise for beef and hog producers and as a concept has been
endorsed by many of western Canada's grain organizations. This
is however the first time that a check off has been applied across
the board for wheat and barley production.
According to the minister of agriculture there is general
agreement for this idea among producers. The agreement is on
principle more than it is on practice. While this bill sets out a
particular practice we as members of Parliament are called upon
to examine how that practice will be implemented and what it
means rather than on the general principle.
Here is how the bill is supposed to work. Western producers of
wheat and barley will pay levies of 20 cents per tonne of wheat
and 40 cents per tonne of barley delivered during the crop year.
The first levies will be deducted from the Canadian Wheat
Board final payments beginning with those for the 1993-94 crop
year. Those final payments in the ordinary course of events for
1993-94 would be made in January 1995.
Based on projected deliveries the check off is expected to
bring in, according to the minister of agriculture, an estimated
$4.7 million for additional research. That research would be
co-ordinated by the Western Grains Research Foundation, a
7617
federally chartered public organization that has been
co-ordinating research in this field for the past 10 years.
Under the terms of the new legislation the foundation would
be accountable to producers by having to report annually to all
prairie permit book holders, by giving an accounting of the
money received and how it has been used to accomplish its
research goals.
The new program is not intended to duplicate or replace
current check off programs already in place in some provinces
and, as has been mentioned numerous times in the Chamber over
the last two days, certain Alberta grain producers will be exempt
from the levy.
I think it is worth repeating what was said yesterday. The
check off in Alberta is somewhat different than the check off
being proposed nationally. If one were to compare the reasons
for bringing in the legislation as it is today and apply it to the
implementation of the goods and services tax from a few years
ago, the implication would be that any province with a
pre-existing tax would be exempt from the GST and those that
had no pre-existing tax would be levied the GST.
(1315 )
In that case if the same principle were applied in 1990 as the
one that is being applied here on the check off in 1994 only the
province of Alberta would be subjected to this federal levy and
the other provinces would be provided with an exemption. It is
an interesting scenario to say the least.
The program as proposed in Bill C-50 is also voluntary so that
producers who choose not to participate may opt out if that is
their preference. Any producer wanting to opt out may do so on
an annual basis simply by putting that request in writing.
In introducing the legislation the agriculture minister says he
expects 90 per cent of western grain farmers to participate in the
program but he gives us no indication at all on how he has
calculated that figure.
There has been as fair amount of criticism in the House over
the last couple of days about the program. For those who have
reviewed its components and have not liked what they have seen
in the specifics of the bill, the arguments focus somewhat on the
fact that plant breeding research in Canada has always been
publicly funded. The new legislation simply gives the federal
government an opportunity to withdraw from providing
adequate funding, perhaps some time in the future, because they
will say the producers themselves are being taxed through the
levy for the necessary funding.
Of course the minister of agriculture in his opening remarks
denied that this would happen but there is certainly no
protection in the existing funding in the legislation to guarantee
the federal government's commitment to publicly funded
research. Therefore, without that type of legislative guarantee it
is difficult to accept the word of the minister.
At the same time if farmers opt out in numbers greater than the
10 per cent the minister has already calculated the financing
pool will be diminished. Actually it will be uncertain from year
to year because the financing pool will have to be calculated
only on the amount of money that is collected and if farmers can
opt out on an annual basis it will be difficult to calculate the
entire financing pool on an ongoing basis.
Therefore the research institutions commissioned to do the
research will not know from year to year what level of funding
they will be able to receive. There is also the unfairness that
some producers will pay for the support of research and want to
contribute to it but all producers will benefit from that research
whether or not they paid into it in the first place.
This alludes to the exemption provided to certain Alberta
producers who will get the benefit from the research even
though they do not pay into it.
The other argument is on the accountability of the process. It
is acknowledged that the foundation must report on how it is
spending the money for research but if producers disagree for
any reason there is no mechanism in place for them to appeal
those spending decisions and it is always after the horse has left
the barn, after the door has been closed. You can only comment,
perhaps publicly, and not direct or influence the way those
decisions will be made. Therefore true accountability does not
exist.
As the member for Mackenzie mentioned a few moments ago
there is an important concept here that every member of the
House and all producers in Canada must keep in mind and that is
the principle of research into grains production is an important
public policy matter and as such we should do whatever we can
to ensure that there is as much public funding and public
accountability in the process as possible.
Yesterday I indicated during report stage debate in what
became in a sense a conversation with the minister of agriculture
that the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board has never been
more in question among Canadians. We are hearing in the news a
considerable amount of discussion about the future of
agriculture and the future of the Canadian Wheat Board because
a number of producers in Canada, particularly producers near
the American border, have been expressing discontent with the
marketing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.
(1320 )
I think it is important during this debate about amendments to
the Canadian Wheat Board Act that we do keep in mind how
important the Canadian Wheat Board is and the role that this
Chamber and the minister of agriculture must play in providing
some support for the Canadian Wheat Board, the organization
that we as producers and as members of Parliament have created
in order to assist in the sale of all Canadian wheat and barley.
Perhaps, as I suggested yesterday, we should as well be
7618
considering changes that would allow for marketing of oats and
canola and perhaps even some other grains in Canada.
Yesterday the minister of agriculture responded to one of my
concerns by saying that he did not want to engage in a broader
debate about the Canadian Wheat Board. Then he qualified his
statement by saying, and I quote from Hansard of yesterday at
page 7579, pertaining to a broader discussion about the wheat
board:
The fact that I do not happen to mention some of those other things should
not be taken as any kind of disinterest in the subject matter. I am simply holding
my fire.
He is simply holding his fire. I wonder how long he intends to
do that. How long does the minister intend to remain silent about
his personal commitment and the commitment of this
government to the Canadian Wheat Board?
I say that because just the other day the Canadian Wheat
Board in an unusual statement came forward to defend itself in
the face of some of the attacks. I quote the information officer of
the Canadian Wheat Board, Miss Deanna Allen: ``The board is
under personal attack. If others are rallying farmers to rethink
what they have, then let them think on accurate information''.
The Canadian Wheat Board is arguing that those who are
calling for dual marketing in Canada are doing so not with
accurate information. If the minister of agriculture has
information like the Canadian Wheat Board has which can add
to the debate, I think it is very important that the minister not
hold his fire in this regard but rather engage in the debate and
bring forward not only the information but the opinions that are
needed to support the strong Canadian Wheat Board in its work.
I will quote from the Canadian Wheat Board's defence of its
activities in its releases from last week. Mr. Richard Klassen is
the board commissioner with the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr.
Klassen says in response to the U.S. market:
``The U.S. is a premium market. It is one of the few premium priced markets
left in the world. It offers a high return because it is unaffected by the price
discounting subsidies imposed by the U.S. and the European Union. U.S.
customers are also usually willing to pay a premium for Canadian wheat
because of its high quality''.
The down side is that market is not large enough to accept all of the 24
million tonnes of wheat and barley that western Canadian farmers want to
export. The board as a result must sell into other markets that do not offer as
high a return. The prices from these sales are what lower the overall return to
farmers.
``The question is really who should receive the commercial premium often
available in the U.S. Should these premiums go to individual farmers or grain
companies who access the U.S. directly, or should those premiums be shared
among all grain growers in western Canada?''.
The answer is through the Canadian Wheat Board all western
Canadian farmers benefit from the premium market, whether it
is in the United States this year and next year or whether it is in
Japan or China or Europe or Saudi Arabia in the future.
(1325 )
I also want to indicate that I found the comments of the
minister of agriculture the other day quoted in the Regina
Leader-Post of October 27. The headline on the newspaper
article was ``Goodale is determined''. The agriculture minister
said ``Canada has a historic right to duty free access into Europe
for a million tonnes of high quality wheat and almost a million
tonnes of barley''.
The minister of agriculture is wanting to have a stronger
Canadian presence in Europe and is willing to fight for it. That
market in Europe will not be accessible without a strong
Canadian Wheat Board. If the minister of agriculture is anxious
to fight for Canadian markets in Europe, he should be willing to
fight for the Canadian marketing arm that gives us that access
here in Canada.
Those concerns of mine are shared by numerous constituents
of mine, all of my constituents who have phoned me recently.
One of my constituents was fortunate enough to be at a meeting
organized by the National Farmers' Union in the United States
just a couple of weeks ago, Mr. John Clair from Radisson,
Saskatchewan, also a member of the Canadian Wheat Board
advisory committee; a committee that I would strongly advise
the government take a look at and see if it cannot turn that into
more of a board of directors than an advisory committee so that
the elected wishes of the producers are more influential in the
decision making of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. John Clair was at a meeting in the United States, a
meeting that involved a number of farmers in Glendive,
Montana. Mr. Clair says that he is more convinced than ever
after that meeting that the Canadian Wheat Board should be left
intact and keep its export monopoly.
Quoting Mr. John Clair recently in an issue of the Western
Producer from October 20, Mr. Clair says: ``They''-meaning
the Americans-``said if there was a dual marketing situation in
Canada, they would push to have the border closed
immediately''.
In other words, if Canadian farmers are given the opportunity
by the Canadian government to just cross the border unimpeded
with every truck load of grain that they can, the Americans as
they have on so many other trade issues would immediately
retaliate and close the border to all Canadian grain.
That means any premium market that was accessible by the
Canadian Wheat Board or any farmer immediately closed and
there would be no access to those premium dollars to any
Canadian farmer whether we can sell into that market or not.
7619
Mr. Clair also mentioned that the people he talked to looked at
the dual marketing supporters in Canada as quite naive about
their circumstances and even our own. Again I quote Mr. Clair:
``They seem to assume it is just a great big pit we can drop wheat
into''. In other words, the American market is just there for all
the wheat that we can put into it.
Mr. Clair says in a tremendous year, we can sell maybe 10 per
cent of our crop to the United States. That means 90 per cent has
to go some place else. There is nothing more true than that
statement.
I remind the minister of agriculture and the government that
in the agriculture supplement to the red book they made a very
strong commitment to the financial security of Canadian farm
families, a commitment that extends to the value of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Basically the comment from the red book is that Canada's
agri-food industry needs policies and programs such as supply
management, the Canadian Wheat Board and stabilization to
minimize the impact of market price fluctuations.
On this day I call on the minister of agriculture and the
government to, as they have with everything else in this place,
stick to the commitment of the red book and maintain policies
such as the Canadian Wheat Board to minimize the impact of
marketplace price fluctuations on Canadian farmers.
(1330)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question!
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed from November 1, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be
now read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
these past few weeks, the government has been repeating that it
is acting in good faith, claiming it wants to negotiate with the
provinces and maintain a partnership relationship with them
instead of a paternalistic and dominating one. It never fails
however to attack insidiously the government of Quebec for its
alleged bad faith.
Today, the Liberals give yet more proof of the fact that bad
faith does not lie where they would have us believe it does and
that this government, like the ones before it, never had any real
intention of considering Quebec as a full-fledged partner.
In introducing Bill C-53 to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage, the Liberal government has reached new
heights in denying the existence of provincial jurisdictions and,
what is worse, in denying the very existence of the Quebec
people. Not content with infringing repeatedly upon provincial
jurisdictions-culture, education and language in
particular-the federal government has managed to violate the
most fundamental element of Quebec's specificity as a society,
namely its culture.
As described in 1993 in an administrative document, the
mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage is quite
explicit: to create a deep sense of identity and feeling of
belonging based on bilingualism and multiculturalism.
In order to achieve this, the department will rely only on
programs that, according to the aforementioned document,
contribute to a very strong sense of identity among Canadians.
By emphasizing the Canadian identity and disregarding
Quebec's identity and its distinct character, the Department of
Canadian Heritage becomes, as far as Quebecers are concerned,
a vehicle for promoting Canadian unity.
In this connection, furthermore, we know that the minister
will not hesitate to use all the tools at his disposal, at the risk of
shamelessly using the public press.
As proof, we have the words of his leader, spoken last June 16,
and I quote: ``-there is a law governing the operation of the
CBC, and I will ask that the CBC respect that law. The law says,
7620
in defining the mandate of the CBC, that it must inform people
on the advantages Canada presents''.
I would like to take this opportunity to look at just how little
regard the government has for Quebec's special character and its
historic claims.
The economic, cultural and social contribution made by
immigrants to the development of society in Quebec and in
Canada is undeniable. But an indiscriminate policy on the part
of the Canadian government could do serious harm to Quebec
society. It is essential that a policy of integration does not end up
diluting Quebec's identity beyond recognition. In Quebec, any
diversification of the social fabric must take into account the
French character of our community.
For these reasons, Quebec and interested provinces must be
allowed to participate in the development of a multiculturalism
policy.
Besides, the Act to establish the Department of Canadian
Heritage makes the minister responsible for ``the advancement
of the equality of status and use of English and French and the
enhancement and development of the English and French
linguistic minority communities in Canada''. Since the
bilingualism policy is seen as a failure by the majority of
Canadians, and a simple review of press reports across Canada is
enough to convince us that the situation of francophones outside
Quebec is far from getting better-which is not saying much
when we know that the future of some French-speaking
communities is actually threatened-, we can once again
question the Canadian government's good will and ability to act.
(1335)
The unfortunate matter of the closure of the military college
in Saint-Jean and the procrastination surrounding the French
school in Kingston, combined with the fact that the influence of
the minister now in charge of bilingualism with his Cabinet
colleagues is very questionable, do nothing to reassure minority
rights organizations and those who have been waiting so many
years for the Canadian government to honour the commitment to
a just society made during the Trudeau era.
From another perspective, we would have thought that, by
giving the Minister of Canadian Heritage various
responsibilities formerly within the purview of several
departments, the government tried to save money. But it is
clearly not the case.
The federal government's tactic is well known. First, it
consolidates its presence by using its spending power in an area
of jurisdiction of special importance to Quebec; then it denies
the distinctiveness of Quebec culture; finally, it promotes a
hypothetical cultural identity across Canada.
Furthermore, like every time the federal government gets
involved in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction,
duplication increases and becomes institutionalized. The
Conseil des arts et des lettres and the Canada Council, the Grand
Théâtre, the Place des Arts and the National Arts Centre, the
national libraries of Quebec and Canada are cases in point. Yet,
even under the Liberals, Quebec has always demanded full
control of its cultural resources and an end to the federal
government's repeated interference.
In that regard, former Quebec Minister of Culture Liza Frulla,
who can certainly not be accused of having sovereignist
motives, said: ``Real dialogue is almost non-existent and when
it does occur, it is more often than not at Quebec's request. Since
Quebec is often presented with a fait accompli, it has to react
after the fact to make its real needs known''.
Culture comes from people, artists and creators. It does not
come from the government. The role of a government is to
accept culture for what it is and to help promote and develop that
culture. The government which should play a role to that end
must necessarily be the one closest to the realities of people, the
one which best understand their needs, priorities and values.
The federal government, which is bent on creating and
promoting a Canadian culture, is certainly the one in the best
position to fulfill that role. Sure, it does have important, albeit
artificial, financial means, but more often than not its priorities
conflict with those of the artists and the Quebec government,
which is in the best position to understand the needs of these
artists.
Quebec's Union des artistes could not have been clearer on
that issue: ``-when Ottawa comes to Quebec with its own
priorities, its objectives do not always agree with those of the
Quebec government. That situation not only creates
overlapping: It also creates a shock. This is what paralyses
everything''.
We must also look at the issue of copyright and the
unacceptable sharing of responsibilities between the Minister of
Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In recent months, I have received dozens of letters from
various organizations representing producers and creators and
denouncing the uncertainty with which these people have to put
up daily. They are not only concerned by the government's
slowness regarding the copyright issue, but also by the rightist
approach being perpetuated by the current Liberal government,
at the structural level, in giving the Department of Industry,
through Bill C-46, judicial and administrative responsibility
over the Copyright Act.
Composers, authors, artists, performers and producers
worked hard to obtain a right allowing them to get something out
of their work. The copyright system advocated by major
industries, and also by the Minister of Industry, would
jeopardize the chances of creative artists to see their economic
conditions improve for good. Moreover, Quebec authors, who
deal first
7621
with Europe and not the United States, would certainly not find
satisfaction in a system patterned on the American model.
The basic issue remains the fact that we are faced with an
informally shared responsibility between two departments,
which unduly delays the tabling of the act on the second phase of
the copyright reform.
(1340)
We are witnessing a sterile confrontation, opposing the view
of the Minister of Industry, who would rather conform to the line
of American trade policies, and that of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, who favours the copyright and neighbouring rights
system. Meanwhile, our creative artists and performers are
stuck between a Department of Canadian Heritage with no real
authority, but is theoretically supposed to be looking out for
them, and a Department of Industry with little concern for their
problems.
The situation has been particularly bad these past few days,
since the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been suffering from
a chronic lack of credibility with the people as well as his
colleagues, after making several unforgivable errors of
judgement that were recently brought to the attention of this
House.
It is therefore imperative that Bill C-53 be amended so as to
make explicit the responsibility of the heritage minister
regarding copyright and, in this respect, that the bill be
introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself. Not
only is Bill C-53 visibly flawed, but it is further evidence of this
government's insensitivity to or even contempt for the
distinctiveness and specificity of Quebec, which accounts for at
least 25 per cent of the total population of Canada.
That is why I support the motion put forth by my hon.
colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata. I therefore ask that the
bill be withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage.
[English]
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to be able to share with you today my views on Bill
C-53, the bill to create the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The proposed legislation is a technical measure that gives
official recognition to the departmental structure and division of
responsibilities that was adopted when the government took
office.
As most members know the department has been functioning
well now for more than a year and a half. The passage of this bill
is a necessary legal step and will substantiate the areas of
jurisdiction within which the Minister of Canadian Heritage will
exercise his powers and carry out his duties and functions.
The Department of Canadian Heritage brings together
components from five former or existing federal departments,
namely environment, communications, secretary of state,
national health and welfare, and multiculturalism and
citizenship. This fact alone allows you to imagine the abundant
variety of programs that can be found within this department.
The legislation reflects the breadth of the department's mandate
which includes responsibilities in areas such as cultural
development, multiculturalism, official languages, heritage
conservation, national parks, national historic sites, and
amateur sports.
Moreover, the policies and programs of the Department of
Canadian Heritage are designated to promote increased
understanding of our diversity, the involvement of all citizens in
Canadian society and awareness of our cultural and natural
wealth. In other words, the department is active in those areas
that are linked to our identity as Canadians.
One of the most visible programs administered by Canadian
heritage is Parks Canada which is also one of the department's
three principal sectors. Many Canadians and for that matter
many tourists who visit Canada have taken advantage of the
opportunity to experience the magnificence and unique natural
beauty of the country's system of natural parks, natural historic
sites and historic canals. As steward of these unrivalled
examples of our natural and cultural heritage it is Parks
Canada's duty to ensure their protection and interpretation on
behalf of all Canadians.
Parks Canada has a strong and respected presence in every
region of the country. It contributes in a significant way both
directly and indirectly to the local economies of communities all
across Canada through expenditures on its own operations and
through the tourism and economic benefits generated as a result
of those activities.
(1345 )
The second major sector of the department that I would like to
mention encompasses those programs aimed at the promotion of
Canadian identity and civic participation. As one would expect
with such a broadly based mandate this sector includes an
impressive variety of program areas.
Some of the government's most important initiatives are
being implemented in this sector. These include the promotion
of official languages, the pursuit of excellence in amateur
sports, the promotion of our cultural diversity and
encouragement of the full and open participation of every
Canadian in society, the promotion of greater understanding of
human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values, as well
as multiculturalism.
All Canadians must feel a sense of belonging to this country.
Multiculturalism seeks to bridge the gap between cultural
communities with diverse interests and backgrounds. Within
this sector are the programs that speak to us regarding what it
means to be Canadian, that set us apart from the rest of the world
7622
and that have helped Canada earn its top ranking by the United
Nations for overall quality of life.
Last but not least, the other key sector that will occupy the
time of the minister is concerned with the growth and
development of Canada's cultural sector. This area has never
been more important than it is now, given the significance of its
contribution to the Canadian economy.
Some maintain that culture is first and foremost a way of
looking at the world and a symbol of our civilization. It is
through this unique perspective of the world that we are able to
distinguish ourselves from others. Culture therefore with the
traditions and values it encompasses is what gives us our
identity.
Most members will agree that the federal government
responsibility in cultural matters extends to those areas that are
pan-Canadian, interprovincial and international in scope.
Federal activities in this area remain complementary to those of
the other levels of government. It is vital that there be many
agents of cultural development and for governments to play an
active role.
The federal government's key objective in this area is to
ensure that Canada's artists, creators and cultural industries are
provided with the support they need to create and distribute
cultural products and that Canadians have access to these
important examples of cultural expression.
Culture is the very essence of the national identity, the
foundation of national sovereignty and national pride. In a world
where globalization and the information and communications
revolution are bypassing national borders, Canada needs to
commit itself more than ever to cultural development.
To summarize it is clear that the programs and policies of the
Department of Canadian Heritage span Canada's past, present
and future. The department can be regarded as the flagship of
Canadian identity, bringing together a mosaic of federal
programs that will help to confront and surmount the challenges
that lie ahead.
I fully support the passage of this legislation and look forward
to the official recognition of the Department of Canadian
Heritage, so help us God.
(1350 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this debate to address the amendment by my
colleagues from the Bloc. Of course this debate deals with the
department of culture, the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Certainly some questions have been asked of the accountability
and responsibility of that whole department very recently.
Those are the types of things we need to discuss because if the
credibility is not there, if there is no sense of total ministerial
accountability and responsibility, then what does the legislation
really matter? What does the name of the department really
matter? As you well know, Mr. Speaker, probably very little. If
someone stands as the Prime Minister has for days and days and
says: ``I am totally responsible'', then we want to see that
responsibility. We do not want them just to say it, we want to see
it.
As I address this amendment and the whole issue of this entire
department I would like to call into question, sad to say but
necessary to do, the need to look at some of the things that have
happened in this department. Then we must ask: Can it even go
on as such?
Should there be a department of multiculturalism in this
country? When people come to Canada do they feel they should
really be part of Canada, or should they be hunkered off in their
own areas, getting government money to continue the way of
life they so freely left to come to Canada? One certainly wonders
about that. When there is a minister who we certainly need to ask
questions about, it is important that we look at the whole scope
of the entire matter.
Let us look at the chronology of incidents that have happened
over the last several months. On March 15, 1994 this whole
department was called into question when the minister wrote to
Keith Spicer, the chairman of the CRTC, asking that it give ``due
consideration'' to the application submitted by Konstantinos
Daniilidis for a Greek language radio program licence. CRTC
itself stamped the letter ``intervention''. The CRTC knows what
an intervention is; perhaps this government does not but the
CRTC does. Keith Spicer knows very clearly what an
intervention is, or an interference if you will, by a minister.
Two weeks later on March 29, 1994, the secretary general of
the CRTC, Allan Darling, responded to the minister by thanking
him ``for his letter of support''. He knows what a letter of
support is. That confirmed the CRTC considered it an
intervention. The minister did not respond to this letter.
On September 20, months and months down the road, Mr.
Mike Pattichis writes to the minister expressing concern about
support for the Daniilidis application. He knew about it. The
letter was never made public.
Ten days later on September 30 the Canadian heritage
minister writes to Mr. Pattichis to clarify that his March 15 letter
was not in fact intended to convey support, certainly not. It was
just carbon copied to the CRTC. It was a six month delay in
responding to clarify the issue. The letter arrived too late to be
considered by the CRTC. The file regarding Daniilidis had
already been closed. In other words: ``Thank you. Appreciate
that but you are out of time, you are out of luck''. Therefore, the
CRTC was clearly under the impression that there was
ministerial support for this the entire way through.
On October 1, one month ago, the Prime Minister is made
aware of the letter of support and exonerates the minister. How
can anyone be exonerated for breaking guidelines so clearly,
where this whole ministerial department is called into question?
7623
The Prime Minister takes no action. Funny. This was confirmed
on October 28 by the Prime Minister when he stated in the House
in reference to his exchange with the ``ethics counsellor'': ``The
answer that came from him did not lead me to change my mind
about the decision that I had made earlier in the month''. I think
it was October 1. We were still in the month of October. As if
this was perfectly excusable.
On October 26 ethics counsellor Howard Wilson is contacted
not by the Prime Minister nor his officials, but by a Southam
News reporter. He is made aware of the March 15 letter. The
ethics counsellor does not launch an investigation into that.
CBC breaks the story on Prime Time News later that evening.
Sometime on the morning of October 27 the ethics counsellor
Mr. Wilson is contacted by PMO staff regarding the minister.
Does this smell like damage control, Mr. Speaker? You have
seen damage control in your many, many years here. You saw it
from within in fact and now you are seeing it perhaps from
within again. The contents of that conversation remain
confidential, but Mr. Wilson said that he was not asked to start
an investigation. The details continue. Later on the morning of
October 27 the minister stood up in this House claiming to have
never seen the March 30 letter.
(1355)
All of us get a lot of correspondence in our offices, but if we
do not see it and if we do not have competent staff to bring very
important letters like that to our attention, then as the minister
and the Prime Minister have said so clearly, we bear the
responsibility for that.
This minister should bear the responsibility for it. He has not.
The Prime Minister has not and this is not the end of the story.
He says of course that he ``took immediate corrective action''.
From what we have heard in this House it would seem he was
just acting as an MP, not as a minister, so he did not really need
to take corrective action. However he took corrective action
anyway because of what the Prime Minister said was a mistake.
It was an error, so hey, go figure, as the high school students
would say.
In question period on October 27 at 2.24 p.m., the leader of
my party said: ``There is a simple guideline that applies in these
cases and it is a most elementary one''. Surely we could all
understand elementary guidelines in this House. It is understood
in most jurisdictions. That is that ministers do not communicate
with quasi-judicial, regulatory bodies except in three ways:
through statute; through orders in council; or through public
formal submissions to that body. They do not communicate
through telephone calls or casual conversations or casual letters.
This is not proper. Mr. Speaker, you know it and I know it. I
suspect all of us in this House know it. Perhaps it is time we
admitted it.
At 2.29 p.m. that day the Prime Minister stated in question
period: ``I consulted the government's ethics counsellor and one
I appointed for myself, and both confirmed that I had made the
right decision in this matter''. At 2.49 p.m. the Prime Minister
said: ``Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has informed me that
he is satisfied with the conclusion I have come to at this time''.
The ethics counsellor knew nothing about this. I have spoken
often about the phantom of the Ottawa. It seems to me he has
been speaking to the Prime Minister during overtime.
In question period on October 28, at 11.15 a.m. the Prime
Minister said: ``I did not speak to Mr. Wilson myself, but I asked
that he be consulted yesterday''. This contradicts the statement
the Prime Minister said the day before. At 11.52 a.m. on October
28 the Prime Minister said: ``In the case of quasi-judicial bodies
that relate to the affairs of the government, the affairs of the
members of Parliament and so on, the guidelines were not clear
to my satisfaction. I have asked the Privy Council Office to
prepare new guidelines in consultation with Mr. Wilson''.
Sometime later on October 28 Mr. Wilson was approached by
the PMO to look at existing guidelines for ministers. This was
the first time Mr. Wilson received the confidential guidelines
for ministers. Prior to this he had no knowledge of them
whatsoever. It was October 28, getting very close to Halloween,
the time of spooks and hobgoblins and all kinds of stories.
On October 31, the very day of Halloween, in his statement to
the House the Prime Minister stood up and attempted to clarify
the role of ministers in regard to quasi-judicial bodies.
Interestingly, while he revealed other ministers' letters to the
CRTC, he did not account for his own action nor the minister's
actions over the last seven months.
During question period on Halloween, in full mask in
response to the contradictory statements by the Prime Minister
about the ethics counsellor, the member for Medicine Hat asked
that the Prime Minister make the current ethics counsellor office
independent and accountable to Parliament and not just the
Prime Minister. Still during question period on Halloween at
2.45 p.m. in response to the contradictory statements by the
Prime Minister, he asked again that this be accountable to
Parliament.
Yesterday, November 2, in an interview with CBC
Newsworld, Mr. Wilson admitted that he never undertook an
investigation of the heritage minister affair. Can we look at a
department that acts responsibly, that acts with integrity?
Absolutely not.
Let me close my remarks by saying this entire ministry, this
entire department, this cabinet minister and all his officials, the
Prime Minister and this entire government has been tainted by
more than tuna fish. This department has been called into
disrepute and we are disgusted by it.
7624
The Speaker: Colleagues, it being 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements
by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31. The hon. member
for Saint-Denis.
_____________________________________________
7624
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past weekend, Canadians of Greek origin commemorated a
very important national holiday of their country of origin.
On October 28, 1940 the Greeks said no, oxi, to the forces that
sought to divide and conquer Europe. They chose to fight the
forces of the axis and remained united with the allies.
[Translation]
Canadians of Greek origin in Quebec are now ready to say no
to the separatist forces, no to the Bloc Quebecois, no to the Parti
Quebecois, and yes to a united Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to tell this House about the national family literacy
conference now being held in Ottawa, which is organized by the
Movement for Canadian Literacy.
Family literacy is a new approach which seeks to provide
basic training and development services for adults who have to
stay home with pre-school children. Besides meeting the
specific literacy needs of adults, this new form of learning
creates an environment that encourages children in the family to
read and write.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois are happy to support such
initiatives and hope to see other projects to improve the basic
training of a growing number of Canadians and Quebecers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud to announce to the House that a woman from my
constituency has been accorded a signal honour as one of only
five distinguished Canadian women to receive the Governor
General's Award in commemoration of the Persons Case.
Ms. Rose Charlie is a member of the Sto:lo and Chehalis bands.
She has a record of 25 years of unstinting community service
and advocacy.
As a founding member of Indian Rights for Indian Women and
the Indian Homemakers Association, Ms. Charlie was at the
forefront in challenging the Indian Act that deprived First
Nations women of their status when they married non-Indians.
As a result, a federal legislative change was enacted in 1985
that has enabled thousands of women and their children to
regain their status as First Nations people.
Rose Charlie never wavered in the pursuit of her cause. Not
only is she an example of service and dedication to her people;
she is testimony to the success that follows perseverance.
Along with the Government of Canada and on behalf of all my
constituents, it is my pleasure to salute her today.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Royal Canadian Legion was founded in 1925 to look after the
veterans of World War I. The first ladies auxiliary was formed a
year later. The first Remembrance Day was in 1931 when 50,000
attended in Ottawa. This resulted in parliamentary recognition
of Armistice Day. Today the legion has 600,000 members in
1,800 communities.
In Peterborough riding, legions in Havelock, Keene,
Lakefield, Norwood, Peterborough and Warsaw, in addition to
taking care of veterans affairs, donated tens of thousands of
dollars to local charities this year alone. They supported
disadvantaged children, minor hockey, Meals on Wheels, Civic
and St. Joseph's hospitals, Easter Seals, the United Way, local
churches, animals in distress, Terry Fox, homes for the aged,
high school students, the lung association, Telecare and many
other fine causes.
Canadian veterans who are no longer with us would be proud
of their legion today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Sunday, 800 committed separatists spent $125
each to have a drink with the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and
celebrate their first anniversary in opposition in the House of
Commons.
On Monday morning, Le Devoir reported that very few PQ
members of the National Assembly and cabinet ministers
answered the invitation to raise a glass with the Bloc leader.
7625
Clearly, the falling popularity of separatism bothers him a lot.
That is why he said it was time for separatists to wake up.
Are we to conclude, then, that despite what the leader of the
Bloc said in front of Mr. Parizeau and the other guests, they
preferred to continue dozing off for the rest of the celebrations?
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of my colleagues, the Secretary of State for Training
and Youth and the Minister of Human Resources Development, I
am pleased to inform the House that this week more than 1,500
junior and high schools, colleges and Canada Employment
Centres will participate in the 1994 edition of Canada Career
Week.
(1405 )
Canada Career Week is designed to focus the attention of
students and all Canadians on what prospects the job market is
likely to hold for them and which skills they will need to succeed
in an ever evolving economy.
Education is the key to sound career planning because
knowledge opens doors. Young people have to start planning
their future very early. Canada Career Week activities like job
sharing and career and job fairs will have them face the
challenge of making the right career choice.
I convey my best wishes for success to all Canada Career
Week organizers and participants.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, filled
with pride but also with sorrow, we wish to draw the attention of
the House today to the tremendous contribution made by women
to the war effort during World War I and, more significantly,
between 1939 and 1945.
We take pride in the fact that women participated on all fronts
and that their contribution was useful, effective and necessary.
We feel sorrow for all the suffering, for the loved ones they and
their children mourned, for lives that were disrupted and cut
short. We also want to voice our hopes.
Like the World Health Organization that supports the
elimination of nuclear arms, Canadian and Quebec women want
a world free of all wars and hostility and hope other ways will be
found to resolve conflicts. They want peace.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak once again, along
with the large crowd in front of the Parliament Buildings today,
to demand real change in the Young Offenders Act legislation.
This past Monday in my riding of Port Coquitlam, Derek
Rosenberg was attacked by a group of young people upon
leaving a 7-Eleven Store and pushed through a glass door face
first. Mr. Rosenberg, age 26, has a heart condition and requires
medication as well as continued good operation of the
pacemaker which was installed this past January and on which
his health depends. This was of no concern to those who left him
lying in the broken glass with serious injuries.
How many more victims must fall before the government
enacts real change to make the streets safe for those who live on
them and judgment certain for those who threaten that safety?
* * *
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of our two members of Parliament from the
Northwest Territories, I would like to extend my deepest
sympathies to the families and friends of the eight hunters who
drowned in Frobisher Bay earlier this week.
Our thoughts are with the two survivors and the whole
community of Iqaluit whose lives have all been drastically
affected by this tragedy. Although no thoughts or words can ease
the pain being shared, some comfort can be taken in the
contribution that these two men have given to the continuation
of traditional life in the eastern Arctic.
Death is a part of life in the Inuit culture and because of
individuals like these hunters the Inuit way of life lives on.
Along with these members from the Arctic I would like to
encourage the people of Iqaluit to continue the struggle which
these men worked so hard for in sustaining the Inuit culture.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to add my support the MCL's National
Family Literacy Conference and welcome participants to
Ottawa.
7626
Given my own work promoting literacy in my riding through
the community academic services program, I recognize the
importance of reaching out to those who are unable to enjoy the
printed media.
Children in non-reading families are more likely than other
children to be non-readers as adults. Unless this cycle is broken
it can continue for generations.
Schools alone cannot be responsible for establishing citizens
as full and comprehensive language users. Literacy
development demands participation from the family and the
community if citizens are to be strong, effective
communicators.
In family literacy programs like those championed by the
National Family Literacy Conference, parents and other adult
family members learn the importance of reading and writing.
I applaud efforts to meet the literacy needs of parents and
their children and I pledge my continued support in eradicating
illiteracy in our communities.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the largest foreign delegation ever assembled will be leaving
Canada for China tonight, led by the Prime Minister; most
premiers, with the exception of one; and businessmen and
women from throughout the country, some of our most talented
people. They will be going to sell our services and our products
in that large country.
(1410)
As part of this Team Canada they are going to show the
Chinese people that we are willing to sit down and do business
with them.
[Translation]
We promised that in our red book. It is a part of our program.
It is important to develop foreign trade and trade relations. We
promised we would, and we are delivering the goods.
I know everyone will want to join me in congratulating the
Prime Minister of Canada and wishing him and his team good
luck.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, next
week, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh
month, we will commemorate a major event of this century.
In 1918, the Great War officially ended with the signing of an
armistice. Since 1921, Canada has commemorated this fact, in
tribute to all those who made the supreme sacrifice of their lives
to bring peace to the free world. Every day, the international
news reminds us of the price of peace and the cost of war.
We must remember, for the benefit of our collective memory. It
is not just for our veterans, for whom this day symbolizes the
entire meaning of their lives. It is not just for all those who died.
It is just as important for future generations.
We must remember the lessons of history. Our tribute to the
past is as important as our responsibility for the future.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to address the House in my capacity as literacy
critic for the Reform Party. This is a position which I do not like
to have because as long as it exists it signifies there is a literacy
problem in Canada.
What is being done about this problem and what should be
done about it? For those youngsters in the school system today,
which is within provincial jurisdiction, let us hope all education
reviews stress the necessity to teach the basics.
For those who have slipped through the cracks in the
education system, it is important that they have access to
literacy programs which will help them to learn to read and
write. I believe it is my job to ensure that whatever literacy
programs be established they be effective in this attempt to
address literacy.
This is where the national ad hoc literacy group comes in. It
stresses helping the whole family to ensure there is an
appreciation of books and reading in the home.
In this international year of the family groups such as this
which stress the strengthening of the family unit through an
appreciation of education deserve our praise.
I wish all participants in the National Family Literacy
Conference well in their deliberations and I look forward to
joining them for some of their sessions.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals made many promises in Manitoba during the last
federal election. A lot of them had to do with railways.
They promised they would stop the flow of jobs from
Winnipeg to Edmonton through the CNR. They have not done
that. Instead the crew calling office and rail traffic control are
being transferred from Winnipeg to Edmonton just the way they
were under the Tories.
They promised that Churchill would be revived. What do we
have instead? We have the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon
saying that Churchill should not be part of the Canadian port
system, and the Minister of Transport and the member for
Winnipeg South Centre refuse to repudiate him.
7627
All these promises have been broken. The one thing they did
not promise was setting up a Liberal only committee to examine
ways to commercialize, which is another word for privatize, the
CNR.
They broke all their promises with respect to rail in Manitoba.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that the leader of the
Reform Party is planning to reconsider the advisability of his
taking a 10 per cent pay cut. The rationale for his change of heart
is that because he is not getting enough credit for the great
sacrifice he may start taking his full pay.
It has always been my view that you took an action because
you believed it was the right thing to do and not simply to get
credit.
The leader of the Reform Party said he decided on a month by
month basis whether to take his pay cut. The hon. member made
such a big deal over his frugality I would urge him to stick to his
guns, take the cut and not decide his pay on the basis of how
many fancy suits he wants to buy or get dry cleaned in a given
month.
Many hon. members from each and every party in the House
make sacrifices for what we do but do not get credit for. We do it
because we believe in it. We do it because we want to do our part.
We do it because it is the right thing to do. I urge the hon. leader
of the Reform Party to do the same.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition has completely
reversed his position this week by voting against Bill C-56 on
Environmental Assessment.
(1415)
He was the one who said in October that this was his baby, that
he had fought very hard for it in Cabinet. According to him, he
never spoke against the bill.
The Leader of the Opposition has a very short memory. On
October 21, 1993, when Mr. Lépine asked him during a
broadcast of Le Point whether he would not find himself
opposing Jacques Parizeau if the latter won the upcoming
election, the hon. member replied that Mr. Parizeau would also
respect the legislation, that the Parti Quebecois had agreed to
that position.
By voting against Bill C-56, the Leader of the Opposition
shows clearly that he no longer has any credibility when he
purports to speak for Quebecers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
bring to the attention of the House the first national family
literacy conference which is being held here in Ottawa this
week, sponsored by the Movement for Canadian Literacy which
brings together groups and individuals from across the country
working in family literacy.
The family is the single most important social unit and that is
where the serious problem of illiteracy can best be tackled.
I wish to commend the conference organizers, especially
Marion Zaichkowski, the co-chair of the New Brunswick
Committee on Literacy, who is participating in the work of this
conference.
Today I met with the government's literacy minister, the hon.
Joyce Fairburn, to discuss literacy initiatives. Senator Fairburn
has been an outstanding advocate for Canadian literacy and a
strong supporter of the conference and will be addressing the
delegates today at the National Press Club reception at three
o'clock.
I urge all members of Parliament to attend and renew their
support for the government's-
The Speaker: Oral questions.
_____________________________________________
7627
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance sounded
the alarm. ``We are in hock up to our eyeballs. This cannot go on.
The situation is not sustainable'', he said, and he promised once
more that he would cut spending.
Yesterday, his colleague at Treasury Board announced $2
billion in additional spending, including $26 million for
Hibernia, $4 million for the Privy Council, $3 million for
Canadian unity and $2 million more for the other place.
How can the government expect taxpayers to take its promises
to cut government spending seriously, when today, it announces
an additional $2 billion in spending?
7628
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a normal process that is carried out a couple of
times a year whereby in the reserves money is allocated for
certain projects that have not yet been finalized and details have
not yet been provided in the main estimates. They are then put
into the estimates through a supplementary procedure which we
went through yesterday and tabled in the House.
There is absolutely nothing in terms of removing one iota our
commitment to getting our spending down, to getting the deficit
down to 3 per cent of GDP in three years. We are on target and
we intend to meet that goal.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister says this is quite normal. I agree. It is
normal for this government to keep doing the opposite of what it
says it will do.
How can the minister reconcile the mandate the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs received to downsize government
and government spending with the decision to give him $6
million more for operating expenditures?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 1993, the previous government
implemented changes that abolished the Federal-Provincial
Relations Office.
When the new government came back, it obviously concluded
that, considering the profile of the opposition, in particular, this
was a problem that should be given all necessary attention, and
that is what we did.
Of the $5.9 million in the Supplementary Estimates, several
hundred thousand dollars will be used to reduce overlap, which
is exactly what the Government of Quebec and the opposition
are asking us to do. This will cover the cost of rebuilding a group
of officers to take care of federal-provincial relations and of
eliminating overlap and duplication.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether
she realizes that the government is doing the exact opposite of
what everyone expects it to do. It lets its administration spend
more and comes down on the needy in our society by cutting
social programs.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the
Opposition knows perfectly well we have always had
Supplementary Estimates. That was already the case when he
was a minister in Mr. Mulroney's government.
What we said today, what the Minister of Finance said last week
and what the Prime Minister has emphasized, is that we intend to
meet our commitment to a target of 3 per cent of GDP. And we
will succeed.
[English]
We are going to meet our targets. We intend to meet our
targets. We are going to meet our 3 per cent and the Prime
Minister is committed to that. Every member of the cabinet and
the government is committed to that deficit reduction exercise.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The intentions of the
federal government remain unclear regarding former Bill C-91.
In their attempt to have the supporting regulations changed, a
group of government members are challenging openly and
publicly the validity of the act designed to protect
pharmaceutical companies manufacturing brand name drugs,
companies that invest substantial amounts in the design and
development of such drugs.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with this open attack
on Bill C-91 by several of her fellow government members,
with the support of former Liberal minister Bob Kaplan, who
now lobbies for generic drug manufacturers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Nothing is being attacked, Mr.
Speaker. Our committees are their own masters. A proposal was
tabled in committee and defeated.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
considering that all the Liberal members in attendance at the
committee meeting this morning voted against the regulations
pertaining to Bill C-91, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend
to take these members to task, in order to prevent a recurrence-
The Speaker: Order! I would ask the hon. member to
rephrase his question, as it deals with two matters. First, it deals
with committees and then with what sounds like a problem
within a political party. So, if you could just rephrase the
question, it would be acceptable.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister
intend to take to task these Liberal members, to prevent major
investments by pharmaceutical companies from again being
jeopardized by their persistence?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we respect the
committee's capacity to act independently. I hope that the hon.
members opposite also respect the right of individual parlia-
7629
mentary committees to do their job properly, acting
independently, as they should, under the reforms we have
proposed.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
has been quite a week. What has become crystal clear to
Canadians is that this government has sacrificed its integrity on
the altar of political expediency.
Not only did the Minister of Canadian Heritage violate
existing guidelines for ministers, albeit a watered down version
of Tory guidelines, the Prime Minister failed Canadians by not
firing the minister. He compounded his failure with a story a
day.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister claim with a straight face
that this government will restore integrity to any of our political
institutions?
The Speaker: My colleagues, in the questioning in the last
few days we have been skirting that very fine line where we
impute motives to members of Parliament.
I believe the questions, as much as possible, should be
directed to the administrative responsibility of the government
rather than using this type of wording. I would appeal to all hon.
members to please back up a little from the impugning of
motives in any of our questions or answers. I will permit the
Deputy Prime Minister to answer this question if she so chooses.
(1425)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Speaking of straight faces, Mr.
Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear the member yesterday
saying that Jean Chrétien looked like Brian Mulroney.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
facts are clear. The Prime Minister knew of the heritage
minister's letter fully a month ago and he did not contact the
ethics counsellor, who only found out about it from the media
last week.
The Prime Minister had made up his mind before he contacted
the ethics counsellor, who was not even asked for a ruling. These
are the facts, not fiction.
If this government wants to restore public confidence and
maintain the ethics counsellor as a watchdog of this place as he
should, not a lapdog, why will she not have him report to the
House on this affair immediately after the recess next week?
What are they afraid of?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reflect
on integrity but when the member across the way speaks about
integrity I find it passing strange that two days ago she made
certain false allegations in the House which she knew
subsequently to be false but which she did not have the integrity
to withdraw.
I hope today she takes the opportunity to-
The Speaker: My colleagues, once again I would appeal to
you to try to deal with the facts as opposed to personal attacks. It
would make things a lot easier for the House.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
you and I clearly know, calling and intervening with a
quasi-judicial body is wrong. Calling a judge for any reason is
also wrong. This Prime Minister never denied that he actually
called a judge. There was discrepancy about why he called. He
admitted he had called a judge.
This entire affair has been unbelievable and continues to be
unbelievable. There is no denial of that.
This government has placed politics before principle and its
damage control spin doctors have spun out of control. This
Prime Minister has set a precedent of claiming to be responsible
and accountable but he is neither. Frankly, I wonder would any
further supplementaries be totally wasted on this government?
The Speaker: Order.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Tonight, the Prime Minister will begin a long trip at the head
of a Canadian delegation that will take him to China, in
particular. We know how important respect for human rights is
and the leadership role which Canada has always assumed in this
regard. Last week, the Prime Minister admitted in Vancouver
that he did not intend to raise the issue publicly.
How can the Prime Minister believe that timid action behind
closed doors can significantly improve the human rights
situation in China?
[English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this trip to China will be the biggest
delegation ever assembled from Canada. We are going to
strengthen and advance the ties between Canada and China.
On this front we will advance on the four pillar policies that
we have stated so clearly in this House. The first is the economic
and trade ties between us. The second is the role China plays in
the security of the world. The third is sustainable development
and issues about the environment. The fourth is about human
rights, good government and the rule of law development in
China.
7630
This government would not sacrifice any one of those for the
other.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is not
exactly what we heard.
Are we to understand from the reservations expressed by the
Prime Minister that Canada has now given up its leading role in
defending human rights around the world?
(1430)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in answer to that
question, last week, I observed with interest the meeting
between the Premier of Quebec and the governor of a Chinese
province and I noted that the Premier of Quebec made no public
comment about human rights in China.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister in his 1995 immigration plan told this House and the
Canadian people that the levels of family class immigrants
would not increase but would remain stable at a level of 51 per
cent of all immigrants. Does the minister still maintain that this
is an accurate representation of the facts?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have said and
confirmed in this plan is that the family class is very much a
cornerstone within the immigration program. Not only in the
family class category itself but the principle of family is
protected in every other category. When we bring in an
independent or a business class immigrant or a refugee they also
have the legitimate right to bring in their families.
We have also tried to seek a balance because there are four
different categories in the immigration program. We want each
category to have an appropriate market share of the overall
program. It has been well received in the east, the west and
central Canada.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are talking about a plan and the numbers as the minister has
released them to the Canadian people are somewhat deceptive.
This minister has in effect created two separate and new
classes of immigrants that did not exist last year. These classes
were included in last year's family totals but have been
conveniently shuffled off into another column. In fact the
percentage of family class immigrants in 1995 is expected to be
significantly higher than last year.
Why did the minister obscure and fudge the numbers?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disappoint
the hon. member but there is no fudging of the figures. The
figures are very clear.
We tabled four documents as part of the immigration plan, a
10 year strategic framework, a document called ``Facts and
Figures'' and a report of the entire consultation process of what
Canadians said. In response to this the Reform Party of Canada
put out a three paragraph position on immigration. On Monday
the critic said he was in support of the general direction, but on
Tuesday he was completely opposed. Why do they not get their
act together?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
While the Minister of Finance is saying that the country is
practically on the verge of bankruptcy and that the time has
come to cut government spending, the government tables
supplementary estimates confirming over $2 billion in
additional expenditures. At the same time, we learn that senior
officials asked federal auditors in charge of the internal audit
process to remember that their reports can be made public and to
keep a low profile.
Are we to understand that the new approach favoured by the
Liberal government is to try to muzzle government auditors to
keep them from denouncing gross abuses and waste in the
federal administration?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me repeat again that I answered this earlier to the
Leader of the Opposition who of course at one time was in
government and knows how supplementary estimates work.
There are not additional expenditure items. They were
provided for in the reserves. There was not sufficient detail in
accordance with the required procedures to place them into the
main estimates at that point so it is fully understood they come
under supplementary estimates.
It has not changed at all our determination to meet our
expenditure cut goals and to get the deficit down to 3 per cent of
GDP in three years.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the minister really understood my question. Are we to
understand that the new approach favoured by the Liberal
government is to try to muzzle government auditors to keep
7631
them from denouncing gross abuses and waste in the federal
administration?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the same
approach that was used by the Leader of the Opposition during
his three years as a minister in Mr. Mulroney's government.
* * *
(1435 )
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, recently
Saturday Night reported on grave problems
within the Immigration and Refugee Board. One of the issues
raised in the article was the conduct of the vice-chair of the
board.
Saturday Night reported that the vice-chair had ordered
the raising of refugee acceptance rates and threatened the career
of those who do not meet an acceptance quota.
I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: Is it not
true that he was aware of the manipulations by the vice-chair
long ago? Why did he not do anything about it before?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first
question is no.
I confirm that the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board
wrote to me yesterday suggesting that there would be reasons for
conducting a fuller review. Yesterday I instructed our
department's legal counsel out of the Department of Justice to
write to the deputy vice-chair requesting his written comments
within seven days. Once I have all the facts before me I will
make the appropriate decision. This government will always do
the right thing.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): That is
very reassuring, Mr. Speaker.
Recently another high ranking member of the board, Greg
Fyffe, was released from the board under suspicious
circumstances. Some reports tell of frustration because of
interference by this minister. Another distinguished member of
the board resigned his post in frustration, accusing the IRB of
pandering to the immigration industry costing Canadians
millions of dollars and not helping true refugees.
Will the minister admit that he has long known about the
troubles in the Immigration and Refugee Board and that he
refused to address them?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's flight of
exaggeration serves no public interest except to further the
political exploitation of an issue that this party has never
accepted. I do not believe it is dignified for a minister of the
crown or a member of Parliament to discuss personnel matters
on the floor of the House of Commons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. The Sub-Committee
on the St. Lawrence Seaway is proposing that the Pilotage Act of
1972 be repealed, that the four pilotage authorities be
disbanded, and that a Canada-United States agency be
responsible for pilotage on the St. Lawrence River and the Great
Lakes.
In order to maintain the safety of navigation on the St.
Lawrence River, will the Minister of Transport pledge to reject
the sub-committee's recommendation to repeal the Pilotage
Act?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we understand the great importance of safe navigation
on the St. Lawrence River and elsewhere, and the report
submitted by the sub-committee will be thoroughly examined. I
want to reassure the hon. member and tell him that we will not
take any measure that would jeopardize the safety of those who
navigate on the St. Lawrence River or elsewhere.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
considering that the safety of navigation on the St. Lawrence
River is not the responsibility of Americans, who have a real
interest in cutting the costs of navigating in Canadian waters,
how can the minister expect a binational agency to apply the
same safety standards as the current pilotage authorities?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the introduction of new technology or the changes in
any system having to do with maintaining safety and security
whether it is in the air, on the sea or on land will always have as
its very first priority the safety and security of Canadians and
anyone who travels in Canadian controlled environment.
I want to reassure my colleague that whatever changes are
made, and this report is one of many that will have to be
considered, the first priority will always be to make sure that we
are respecting safety and security. Any arrangements whether
they are with the United States or any other international
arrangement we enter into will always focus on safety and
security because that is the fiduciary responsibility of the
Department of Transport.
7632
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The law of the sea is designed to protect the world's fisheries
and to stop pollution in the oceans. Canada signed that law 12
years ago but has yet to ratify it.
(1440)
Given the fact that the law of the sea will come into force in
two weeks and it is not ratified by Canada, would the
parliamentary secretary tell this House the precise date when the
Government of Canada will ratify this important international
law?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to
answer this question of my colleague on an issue of importance
to Canada.
Canada did sign the law of the sea convention in 1982 but we
did have some concerns about some provisions in that
convention with regard to the exploitation of the deep seabed.
After long negotiations we were able to sign the agreement in
the United Nations this year on July 29. Because of that we are
now looking through all of our laws to make sure they are
consistent with the convention.
The convention will come into force in November of this year
and we hope to be able to ratify it ourselves soon thereafter.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the justice minister.
It is time this government ended the pain. Too many mothers
live with tombstones in their eyes. They see the names of their
children on gravestones because of the failure of this
government to address the problems with the Young Offenders
Act.
When will this government quit reviewing, consulting and
debating changes to the Young Offenders Act and realize that
some young offenders cannot be rehabilitated?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the hon. member that
granted some young offenders cannot be rehabilitated, but most
can. It is a very worthwhile exercise to seek the rehabilitation of
young offenders because they are not going to serve their
sentences forever. They are going to be back in society and it is
in the interests of society that they be rehabilitated.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
looked into the eyes of a mother whose four year old child is
gone forever. I have seen the tears created by the calling of her
child's name. I saw this mother refuse to let go of her child's
teddy bear as if the touch might keep her child alive.
Canadians stand on these grounds to protest this
government's refusal to admit mothers and fathers cry every day
because the current young offenders legislation is no deterrent
to violent youth.
When will the minister admit some violent young offenders
deserve closed custody for periods that are longer than the time
it takes for the tears to stop flowing?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no punishment or sanction in the world that
is going to compensate for the loss of a child.
The Reform Party is asking for justice and that is what it is
getting from this government. Bill C-37, with amendments to
the Young Offenders Act, is in committee at the present time.
We have stated that we will be proceeding with a 10-year review
of the Young Offenders Act.
We need consultation and dialogue to get the right law. If we
were not dialoguing and consulting, there would be another
complaint from the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Even though double hulls are not required for navigation on
the St. Lawrence and giant oil tankers have very little clearance
when carrying a full cargo, the transport sub-committee
recommends that the Pilotage Act be repealed and the pilotage
associations disbanded.
In order to avoid an ecological disaster on the St. Lawrence,
does the Minister of the Environment intend to continue to
require shipowners to use certified pilots?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, there is no doubt that my hon. colleague
attaches a great deal of importance to a report prepared by the
transport sub-committee, but let us not exaggerate that
importance. Before changes, if in fact there are any, can take
place, all the implications will have to be examined.
And as far as security on the St. Lawrence River is concerned,
we are obviously going to take great pains to ensure that any
proposed changes will not result in greater risk than that already
existing.
7633
(1445)
When I listen to the Leader of the Opposition and the
members of the Bloc speaking about budgetary restraint and the
need to examine all possible avenues to cut costs, I wish to make
it quite clear that we will examine all the possibilities, but we
will also maintain our responsibility for security on the St.
Lawrence River and elsewhere in Canada.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the Minister of Transport continues to threaten to eliminate the
St. Lawrence pilotage system, does the Minister of the
Environment recognize that this system constitutes the best
means of ensuring the protection of the environment with
respect to navigation on the St. Lawrence?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is completely false to claim that the Minister of
Transport is threatening to abolish the pilotage system on the St.
Lawrence or anywhere else in Canada.
A parliamentary sub-committee tabled a report and we will
take its recommendations into consideration. But we will
evaluate all changes in the context I have described previously,
that of ensuring the security of people travelling on the St.
Lawrence, or on the east or west coast.
As far as pilotage is concerned, no decision has been taken. I
would like to assure my hon. colleague, through you, Mr.
Speaker, that this is not the time to start rumours that we are
going to do anything today or tomorrow that could endanger
those who need to have their safety ensured on land, at sea and in
the air.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the recent Supreme Court decision
confirming the defence of extreme drunkenness was only a
milestone in developing trends of defensive intoxication.
This year in British Columbia there has been a 50 per cent
increase in the number of murder trials that resulted in
convictions on lesser charges. The majority of these cases are
due to the defence of intoxication.
Why is this government prepared to wait while the
intoxication defence is allowing criminals to literally get away
with murder?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I think to the hon. member for
Beaver River, this is a great concern to the Minister of Justice
and there is going to be something done about this.
The whole question of extreme and excessive drunkenness is
being included in the recodification of the Criminal Code. The
report on that recodification is now before the Minister of
Justice and he will be expressing his position on the contents of
this recodification very shortly.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this House is great at reports and in studies
and I think what the Canadian people are asking for is action.
The Liberal red book states that as a government it will
introduce measures to protect women and children. Yet in the
majority of the above noted cases the victims are females. Over
half the cases of manslaughter, over half the convictions for
manslaughter have resulted in sentences of less than five years.
Will the minister advise the House when this government will
live up to its red book commitment to protect the women of this
country?
An hon. member: No rush.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a member of the Reform Party says no rush. I want
to disagree with him. There is a rush.
The Minister of Justice has asked for the recodification to
include the area to which the hon. member refers. She
mentioned dialogue and studies. What Canadians do want are
good laws. They want good laws that are going to serve the
needs of Canadian society and that is what this government is
going to bring forward.
* * *
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
When the Prime Minister appeared on CBC's Prime Time
News town hall meeting he said that some banks are doing a
good job of supplying small and medium sized enterprises with
financing, while others were not doing as well.
He also said there should be a ratio between lending money to
big business and lending money to small business.
What is the minister doing to encourage the banks to meet a
lending target whereby one-third of all business loans by the
banks are allocated to small and medium sized businesses?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all
acknowledge the work of the member for Trinity-Spadina on
the industry committee, the study on access to capital for small
business.
7634
(1450 )
The member has proposed a very important idea. I believe that
most members would recognize the fact that thanks to large
businesses, lending to small businesses is not satisfactory. The
member has proposed an idea that this should be increased to
close to a two-thirds, one-third basis.
It is an interesting idea because it would be an injection of
close to $15 billion into the small and medium sized business
community pool. It is an idea we are going to look at closely and
we will be back to him in due course.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Defence.
The Minister of Defence has stated on many occasions that the
Military College of Kingston would be a model of bilingualism.
Last week, he set up a special committee, over which he chairs
personally, to make the college bilingual.
How can the minister explain the college authorities' refusal
to grant the request of Canadian Military College teachers who
are asking that francophone teachers have equal access and
access in their own language to cultural, professional, financial
and material resources useful for their career progression?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I
would like to take issue with the hon. member.
The Royal Military College in Kingston is a bilingual
institution. It offers courses in both languages and there are
professors and students there of both linguistic groups.
With the consolidation of the three colleges we want to ensure
that this bilingualization is total and complete and satisfies
people like the hon. member who were obviously upset with the
Collège Militaire Royal in Saint-Jean.
I announced the committee last week which I will chair. The
former commandant there, General Emond who is now the
commandant at RMC, will be on the committee as will the
former principal, Mr. Carrier, and other prominent members of
the francophone community.
I think that this committee, once it gets going, will oversee the
consolidation and bilingualization of all of these colleges into
one to the satisfaction of the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the Minister of Defence explain the fact that the dean of the
college in Kingston, Mr. John Plant, is sitting on this
bilingualization committee, when he is the very person who
refused francophone teachers access to services in their primary
language?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an
allegation and I have no evidence that the assertion made by the
hon. member, the allegation, is actually true.
If he has facts that will substantiate his assertion perhaps he
could let me know and I will look into them and try to resolve the
matter.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Industry will know that a free and
independent press is a cornerstone of democracy. The press must
be free to criticize government without fear of retribution.
Esprit de Corps has in its writings been critical of certain
aspects of sourcing of military equipment. Following this
criticism a high ranking bureaucrat from industry, seconded to
the Department of National Defence, is alleged to have
suggested to advertisers that they should boycott advertising in
the magazine Esprit de Corps.
Will the minister launch an investigation to determine the
scope of the involvement of personnel from the Department of
Industry in attempting to destroy this Canadian publication?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have
been allegations of this nature made not only toward employees
of the Department of Industry but also of the Department of
National Defence.
I have no evidence whatsoever that anyone in national
defence or in the Department of Industry has made these kinds
of threats. If the hon. member has names of individuals he could
please give them to me or to the Minister of Industry because we
cannot every day in the House of Commons have these
innuendoes floating around and hurting institutions and
government departments that carry on their job on a daily basis
beyond reproach.
(1455 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, would the Minister of Industry investigate in the
7635
department to find out whether these allegations are true? That
was my question.
General Motors recently pulled its advertising from the
magazine Esprit de Corps. The reason given for this decision is
that its representative was getting bad vibes from the
Department of National Defence. Would the minister of defence
in concert with the Minister of Industry issue a directive that all
personnel are to cease and that this kind of action would not be
tolerated in any department of the Government of Canada?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can give the
hon. member an assurance. If there are people doing this it will
not be tolerated no matter what government department. Please
come forward and give us the evidence before he makes the
charges on the floor of the House of Commons.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Today
the Prime Minister leads Team Canada to China as an important
strategy in our government's jobs and growth agenda.
I would like to ask the minister how he expects this mission to
improve our international trade position and to improve the
prospects for unemployed Canadians?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House would
join the hon. member for Oakville-Milton in wishing the Prime
Minister well as he departs with his nine provincial colleagues
and some 375 business people on the largest trade mission
Canada has ever mounted.
That mission in its scope and participation by all regions in
Canada and by large and small corporations represents the
culmination of the commitment this government has made,
through the missions led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the
Secretary of State for-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, who will appreciate
that in an effort to manage the deficit and the debt, the
government has been calling upon Canadians, UI recipients,
students, farmers, fishers and many others to pay their fair
share.
She will also be aware that last week we heard the Royal Bank
of Canada is expecting to see its profit margin in excess of $1
billion this year. If she looks at the financial record she will find
that in 1992 in spite of $63 million in profits the Royal Bank
paid no income tax at all.
Last year in spite of $324 million in profits, the Royal Bank paid
no income tax and also got a tax credit to apply for this year. Will
the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that when a teller at the
Royal Bank is actually paying more income tax than the entire
Royal Bank of Canada there is something wrong with this
picture?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government
has made serious efforts to increase fairness. We will make
continued efforts to increase fairness.
I would remind the hon. member that the large corporation tax
in Canada applies to the banks. The corporate income tax applies
to them. They pay a capital tax in addition to that, which is not
part of the income tax but is separate from the income tax.
(1500)
I might add that banks and all other financial institutions are
expected, when they make profits the size they are this year, to
pay their fair share of taxes which will go toward decreasing our
fiscal deficit. That will be an important part of it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could
the secretary of state responsible for parliamentary affairs tell
us what is on the legislative agenda for tomorrow and the days to
come, after next week's adjournment.
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the order of business for the
remainder of today will be Bill C-53 respecting the Department
of Canadian Heritage, followed by Bill C-55 concerning Yukon
surface rights, and followed by Bill C-54, the technical
amendments regarding the Old Age Security Act and the Canada
pension plan.
Tomorrow we will begin third reading of Bill C-38 respecting
marine safety. We will then return to the unfinished business of
today at the place where we left off. I understand there may be a
disposition to finish the day earlier than usual tomorrow. We
will discuss it as the day proceeds through informal
consultations.
Next week the House is adjourned for Remembrance Day
observances. I wish to inform the House that Tuesday,
November 15, shall be an opposition day. The government will
advise members of the business for the remainder of that week
before the end of next week's adjournment.
7636
7636
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage
and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the heritage of our country traces its roots to our First
Nations peoples and thereafter to the French and English people
who came as the earliest settlers and, even later thereafter, to
peoples from all over the world who chose to immigrate and
make Canada their home.
I am therefore pleased to stand in the House today to speak
about Bill C-53, the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. The
objective of the bill is designed to give legal status to the
amalgamation of five predecessor organizations, namely the
Secretary of State, the Department of Multiculturalism and
Citizenship, the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport, the
Parks Canada component of Environment Canada, and the
cultural broadcasting and heritage components of the
Department of Communications.
This extensive reorganization reflects the government's
commitment to more efficient and effective government. Under
the new structure, one department with one minister and one
deputy minister is given responsibility for delivering an
important mandate. The Department of Canadian Heritage is a
blend of the various elements that define us as a diverse and
vibrant nation with a rich and abundant cultural and natural
heritage.
The department's activities are the product of its broad range
of responsibilities in the fields of cultural development, arts,
broadcasting, national parks, historic sites, amateur sport and
multiculturalism. The department also administers official
languages, Canadian studies, and state ceremonial and native
programs, all of which contribute in a very significant way to
our sense of Canadian identity and pride.
As international barriers disappear and evolving technology
stretches the world's boundaries, the development of our
identity as a nation becomes increasingly vital to our country's
prosperity and élan vital. It is only natural that the federal
government would have an instrument such as the Department
of Canadian Heritage to enable it to continue promoting
development and a sense of Canadian identity.
(1505)
The department has three principal areas of responsibility.
Through Parks Canada, the department is the chief custodian of
the natural and physical heritage found in our national parks,
national historic sites and historic canals. Parks Canada
commemorates, protects and presents both directly and
indirectly places of significance to Canada's cultural and natural
heritage in ways that encourage public understanding,
appreciation and enjoyment.
The economic activity and tourism generated by the
department's operations are of significance to many local
economies not only in Canada but throughout the world. The
parks service has been at the forefront of efforts for innovative
partnership arrangements with private and not for profit
enterprises in carrying out its mandated responsibilities.
Another principal area of the department's activities involves
the enhancement of cultural development through policies and
programs to support our cultural industries and our national
cultural and heritage institutions such as the Canada Council,
the National Gallery, the National Arts Centre and the National
Archives, to name but a few.
In the area of arts and broadcasting, the Department of
Canadian Heritage recognizes the importance of new
technologies and is working to ensure that the impact of the
information highway on Canadian artists will be a positive one.
Through the citizenship and Canadian identity sector of the
Department of Canadian Heritage the government devotes many
of its efforts to promoting a greater understanding of our
diversity, to increasing the involvement of all citizens in
Canadian society and to promoting our two official languages.
Canada's linguistic duality is deeply rooted in our country's
very nature. Official language policies introduced by the federal
government in the early 1970s reflect a generous and creative
vision. The Department of Canadian Heritage has the unique
responsibility of ensuring that English speaking and French
speaking Canadians, irrespective of ethnocultural origins, feel
at home wherever they choose to live in Canada.
This department places a key role in the enhancement and
development of English and French linguistic minority
communities; respect for Canada's two official languages,
together with respect for the traditions and contributions of our
First Nations people; respect for our cultural diversity; and
respect for basic human rights, making Canada a unique country
and one of the most highly regarded and respected in the world.
The Department of Canadian Heritage greatly affects all
Canadians economically, socially and culturally. The economic
activity and tourism generated by the department's operations
are of great importance to many local economies.
The policies and programs of the department are aimed at
fostering greater awareness of our cultural and natural riches.
These are heavy responsibilities but the department is up to the
task. It is apparent to me that the mission of Canadian Heritage
is closely linked to the major issues facing our nation today. The
7637
department has a full agenda and its mission extends into many
sectors of Canadian society.
Clearly the Department of Canadian Heritage has a key role to
play and, with the legislation in place, will be able to forge
ahead to meet the challenges of the 21st century and the future
beyond.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
out of great concern for the promotion and preservation of
Quebec culture that I participate today in this debate on Bill
C-53 to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.
It is unthinkable, in my view, that a department be established
to promote, as indicated in clause 4, Canadian culture and
heritage. Once again, the federal government is proving to the
people of Quebec that it does not understand the first thing about
Quebec culture. How indeed can one seriously claim that there is
such a thing as a Canadian culture? Perhaps government
members should be reminded that the French language is alive
and commonly used in Quebec and in many regions of Canada in
spite of sustained efforts on the part of the federal government to
trivialize the spoilsports it views francophones as.
(1510)
Not only is Quebec culture alive and well in Quebec but it also
radiates worldwide. Just think of the success of Quebec talent
abroad. French Canadians are also successful abroad. Such a
vibrant cultural environment can legitimately claim and gain
complete independence at the cultural level. On that subject, the
former Liberal culture minister in Quebec rightly indicated that
she intended to reaffirm the need for Quebec to assume control
over cultural matters on its territory. Culture is of paramount
importance to Quebec; therefore, it is important that the
government of Quebec be recognized the exclusive powers
required to discharge its responsibilities.
As you can see, there is nothing new or partisan about us,
Quebecers, wanting to manage our cultural matters ourselves.
History and the evolution of Quebec over the years show this
deep-seated will of dealing with Quebec culture, and to do so
from Quebec. Let us look for example at the demands made by
Premiers Johnson and Bertrand in the 1960s, Bourassa and
Lévesque in the 1970s and 1980s, who despite their many
differences of opinion all demanded that Quebec's cultural
affairs be administered by Quebec.
In addition to promoting Canadian culture, Bill C-53 shows
an intention of managing this so-called culture. I think that this
bill amounts to an outright refusal to recognize Quebec's
distinctiveness.
Let us now look at constitutional responsibilities in cultural
matters. Section 92(16) of the 1867 Constitution Act recognizes
provincial jurisdiction over all matters of a merely local or
private nature. Is Quebec culture not a local or private matter?
Furthermore, the 1867 act gives the provinces jurisdiction
over the administration of justice in civil matters, which is, as
my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata so eloquently said,
a fundamental characteristic of our distinct society.
Since provincial jurisdiction over education is closely linked
to culture, it would be ridiculous and even totally inconsistent to
deal with them separately. This demonstration clearly shows
that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the whole
area of culture.
Quebec is fed up with the federal government's meddling in
provincial matters! Justifying cultural interference by invoking
the existence of a single Canadian culture is taking comedy,
which is turning into drama, a little too far. It also ignores the
history of the two founding nations, need I remind you.
Let us look for a few moments at your definition of nation.
Since when is Canada a single nation? We live in a country that
was created from scratch. Are you denying the existence of one
of the founding nations of this country you are supposedly so
proud of? Have you forgotten that there is a large francophone
community in your great country and that they are in the
majority in Quebec?
True, your daily actions show how little interest you have in
issues affecting francophones. We only have to think about
Kingston, Long Lac, the military college in Saint-Jean. But is
flatly denying the very existence of a francophone culture in
Canada not going a little too far?
It would be extremely dangerous to leave the administration
of Quebec culture in the hands of a federal minister like the one
now in place, working with a law which does not even recognize
the existence of Quebec's distinct culture. Especially since the
federal government was never too keen on investing as much
money in francophone culture as in anglophone culture.
(1515)
Take the example of the French and English networks of the
CBC. The difference in the funding of these two is growing all
the time; in April, the difference in the programming budget was
$76.4 million. At the same time, we learned that the two
networks had about the same size of audience.
We cannot fail to mention the many instances of duplication
and overlap in the cultural field. Almost every federal cultural
institution has a counterpart in Quebec. For example, there are
Radio-Canada and Radio-Québec, the Canada Council and the
Conseil des arts et lettres du Québec, the National Archives of
Canada and the Quebec archives, to name only these.
7638
Many hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted every year
with such unnecessary duplication and overlap. Can we afford
it? Everyone knows that we cannot. Is it really asking too much
to want to administer one's own culture? For too long, the
federal government has shown its intention to assimilate and
wipe out Quebec culture. The people of Quebec have enough of
being laughed at for wanting to have all they need to develop and
preserve their cultural identity.
Fortunately, Quebecers have understood that negotiations
with the federal government lead nowhere and they will show
that by expressing their desire to become a sovereign people.
That is the only way to ensure our survival in America. Until that
day, as the representatives here in Ottawa of most Quebec
voters, we will strive to have the existence of this francophone
culture recognized, for it shall never cease to exist.
Francophones pay taxes like all other citizens and as such they
are entitled to all the benefits that anglophones have in this
country and to the historical recognition that is their due.
Finally, as Malraux said, culture is not inherited-it is won.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on the bill to establish the
Department of Canadian Heritage. French-speaking
communities outside Quebec have long relied on the federal
government to protect their rights and promote their
development.
And the federal government has always responded with
concrete and helpful measures for minority groups. In the early
seventies, it set up programs to support French-speaking
communities outside Quebec. These programs reflect an open
and creative vision which allows French-speaking minority
groups to thrive and fully contribute to the economic, social,
cultural and scientific life of our country.
Since then, these programs have evolved according to the
needs of communities and they have played an important role in
their development. One of these initiatives is the Official
Languages Act, which was originally passed 25 years ago and
improved in 1988. There is also section 23 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees French
linguistic minorities the right to receive school instruction in
their first language as well as the right to manage their schools,
where the numbers warrant it.
So, the government of Canada, which happened to be a
Liberal government, first created a legal framework to promote
the development of French and English linguistic minority
groups, and to promote the official languages in our country. It
also created a constitutional framework which guarantees to the
two linguistic communities the right to delivery of services in
the official language of their choice. Whether it is delivery of
services in both official languages or the right to education in
the minority language, these initiatives helped make
tremendous progress.
As regards the management of schools by French-speaking
communities, the federal government supported every cause
related to clarifying that right. The Court Challenges Program
set up by the federal government was an invaluable tool for
French-speaking minorities in the fight for the recognition of
their rights. By the way, that program will soon be reinstated.
(1520)
After the 1990 Supreme Court decision on the Mahé case, the
federal government lent its support to every province to ensure a
quick implementation of that judgment everywhere in Canada.
In May 1993, the federal government announced measures to
fund part of the implementation costs of a school management
system in every province where such a system had not yet been
set up.
Today, thanks to federal government support,
French-speaking minorities can manage their schools almost
everywhere in the country. I am convinced it is only a matter of
time before all francophones in this country will be able to
manage their own schools. I may add that this is already the case
in my own riding.
The federal government is also present in other areas that are
of primary importance to these communities, including the
economy, human resources development and culture, to name
only a few. The Department of Canadian Heritage is not the only
federal institution that can play a decisive role in priority areas
but is responsible for co-ordinating the implementation by
departments and federal agencies of the federal government's
commitment to the growth and development of official language
minority communities.
These provisions of the Official Languages Act were not acted
upon by the previous government. Last summer, cabinet
members agreed to consider the specific needs of official
language communities when implementing the policies and
programs of their respective departments.
A number of specific projects have now been finalized: The
La Picasse Community Centre Project in Petit-de-Grat, Nova
Scotia; the new school of electrical engineering at the
University of Moncton; a human resources adjustment
committee for Canadian francophones; an economic
development plan for bilingual municipalities in Manitoba; and
the construction of a francophone community centre in
Edmonton.
That is how this government supports the growth and
development of Canada's anglophone and francophone minority
communities. The departments each have their own mandate but
all work together towards a common goal: ensuring that official
language communities can reach their full potential in all areas.
7639
The communities themselves agree this is a remarkable
achievement that will have a clear impact on the development of
minority official language communities.
The Canadian government and the communities had
established a good working relationship over the years, but since
the seventies, the world has changed dramatically. Economic
imperatives and new cultural, social and linguistic priorities
that are developing today have made it necessary to restructure
the federal government's approach, in order to make its support
programs for these communities more effective.
Thanks to the current exercise in repositioning at the
Department of Canadian Heritage, communities will be able to
take an active part in setting priorities and thus target the main
areas where action is needed.
Official language communities are a vital force in Canadian
society, not only because of their numbers but also and above all
because of their extraordinary vitality and energy.
The Government of Canada has always greatly contributed to
their cultural development through cultural co-operation
agreements with the provincial governments, direct assistance
to cultural institutions, through the federal Cultural Initiatives
Program and various other support measures and instruments
which I mentioned in my speech.
Some people claim that the federal government does not do
enough for francophone minorities outside Quebec. We should
realize that despite the current financial squeeze, the federal
government has maintained the special budgets that enable
francophones to manage their own schools and have better
access to post-secondary education.
(1525)
Furthermore, pursuant to the inter-departmental initiative
announced last summer, all federal institutions will from now on
be involved in the development of francophone and anglophone
minority communities, in the spirit of the Official Languages
Act.
It is important to see where the real needs are and where real
progress can be achieved in developing Canada's francophone
communities. The federal government is committed to meeting
the specific needs of these communities because it wants to
develop this country's full potential. We are firmly committed
to pursuing that goal.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am both proud and sad to address this bill at this time.
What has happened within the last 10 days or so has given me
concern about what is happening to the heritage of Canadians.
I am a proud Canadian. My parents are proud Canadians. My
parents came to this country as children. My father met my
mother when they were teenagers in southern Alberta. They
were married and raised a family during the depression. They
have told me many, many stories about what happened in this
country. My grandparents told me of some things that happened
in other countries. They talked about heritage and culture. They
told us about our culture, about our parents and our background.
I am proud of both of those heritages, but the one I really
understand and the one I am a part of is the Canadian heritage.
One thing I want Canadians to be known for is their integrity,
their honesty and their fairness and treatment of each other with
justice. I am not that young any more, but my children are
young. It seems to me that we as seniors in this country of ours
need to present an example to the upcoming generation.
The real heritage we have as Canadians is our children for
whom we are building this country. I ask myself and I ask this
House, what kind of legacy are we leaving to our children when
they see the kinds of things that have happened in this House
over the last 10 days?
There have been allegations and almost accusations and
statements made against and about the leader of our country and
one of his key ministers. We have to ask ourselves: Is this the
kind of thing we want our children to emulate? Do we want our
children to think that the Prime Minister would defend a
minister of the crown who would intercede or take action that
could be interpreted as interceding on behalf of someone so that
unfair or special advantage is given to one person over another?
We do not want that.
The Prime Minister has said: ``The buck stops here''. I admire
him for saying that. It is responsible of him to say: ``I am
accountable. I am responsible for the things that happen in my
government'', which includes every minister on the front bench
and all the parliamentarians he leads.
But he is a leader beyond that. He is our Prime Minister. He is
my Prime Minister. Even though I am not a member of his party
he is still my Prime Minister. I want to be able to respect him. I
want to look to him for leadership, as an example of the kinds of
things that ought to be happening not only in this House but in
this whole country. That is what we are looking for.
Generally the position has been clear. The Prime Minister has
indicated that he is a man of the people. He listens and he tries to
do what is best. But there is now a question. Did he do what was
best in this particular instance? The record is clear. I am not
going to review the record now. But I ask the Prime Minister, the
minister and every parliamentarian here, including myself: Is
this the kind of behaviour we want our children to emulate when
they become this country's parliamentarians?
7640
(1530 )
I am not proud. I do not think I could say yes to that question. I
think I would have to answer no. I want my children and those
who will follow us to have another example, a standard which
says we will not interfere in the administration of justice. We
will not interfere in a quasi-judicial body to get it to make a
decision that is different from the one that is apparently
independent and considers all the facts before a decision is
made. That is what I want.
I think there is a position here that can be salvaged but let us
make clear that what ought to be said is said and that where a
mistake has been made let the appropriate action be taken.
At this time the Prime Minister must take action. He has
decided not to. That is a decision. It is his opportunity to do that
but I would encourage him to take at least some action. We are in
a crisis situation and if we ever needed integrity in leadership it
is today.
Next year in 1995 this country will be faced with a major
refinancing. A major amount of money is going to have to be
borrowed in the world market. The question I want to ask is this:
Will the lenders that loaned us money before continue to lend us
money if they have any question as to whether we will do what
we said we would do? We need confidence in the financial
management of this country. We need to know that the Minister
of Finance and the Prime Minister are serious about getting this
budget under control and balancing the budget.
Beyond that, we need something else and that is justice. This
morning, in fact I am wearing the button which says ``Justice for
Joshua'', right beside me was a group of high school students
that said ``No, not just for Joshua, for all of us''. That is exactly
what we want. We want justice for every person, young persons,
middle aged persons, seniors, every person in Canada. We want
justice for them, we want fairness for them and we want them to
live in a way that they are treated equally as individuals and as
provinces.
That is the heritage we want. That is the heritage we can have.
It is we together as a group, and as individuals, as the
opposition, who will fight for that. We will build a country that
we can be indeed proud of and we can then say to our children:
``Follow our example. It is a good one''.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this opportunity that I have to address the House today
is particularly important for me because of the nature of the
debate. When we talk about culture, we are really talking about
the very heart and soul of a nation. Therefore, allow me to speak
with strong emotion.
The purpose of Bill C-53 is to establish the Department of
Canadian Heritage and to unite under one authority all the policy
instruments Ottawa has in the cultural area: the Canada Council,
the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, museums and
national parks and the National Archives of Canada.
The annual budget of this department would be approximately
$2.8 billion.
The main objective of this new super-department is to
support and promote the canadian cultural policy. This is
enough to get all the citizens of Quebec and the one million
francophones outside Quebec seriously worried.
Even if in the past the cultural development policy was not so
well orchestrated, we could yet see clearly that it was in
Ottawa's interest rather than that of the francophones all over
the country.
On the strength of the British North America Act and, hence,
of the residual powers entrusted to him, and encroaching upon
some provincial jurisdictions, education for example, the
federal government is about to control more closely than ever
what we call Canadian culture.
The desire to take over one of the more essential aspects of
our lives is not new. This is nothing but the logical and perfect
continuation of actions taken since the first Communications
Act of 1932 by which the federal government gave itself
exclusive jurisdiction in the area of communications. The
events that followed confirmed its exclusive jurisdiction in
other areas. This is why the CRTC can declare unilaterally what
is good for the provinces, including the only francophone
province in this country.
(1535)
Using its powers to expand its responsibilities and possibly
create a new area of activity, Ottawa developed over the years a
policy, the bilingualism and multiculturalism policy, based on a
central theme.
We can understand that some of our English-speaking fellow
citizens had a hard time finding their own identity, but common
sense should never have allowed the creation of such a
two-headed monster. For humane considerations, my
grandfather used to kill two-headed calves at birth. In Ottawa,
they are considered as precious as the Golden calf.
Between you and me, Mr. Speaker, where is the cultural
difference between Canada and the United States, except for
Quebec, of course? Compared to our southern neighbour,
Canada is nothing more than a society without any significant
distinctive traits. Is there really a Canadian culture or is it
merely the creation of a political administration with an
over-productive mind? Have we been the victims of too wide or
too narrow designs? The future will soon tell us, since Quebec
will shortly be an external observer.
7641
However, for the time being, six million francophones have to
adapt to this federal creature that many find disturbing. Beyond
worn-out official statements and pious wishes, what did
Canada's cultural policy give the French-speaking minority of
this country?
Our culture distinguishes us from other Canadians; how has
this policy contributed to reinforce our own identity? The
question begs the answer. This policy did not contribute a thing
to our cultural development. What is worse, it actually had a
destabilizing effect, limiting the growth and creative potential
of its most distinctive and dynamic aspect. Even then it would
have to be recognized as such-this is what happens when you
have a policy the rationale of which has no bearing on Canadian
reality.
Praise it as you may, claim all you want that it is likely to meet
the legitimate aspirations of Quebecers and other francophones
coast to coast, it does not even manage to impose respect for the
most basic element of our identity: the French language. Reports
unanimously show hatred for the use of French, coast to coast. Is
it two languages on equal footing or one language stomped on
with both feet? In what way did passage of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms benefit francophone communities?
One of its main achievements is the following: Alberta,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, NewFoundland and
Prince Edward Island have yet to approve a single bill to give
effect to plans for French language school management. They
examine, they ponder, they hem and haw, as we would say. But
so far, no concrete steps have been taken to support these
communities who wish to manage their own schools.
Does it come as a surprise that 127 years after the birth of
Confederation and 25 years after the passage of the Official
Languages Act, the commissioner responsible for ensuring that
the linguistic rights of minorities are respected, Mr. Victor
Goldbloom, cannot get over the ignorance of the anglophone
majority, that goes about completely oblivious of the existence
of the francophone minority?
Mr. Goldbloom talks about ignorance when he should be
talking about hostility in the case of the 65 Ontario
municipalities which declared themselves officially unilingual
English, although no law forces them to provide services in
French. The Prime Minister of Canada said that his Canada
included the 1 million francophones living outside Quebec. He
must live in a great country full of respect and dignity. He should
try living like little Jean Bilodeau or Jean Leblanc.
In your opinion, Mr. Speaker, should we trust these people
who are unable to face up to reality? Do you think that our
culture is safe in their hands? Who are these people who,
through the Department of Canadian Heritage, want to define
our culture and therefore a large part of our lives? Who would
benefit from having a say on the way we live, think and entertain
ourselves? What would they like to see in our culture?
(1540)
What about those who recently refused to recognize us as a
distinct society? Those who, under the pretext of efficient
budget management, merrily slash the amounts allocated to
Radio-Canada, which is already unfairly treated compared with
the CBC.
There are also those who make it a point of honour, if not a
duty, to duplicate the cultural institutions of the Quebec
government. We will face those who are against any dialogue,
any sharing of responsibilities, any co-operation despite
Quebec's repeated calls for joint action.
We should blindly leave essential elements of our collective
future in the hands of these people, when all their actions seem
designed to neutralize the efforts of another level of
government.
Thanks, but no thanks. I, for one, do not trust the supporters of
this power, who are now striving to formalize a policy that never
was and never will be consistent with our interests and
aspirations.
Even Liza Frulla, the former Quebec Liberal minister-who
is not a sovereignist-admitted that Ottawa is creating overlap
and duplication by interfering in Quebec's cultural affairs.
This government, with its centralizing federalism, knows full
well that whoever controls the means of expression of a culture
also controls its vitality, energy and creative power. Let us not
give Ottawa the privilege of imposing its ideal cultural order.
It has long been proven that no one is in a better position than
the Government of Quebec to develop a cultural policy based on
the real needs of its people.
Until Quebec has acquired its full political sovereignty,
others will decide what should go into our creative endeavours.
The Bloc Quebecois, which is waging a continual struggle for
the integrity of Quebec culture, cannot support Bill C-53, which
is contrary to the legitimate intentions of the Quebec
government in this field.
By creating this Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa is
proving that it clearly intends to keep and even increase its
ability to act in this sector which is crucial for the development
of Quebec's cultural identity.
In this country, where francophones start to be assimilated
from infancy, I feel nothing positive about creating a
Department of Canadian Heritage. It is simply an expression of
the federal government's harmful centralizing designs on
Quebec.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I
wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the Bloc
Quebecois member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
7642
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have just a couple of minutes this
afternoon to discuss the bill in front of us dealing with the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
I am the critic for aboriginal affairs for the New Democratic
Party. In that capacity I have had a number of dealings with the
Department of Canadian Heritage. The department inherited a
number of the programs from the former secretary of state which
dealt with aboriginal people, their programs and activities.
One of the programs that the department has inherited that has
bothered me in its response for some time has been a program
dealing with aboriginal education. I wanted to take the
opportunity here, with the minister in the Chamber and the
debate on this bill, to bring to members of this House and to the
minister's attention some correspondence which I received in
recent months concerning the treatment of aboriginal people by
the department. When government asks members of Parliament
for approval to do anything with relation to the department I
think it is important that we understand some of the ways in
which the department has responded to us in the past.
I have in front of me a two paragraph letter, in fact the
paragraphs are reasonably lengthy, addressed to me from the
president of the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural College.
(1545 )
I would like to read the two paragraphs. The president of the
Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre is Linda Pelly-Landrie.
She writes:
The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and its affiliate institutions,
Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre, Saskatchewan Indian Federated College
and Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology have been actively seeking
the financial resources required to develop curriculum for our First Nations.
While various government departments have acknowledged that First Nations
instructional and resource materials are essential to the retention and
achievement of First Nations students, all contend that they are not adequately
resourced and cannot finance our projects. Yet, the Department of Canadian
Heritage has offered $500,000 to Mondia Editeurs and an affiliate, Micro Intel,
two non-aboriginal firms out of Montreal, a contract to develop CD-ROM
curriculum materials pertaining to the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Enclosed please find correspondence relating to the project proposed by the
Department of Canadian Heritage. We ask that you review this material carefully
and intervene on our behalf. Not only is offering a contract of this nature to
non-aboriginal firms contrary to the government's commitment to the First Nation's
inherent right to self-government, it is an insult. Adding to the insult is the
demeaning and paternalistic manner in which the Department of Canadian Heritage
has dealt with First Nations representatives on the project. We are the experts in
determining First Nations curriculum content and the most capable of managing and
controlling a project of this nature. Furthermore, we have demonstrated expertise in
developing and producing quality instructional materials. Therefore, it is our
contention that this project should be contracted and controlled by a First Nations
institution organization.
I want to quote from a couple of paragraphs of a letter that Ms.
Pelly-Landrie wrote to the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage
earlier this year on the same project. In the letter she indicates
that the cultural centre had met earlier in the year with the
minister of Indian affairs with a proposal for resources to
develop curriculum programs for First Nations people. They
were informed that the financial resources were extremely
limited and that their project request could not be met.
She goes on in her letter to the minister to indicate that the
awarding of the contract for half a million dollars to the
non-aboriginal group in Montreal is most objectionable:
Projects of this nature should be awarded to aboriginal people to promote the
principles of Indian self-government and to encourage true partnerships
between the federal government and First Nations governments.
We believe that First Nations have contributed significant changes to
education. Indian control of Indian education is a principle to which all First
Nations continue to strive for, as the ultimate goal to educational change, and
improvement. The federal government must also be respectful of our
commitment to develop and implement education for our people.
I trust that you will take immediate action to review this proposed project,
and that measures will be taken in the future for the full involvement of
aboriginal people to determine the development and implementation of such
projects.
These letters seem to have been ignored by the minister and
the department. The project was awarded to the non-aboriginal
firms.
At the same time as Ms. Pelly-Landrie's letters were being
circulated, another letter in support of the Saskatchewan centre
has been drafted and sent to the minister from the Federation of
Saskatchewan Indian Nations, the Indian governments of
Saskatchewan, signed by vice chief E. Dutch Lerat of
Saskatchewan.
(1550 )
The letter deals with this particular CD-ROM project and the
treatment received by the aboriginal community on its request:
The First Nations of Canada have political and institutional structures which
represent them on all matters of intergovernmental nature.
The First Nations are nationally represented in all such matters as languages,
curriculum and cultural heritage by the First Nations Cultural Centres
Executive Council (FNCCEC) of the Assembly of First Nations.
Your Department, over the strenuous objections of the First Nations of
Canada, has recently awarded a contract for Aboriginal Curriculum
Development to a non-Indian Business-Mondia Editeurs of Montreal.
7643
The project involves a computerized Aboriginal Curriculum Project referred
to as CD-ROM.
The First Nations have been invited to participate on a sub-contractual basis
for a minuscule portion of the contract, although this is not the real issue I wish
to raise.
In the pre-election Liberal Party Aboriginal Platform announced by the
Prime Minister on October 8, 1993, your Government made a number of
important commitments.
Two of those commitments are directly applicable to this issue:
``A Liberal Government, with the participation of Aboriginal Peoples, will
establish an Aboriginal Educational Institute and networking facility that will
co-ordinate and build upon initiatives in Aboriginal Curriculum Development
for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Schools, Standards, Development,
Distance Education, Aboriginal Languages, Teacher Orientation and the
Special Needs of Many Communities such as Literacy, Adult Basic Education
and Special Education''.
``The Liberal Platform on Aboriginal Economic Development includes
measures such as procurement policies that stimulate the growth of Aboriginal
Businesses''.
An example given with respect to this policy goes on to state:
``A fixed percentage of Federal contracts be allocated to competent
Aboriginal Government and Businesses''.
I must seriously challenge your commitment to the Red Book Policies in
light of the way in which your Department has handled this matter. The entire
integrity of your Aboriginal platform is seriously called into question.
A key point of contention surrounding this contract is that your officials
have ignored the competency of existing First Nations Institutions and
Businesses-for example, the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre, an
accredited member of the Saskatchewan Book Publishing Association and, in
fact, the current Chairman of the Association is a staff member from our
Cultural Centre.
First Nations must be given first consideration in all matters related to
Aboriginal Curriculum and Cultural Projects including the application of
Technology such as that represented by the CD-ROM project.
In conclusion, I read from the the concluding paragraphs of
the letter sent to the minister earlier this year:
The question now that arises, then is, how can there be money for a non-First
Nations organization to develop First Nation's curriculum when there is none
for our First Nations?
I think it is very important in our consideration of the
Department of Canadian Heritage that we examine carefully the
ways in which the department and the ministry are treating the
people of aboriginal descent in our country and respect the
wishes of the aboriginal community in developing a strong
aboriginal curriculum that meets its needs as brought to the
minister by the community.
I believe this is an important matter that requires the attention
of all members and I thank the House for its time this afternoon.
(1555 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the chief government whip has asked me to
defer the division until later.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division on the
question now before the House is deferred until Monday,
November 14 at 6.30 p.m., when the division bells will be rung
for not more than 15 minutes.
The hon. chief government whip has the floor on a point of
order.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think that you would obtain
unanimous consent from the House to defer the vote that was to
take place at 6.30 p.m. Monday until Tuesday, November 15 at
5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent for the chief government whip's proposal to defer the
vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote will be deferred
until Tuesday, November 15 at 5.30 p.m. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7644
The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-55, an act to establish a board having
jurisdiction concerning disputes respecting surface rights in
respect of land in the Yukon Territory and to amend other acts in
relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-55, the Yukon Surface
Rights Board Act. This bill is essentially a matter of legislative
housekeeping and as such contains little of substance to either
support or oppose.
However, I would like to take some time to address some of
the bill's shortcomings and even its positive attributes.
As everyone in the House well knows, this bill is the
companion legislation to Bills C-33 and C-34, two bills which
the Reform Party strongly opposed. Our detailed reasons for the
opposition to those bills are well documented from debates at
the committee level and in the House so I will not revisit those
arguments.
(1600)
However I would like to renew our opposition to the way the
government first conceived and then rammed those bills through
the House. In case anyone has forgotten, Bill C-33 and Bill
C-34 were negotiated over a period of some 20 years, a period of
closed door meetings and backroom deals typical of our old
governments and old political parties.
To make matters worse, the government then stifled debate in
the month of June in the House by evoking time allocation. This
entire process was wrong, indeed shameful. It was wrong for the
government not to include Canadians and interested third
parties in the negotiations. It was wrong for the government to
proceed with debate just 24 hours after the voluminous bills
were first tabled in the House. It was shameful for the
government to limit debate on such crucial pieces of legislation.
Unfortunately this type of action appears to be the rule rather
than the exception when it comes to legislation affecting native
or aboriginal land claims settlements.
Just over a year ago, in June 1993, another shameful
government with the concurrence of the Liberals and the NDP in
opposition took the very same tack with Bill C-133. They
passed that bill in one day in the House. There was only one
member of the House who stood to speak against it. That bill
resulted in the creation of Nunavut, a new territory
encompassing one-fifth of the Canadian land mass. With
one-fifth of Canada at stake because of Bill C-133 the House,
with the concurrence of all political parties, took one day to pass
it. There was no debate and no public input. That is a shame.
The Reform Party agrees with the need to correct past injustices
and to treat aboriginals with the same respect and dignity
afforded to all other Canadians, but we do not agree with the
means chosen to accomplish this end.
I said at the start of my address that I would also touch on
some of the positive aspects of the bill. They are few and far
between, but I have found at least one such example. To its credit
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
in fact consulted with the mining industry on Bill C-55. I know
this because our critic in this area has also consulted with many
interests with regard to the legislation.
Through our discussions it was learned that changes to the bill
were made at several stages based on input from the mining
industry. That is good news. It is indeed encouraging, especially
given the rough ride the mining industry has received in recent
times from all levels of government.
I might also add that I hope this spirit of co-operation will
continue into the future and expand beyond the borders of Yukon
to my own province of British Columbia where the interests of
the mining industry have been forced to take a back seat to every
lobby group with an axe to grind.
At any rate I commend the government for its consultative
approach. However I also know that the mining industry is not
entirely happy with the legislation in Bill C-55 or with its
companion Bills C-33 and C-34.
(1605 )
While all these pieces of legislation are far from perfect, the
uncertainty is over, an uncertainty which has stifled investment
in Yukon for more than 20 years. At least the legislation defines
the playing field and although that field is still uneven it is a
field that can now be played upon.
Another area of concern with the legislation on the creation of
Yukon surface rights board is the question of appointments. The
board will be appointed by the minister and therefore of course
has the potential to become a patronage hotbed.
Appointments to the board must be made according to merit.
Individuals with the qualifications and the expertise to make
sound, logical decisions must be the ones appointed to the
board; not simply those individuals with the oldest Liberal
membership card or with the largest campaign contribution,
appointments that would compromise the entire process and
throw the rulings of the board into disrepute. We cannot
emphasize too often that patronage appointments must go. We
must cease and desist on all of them, whether it is the
immigration board or this particular one on Yukon surface
rights.
7645
The board will also have the power to decide which cases it
will hear. Its rulings will be final, binding and enforceable
through the Supreme Court of the Yukon territory. This is a great
deal of power which must not be placed in the hands of a few
political friends and insiders. The Reform Party will be
watching appointments to the board with a keen interest to
ensure that such abuses do not occur.
I have already outlined the callous way in which the
democratic process was subverted during the conception and
births of Bill C-33, Bill C-34 and Bill C-133 a year ago. This
bill is an extension of the process and therefore must be viewed
with a healthy degree of scepticism. However we can take some
solace in the hope that the government has learned and is
learning from its past mistakes.
I would also like to urge the government to follow in the
footsteps of my own province, British Columbia. I speak of
Premier Harcourt's public pronouncement of September 20
when he stated several principles for openness in land claim
negotiations. The principles enunciated include that open
negotiations must be the starting point and closed negotiations
the exception. The next point made was that all British
Columbians must have the opportunity to provide meaningful
input into the negotiating process.
His next point is that the negotiators' bottom lines would be
made public and that the provinces would pursue the most
effective means of opening up and sharing information about
negotiating sessions as widely as possible. Finally the
mandatory sign off of all treaty settlements would be made by
the B.C. legislature.
In this regard I have to say on a parallel track that I had the
occasion to meet with the federal negotiator for Vancouver
Island on native land claims and with the British Columbia
negotiator. The two gentlemen met in my constituency office a
month or two ago. If I can take them at face value, we are going
to have open negotiations with native land claims and they are
actively soliciting input from the general public. I truly hope
this is so. If I take them at face value it is so. I hope that is the
way we are going. If we are, the future looks much better than it
has for some time.
(1610)
The people of Canada deserve no less from their federal
government on these important issues. The old closed door
negotiations, complete with mandatory confidentiality clauses
and no public input, only breed hostility and undermine public
confidence in the process. The public too wants native land
claims to be settled justly for all parties.
Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 are classic examples of old style
politics. Admittedly Bill C-55 was conceived under less
dubious circumstances, but it is still somewhat tainted by the
earlier process.
In finishing I urge the government to carefully consider the
comments made here today and the comments my colleagues
will make. I hope the government will heed this advice as we
head down the road of aboriginal self-government.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill
C-55, an act to establish the Yukon Surface Rights Board.
I do not speak often on aboriginal matters but I thought this
bill merited comment. In fact the last time I spoke on aboriginal
matters in the House was to argue for an amendment to the
private member's bill which declared ice hockey as Canada's
national sport. The amendment which was accepted declared the
great aboriginal sport of lacrosse to be Canada's summer
national sport.
Aboriginal issues are important to me in particular and should
be important to every member from British Columbia. As we
know, most of the territory of the province of British Columbia
is the subject of some form of land claim by our aboriginal
peoples. It is my belief that the precedent set in Yukon may
become the precedent for settling claims in British Columbia.
Therefore it is important for me to address these issues.
I have a few preliminary comments to make before I get into a
detailed discussion of the clauses of the bill. The bill is the third
in a trilogy of bills dealing with the settlement of land claims in
Yukon. The Reform Party opposed the first two bills which
established the settlement of the land claims. Logically,
therefore, we oppose Bill C-55 which establishes the
mechanism to implement these settlements, or alternatively to
settle disputes relating to the claim.
I understand the feeling that a mechanism should be found to
resolve disputes without the necessity of going to court. Courts
are expensive. Justice usually is not swift. However this leads
me to make two comments.
First, perhaps the inefficient slow moving courts would be
useful in these circumstances because the possibility of going to
court would be seen as such a detriment that settlements may be
more easily achieved by the parties involved. I think that is what
we would want. Perhaps in this instance the threat of going to
court is one to be preserved, not put aside.
My second point deals with the courts themselves. If the
courts are in such a state that even the government does not want
them involved in settling disputes of the kind presented by the
Yukon land claims, maybe we should take a hard look at
reforming the courts of the country.
Courts were established to settle disputes between parties.
They exist. The infrastructure is there. The salaries of those
involved are already paid. Why should we not then use them to
settle disputes such as the ones presented here? If the courts
because of inefficiencies are not seen to be the appropriate
vehicle then maybe we should streamline our judicial system
7646
instead of establishing a new board. We should address reform
of our civil law courts.
However I realize that judicial and court reform will not
happen before the bill is passed. The government has a majority
in the House. We will soon be stuck with the Yukon Surface
Rights Board. For this reason I wish to make the following
general comment.
(1615)
I particularly wish to address the fact that this board will only
deal with disputes after the parties themselves, the people
involved in the dispute, have failed to reach an amicable
solution. How will the board know the parties have failed to
reach such a solution? Would it not be better if representatives
of the board met with the parties prior to the parties going to the
board? Such representatives could work with the parties in order
to achieve an amicable settlement.
I am suggesting a two step process. In this two step process
the first step would be the disputants contacting the board
requesting mediation or help from a representative of the board.
A representative or a staff person, not a board member
obviously, would be dispatched to meet with the parties. If this
person was not effective in helping the parties resolve the
dispute then the matter could go to the board for a hearing.
Such a two step process, first by mediation with the help of the
board representatives and second by a a board hearing if
mediation failed, might tend to speed up the process. Let's face
it, a board such as this will build its own bureaucracy. Let us
give these people something to do beyond shuffling paper. They
could engage in mediation.
I wish to comment on some of the provisions of this bill which
are especially disturbing to me. My first point, perhaps not
surprisingly, is on the subject of clauses 8 to 15 which deal with
the establishment and organization of the board. Some of my
colleagues have commented on these clauses so I will keep my
comments brief.
The composition suggested in the statute seems to be a recipe
for divisiveness and eventual disaster. Half of the members
other than the chairperson are to be appointed by the Council for
Yukon Indians, the others by order in council on
recommendation by the minister.
I hope it works and I wish those who designed this all the luck
in the world. It seems to me that we are putting forward the
possibility that the Council of Yukon Indians is simply going to
become the judge of its own causes, conflict of interest or, if not
the judge, then certainly an interested party at all hearings.
Virtually all disputes will involve one or more bands of Yukon
Indians. Yukon Indians will be in a position of strength on the
board and there is the possibility of block voting. As well we are
establishing another organization to which Liberals can appoint
Liberals. Surely we have enough of those already.
It might be more appropriate to mention here that the
Government of the Yukon Territory should have input into the
selection of the board members. Perhaps even the chairperson
and some of the board members should be appointed through a
nomination of the Government of the Yukon Territory. The
rationale would be similar to the territorial government being
more likely to appoint people who represent the interests of the
public at large than is the minister who might appoint Liberals.
They could be Liberal loyalists and probably will be who might
stack the board full of members of one politically correct
interest group. The Yukon government is considerably closer to
the people of the Yukon than is the minister. Hence it is far less
likely to make poor choices.
Barring the selection of board members through that process I
offer an idea for a second selection process. The membership of
this board could be appointed by the minister but on the approval
of all three parties in the House of Commons. If the minister
does not agree to appoint the whole board in this fashion at least
the chair of the board should be approved by the two opposition
parties in this House.
I also do not like the fact that we are setting up another body to
be paid out of the public purse. Surely if the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development had been listening recently
to the Minister of Finance he would know how badly in debt the
country is and how we cannot afford any more expenditures.
Clause 19 gives the board the power to hire staff and
consultants. Here we go again. We just cannot afford to give this
kind of blanket authority without limiting the numbers to be
hired. As well under clause 21 the board can acquire personal
property in its name and dispose of it. This may be all right if we
are talking about furnishing an office, but it might not take too
long for this to be stretched into a major acquisition program.
There should be some stipulation as to what the personal
property is to be used for.
Clause 23 deals with the financing of the board. We on this
side of the House would feel more comfortable if the matter of
annual financing was referred directly to the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I know it will be contained in
the estimates, but we want to know specifically the moneys
allocated to the board and how they are spent.
(1620)
Clause 24 of the bill requires that the board report to the
minister upon his request. I would suggest that this clause be
7647
changed so that the board reports to the minister on an annual
basis and that these reports be tabled in the House of Commons
and referred to committee.
Clause 26 on the subject of jurisdiction does not refer to the
fact that the board should exercise its authority observing the
rules of natural justice. Interestingly, this is one of the grounds
for the appeal of ruling by the board, but it is not specifically
listed as a requirement for its hearings. For greater certainty this
requirement should be spelled out.
Clause 40 gives the board the right to set fees. I am torn
between suggesting that the fees be low enough so as not to
prohibit anyone from taking advantage of the jurisdiction of this
board or suggesting the fees be high enough to ensure the board
pays for itself. I find my last suggestion to be quite interesting
even though it comes from me, and in keeping with my remarks
on the affordability of this board, perhaps we should pursue it.
Clause 41 requires the rules made by the board to govern its
operation to be published. I think this is a good requirement.
However I am concerned that there may be significant
disagreement among the stakeholders regarding particular
rules.
I believe a method should be found by which these rules could
be objected to by major groups and a hearing held on the fairness
of the rules. Perhaps the board itself could hear these
complaints.
Clauses 42 through 64 contain many areas which would better
be the subject of discussion in committee. These clauses
describe the main tasks which will be undertaken by the board. I
am sure representatives of my party will have comments to
make on them as the committee proceeds to clause by clause
analysis.
Clauses 74 and 75 give the board the final authority in relation
to findings of fact and establishing an appeal procedure to the
Yukon Supreme Court. I hope this right of appeal is not abused.
We are looking here for quick settlements and the board is
established to effect such settlements.
It would be counterproductive to allow too many appeals to
the courts. Also in relation to the issue on some judgments,
perhaps the minister could consider placing a limit on the time
the board has to make a decision, perhaps 30 days from the time
the case is concluded.
Clause 79 gives the governor in council authority to make
regulations dealing with the board. Again, as with the rules of
the board, a procedure should be suggested whereby these
regulations could be the subject of objection by the major
stakeholders and the objections heard and subsequently dealt
with.
Finally, I would suggest that this bill contain an automatic
review clause so that we can be assured that it will come back
before us so we can assess how effective it has been; perhaps a
review in three years.
We are opposed to this bill. It has many deficiencies, but most of
all the content is wrong. There should be no need to spend
taxpayers' money to set up a body which is designed to do what
courts are in existence to do, resolve disputes.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to reiterate some of the comments my
colleagues have made and possibly some new ones on Bill C-55.
As we are aware this is the third component of the package in
relation to the Yukon First Nations Land Act claims settlement
and the Yukon First Nations self-government. This particular
bill is essential for the effective implementation of the other two
acts. It mainly addresses the federal government's legal
requirements to facilitate these other two acts coming into force.
This bill is to establish a board of directors that will handle
disputes that occur. These disputes could involve three different
components. They could involve owners of settlement lands or
owners of non-settlement lands and of course businesses that
would be involved. There are three components the board will be
facing in relation to disputes. The other main aspect of this
board is the determination of compensation in relation to the
expropriation of settlement lands.
(1625 )
The orders of course from this board are binding. The board is
not going to address disputes unless the two parties or three
parties involved have tried to come to some sort of a mutual
agreement before this. Should that not occur it will come to the
board. Therefore, the board is actually in an arbitration kind of
situation and its decision will be binding. Except for limited
reasons, it can go to the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory.
This brings us to the structure of the actual board which I have
some concerns about. I realize that my colleagues have touched
on some of this, but I think they are important enough to
reiterate to some degree. Clause 8(1) of the bill gives us an
overview of what the board will consist of: a chairman and not
less than two members and not more than ten other members.
That would make a possible total of 11 members including the
chairman. All these members would be appointed by the
minister.
There are some conditions that apply on these appointments.
Clause 8(2) indicates that the minister must establish a board of
an odd number. That I would assume includes the chairman so
that the board would also consist of an odd number of members.
Clause 9(1) indicates that the chairperson is appointed by the
minister but on the recommendation of the board. Clause 9(2)
addresses the other members. It could be up to 10 members. It
indicates that half of those members would be appointed by the
minister based on nominations from the Council of Yukon
Indians and the other half would be appointed by the minister. It
does not indicate where the nominations or the suggestions for
those appointments would come from.
7648
To round this up, clause 10(1) indicates that a majority in both
of these components, those nominated by the council and those
appointed by the minister, must consist of members who reside
in the Yukon Territory.
What this to my mind does is put the board in a position of
being two components, one being suggested from the Council of
Yukon Indians and the other from the minister, wherever those
suggestions may come from. This in itself may divide the board.
Also, the chairman of the board who is appointed based on
recommendations from the board could put the balance of power
on the board in either component. For example, if the chair was
someone who was appointed by the minister then the bulk of the
members on the board would be members appointed by the
minister. If the chair happened to be someone who was a
nominee from the Council of Yukon Indians then the balance of
power would be on that side.
I question why the chairman has to be appointed by the
minister based on the recommendation of the board. To my mind
that suggests a veto power by the minister. It would seem that
the board could elect its chairman instead of making
recommendations to the minister to appoint it.
The other concern that comes out of that composition would
be the right or opportunity for patronage appointments. Another
concern would be that somewhere in the bill I believe it says that
disputes do not have to be handled by the full board. We can
subgroup the board into panels of three or more and handle the
disputes based on that. Again we will look at the composition of
the panel. Having these two components on the board, what is
the composition of this panel and how they are selected is a very
grey area.
Another way of looking at the composition of this panel could
be from a representation of the players involved, i.e. the three
components: the businesspersons, the owners of non-settlement
land or the owners of settlement land. One could possibly pursue
having representation of these three components. Another way
of looking at it would be representation from the two
components, the membership from the Yukon council, or those
appointed by the minister. That is a very grey area.
(1630)
The fact it does not indicate how these panels are composed or
selected is also something that should be addressed possibly at
committee. It could be based on members available at the time.
It could be members in town at the time or whatever. Again it
could become a lopsided membership based on these two
components.
Another point that comes up would be term of office of the
membership. Either clause 12 or 13 indicates that a member can
stand for any number of terms. The appointment is for a three
year period and then you can run again. There is no limitation.
You can run for this as long as you are appointed and it can be
any number of years. That in itself may not be a problem but it
should be looked at to see if there are any parameters or
situations that may pose a problem.
I would like to offer some suggestions on board membership.
Again one of my colleagues mentioned that appointments, if
that is the route we choose to go, should be made on merit or
some criteria other than just being appointed by the minister.
There should be some criteria in there. If that becomes the case
we would definitely like to see merit included.
Another way of looking at it would be to possibly elect this
board as we do school boards or something along those lines.
That brings up of course that we may have to have candidate
qualifications so that all sides have representation depending on
how you wish to look at it.
It does not necessarily indicate that the panel composition
would indeed be three members. It could possibly be any
number of members, but of course it cannot exceed 11 which
would be a full committee. It also does not seem to indicate that
the panel would be an odd number. That should be looked at as
well.
Another thing to look at is the concept that this board will be
independent from government. The way it is structured it
certainly does not imply that is going to occur. Two main things
come out that are very suggestive it will not be independent
from government. Unless you get into the fine print of it or
whatever and really search for a method as to how it is
independent these two things come front and centre.
One is that if it is funded by the government and if all the
members on the board are appointed by the minister, i.e.
government, that certainly does not suggest the board is
independent of government. That in itself also brings up a
number of possible concerns in relation to one's membership on
the board. If the minister has this kind of power to appoint or not
appoint then one really does not want to be in the position of
opposing the majority opinion. I think one would rather tread
lightly if they wanted to continue to participate on the board.
Therefore we may in a way be inhibiting some members in
participating in full debate in relation to disputes or
compensation or whatever they are addressing. I see that as a
potential problem. There may be some inhibition on
membership participation. I would take that a step further in
relation to membership and possibly clarification in these areas
might help.
Clause 11(3) indicates the minister can remove for cause. It
starts out that one can hold their membership on the board for
good behaviour. There is really no qualification as to what good
behaviour is. The minister can remove that member for cause
or-not and, but or-on grounds set out in the bylaws of the
board.
7649
(1635)
What is happening is the board can be controlled from
ministerial appointment, depending as I say on what background
the chairman has and can set up what is grounds for
membership. It appears that the minister for cause-and I do not
know where this cause is coming from, if it is going to be a set of
rules and regulations, but I think clause 18 makes reference to
that and that implies to me that the board may be setting up what
constitutes cause. It is very, very vague. I was first and still am
of the opinion that cause is for the interpretation of the minister.
That area is rather loose as far as membership is concerned.
The other thing that is missing which should be included
would be some sort of recourse if one is found to be in that
position where membership is going to be or has been revoked.
There should be some sort of recourse for an unbiased hearing
into the circumstances of it.
Some tightening up is needed in those areas. Many of the
clauses seem to be all-encompassing and a lot is left to
assumption.
In the part that deals with meetings, one clause caught my
attention immediately. That was the one that said participation
in these meetings could be by telephone or some other
communication device. I strongly advise when this bill goes to
committee that we address the issue of having people attend the
meetings in person versus a telephone conference in which there
is perhaps one member sitting in the room and everybody else is
on the telephone somewhere in the Yukon territory. There
should be some indication as to what a quorum is for attendance
in person at a meeting.
A second very restrictive clause is where the meetings can be
held. I believe it states they can be held in Whitehorse and/or
other areas of the Yukon. I agree that is the most sensible area in
which to hold meetings as that is the area it is related to but there
may be cause to hold meetings elsewhere. If we are going to look
at the letter of the law, which seems to be how our justice system
is looking at things these days versus the spirit of it, I suggest
that we open that one up a little bit so that meetings are not only
held right in that area. That is what that clause suggests.
Much of what I am saying today is clause by clause analysis of
the bill which will come up in committee, but those are some of
the points I wish to highlight. A number of my colleagues have
come up with the same types of points and I think that speaks for
itself that there is some concern in those areas.
The last item would be the statement of accounts. I did not get
the impression there would be open access to these accounts by
the public. I got the impression they would be well documented,
that there would be a very good system of accounts, that the
appropriate people would do them, that they would be reviewed
by the Auditor General, and so on, and submitted to
government. However there is no reference anywhere for access
to these accounts on request.
With that I will close my remarks. Under the circumstances
we realize this bill is the third part of the other two and it is
necessary for this one to pass. However, in the composition of
the bill there are a number of things that we should tidy it up
before we actually put it out as the third part.
(1640)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate,
it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce,
Chemical weapons; the hon. member for Oakville-Milton,
Tourism; the hon. member for Lévis, Carrefour
Jeunesse-Emploi; and the hon. member for Chicoutimi,
National Defence.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my speech will be short if not particularly sweet for
those across.
As has been mentioned many times already, Bill C-55 is a
continuation of Bills C-33 and C-34. This places the Reform
Party and myself in somewhat of an awkward position. Any
support we may give at some point on Bill C-55 should most
certainly not be interpreted as support for the previous
ill-conceived legislation.
During his initial presentation of Bill C-55, the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development stated that just before
the summer recess we dealt with the legislation of Bills C-33
and C-34. That is false. We did not do that. What happened just
before the summer recess was that the Liberals invoked closure,
the very thing that when they sat on this side of the House they
said was such a contemptible thing. It is interesting how their
perspective changes as they walk across the floor. I sincerely
hope it will not change our perspective when we walk across the
floor three years from now.
The legislation contained in Bills C-33 and C-34 is
absolutely incredible. They place us in the position we are now
when dealing with land in the Yukon. If land settlements were
made with all aboriginal people in Canada on the basis of the
settlement made in Bill C-33, we would be looking at a land
settlement area four times the size of my province of British
Columbia. I believe that is absolutely unacceptable to virtually
everyone.
On the matter of the intent of Bill C-55, I would first have to
state that I support the slogan of the mining industry which is:
keep mining in Canada. Certainly we would want to have some
settlement of land disputes in the Yukon and we would like to
see this move through the House quickly. However there are
many flaws in Bill C-55 which must be corrected before it can
proceed.
7650
The government talks of consultation. It even lists in its
presentation the consultation that supposedly took place in the
preparation of Bill C-55. This is another of the Liberals' sleight
of hands or flimflams. When one says they have consulted or
have provided a list of people they have consulted someone
looking at that document says: ``This is good. Here are all the
people they have consulted with. I guess if they have used what
these people have told them and come up with this, it must be
okay''.
There is absolutely nothing in the process of consultation
especially with the Liberals that says they have listened to
anything they have received as a result of these consultations.
The very fact they have gone out and spoken with some people
means absolutely nothing.
Recently, after coming in from a rally on these very grounds
of people concerned about the impending firearms legislation
the justice minister said that this government will not base its
legislation on head count. In other words: ``We do not care what
the people say. We know what is good for them''. That certainly
is a problem.
Another of the problems in this bill that must be addressed are
patronage appointments by the minister. Once again their
perspective changes when they walk across the floor. These are
the same members who sat in opposition and lambasted the
former Prime Minister and the Tory party for patronage
appointments. It seems however that they learned at the feet of
the master. Now that they have formed the government they are
anxious to show that they are bigger and better at everything,
including patronage, than the former Prime Minister.
(1645)
The appointments being made to this board are going to be
made by the minister. Is that not nice? He gets to put together a
little patronage haven of his own so that now people can pay
homage and maybe support him so they can get one of these
plum positions. The board gets to say who they want and then the
chairman appoints them, but remember who put the people on
the board in the first place.
I would like to remind the House, those who do not know can
learn from this, of comments of a senior Liberal campaign
official from a western riding who was anticipating his
patronage appointment to the board of referees. When
questioned on the fact that he had announced prematurely that
he was getting this appointment and that it was clearly a
patronage appointment, he was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as
stating: ``What's wrong with patronage? How else can we attract
people to our party?'' What a disgusting turn of events that we
now find ourselves in, a patronage appointed board to do the
bidding of the minister so that the minister can claim that the
government is no longer directly involved.
What about the composition of the board? This is really
interesting as well. The composition of the board is racially
motivated. It is interesting. Why are the Liberals doing that? If
we assume that there are going to be 10 on the board-if the
minister has the opportunity to appoint why not appoint the
maximum number and that way he gets the maximum benefits
back-five are going to be aboriginal people and five are going
to be non-aboriginal.
This brings into question first that they are dealing with all
lands in the Yukon. That means that it should be Yukon people.
There should not be a particular makeup that says there has to be
a certain number of a certain type of people when they are
dealing on land other than aboriginal land. If it were aboriginal
land only, I agree that it should be aboriginal people who decide
on their own land. When we are dealing with all of the Yukon it
should be people in the Yukon, period.
One side asks: ``Why should there be an arbitrary number of
aboriginal people deciding on non-aboriginal land?'' On the
other hand it is argued that aboriginal people are competent. I
am not arguing that. In fact they are the ones who live on the land
and may in fact at times be the best qualified to make the
decision for land use in the Yukon. Why then should the board be
limited to five aboriginal people if in fact they may be the best
qualified people? If seven of the best qualified people are
aboriginal, why should two of them be denied so that it can go
the other way, just the same as it works in reverse.
The final point that I have some concerns about is access to
court. In the document it narrows and extremely limits access to
court on appeal from the outcome of this board belonging to the
minister of Indian and northern affairs. Why would one want to
limit a person's access to court? Obviously the Liberal
government is sort of predisposed to that. We have already seen
the Minister of Transport do that in the Pearson deal.
It comes to a matter of property rights-
Mr. Milliken: Very wisely.
Mr. Gouk: Oh, yes, very wise indeed. Of course the more
control you have, the more you can put in your own patronage
people and have things the way you want totally unchallenged.
Mr. Milliken: You and the Tories wanted it.
Mr. Gouk: We have property rights in Canada, at least we
think we do. The reality is we do not have any property rights at
all. All land belongs to the government. All we have is the right
of continued possession. If the government starts limiting our
access to the court, the government can bring out more and more
arcane laws all the time and have its own people in place and ram
them through, no access to the courts, no appeal.
There are many flaws in this bill. I trust sincerely that if this
bill makes it to the committee that the Liberals will do what is
right. They will correct these injustices in the bill. They will
start dealing with the accusations they made when they were on
this side of the House. They will get rid of patronage. They will
7651
get rid of all the other ill-tasting things that are in this bill and
bring out something that is legitimate, meaningful and
justifiable to the people of the Yukon.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a short question that I would like to put to the
hon. member.
He is opposing this bill as is his party. It seems to me that
every time the government has brought forward a bill dealing
with aboriginal claims or aboriginal interests or dealings in land
in any area that is inhabited by aboriginal peoples in this
country, he and his party members have opposed the bill.
(1650 )
I wonder if he is in a position to reconsider his party's
opposition and realize perhaps their opposition is not based on
reason but on a bias or prejudice that is coming through in
opposition to these bills. Would he not want to rethink his policy
and take a little more fair view of the entire thing and realize that
this bill is in fact good for the Yukon territory as was the case
with the two previous bills which we heard announced earlier
this afternoon in another speech and turn it around and support
this legislation?
An hon. member: Good question.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that whenever the
Liberals take a page out of the Reform policy book to introduce
legislation, they always seem to take only half a page and get it
wrong.
It seems that when the hon. member listened to my
presentation he only listened to half of it. I would first point out
that he should check back in his records on the Split Lake
agreement and see which way the Reform Party voted on that.
Second, I would point out that I said here that there is a bias,
not by the Reform Party but on the part of the government on the
racial makeup of the very board we are discussing here. It is
limiting the number of people from any one race, and that
includes the aboriginal people. If they are the best qualified,
why are they limited to 50 per cent of the board? If they are the
best people, let them be the the major part of the board. It is only
because the minister wants to have absolute and complete
control.
We need something that is fair and totally honest. We are not
going to have honesty when those numbers on the committee are
both manipulated and appointed as personal patronage plums of
the minister of Indian and northern affairs.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am only going to
speak briefly with respect to Bill C-55 because like much of this
government's legislation it resembles the Bishop's egg. It is
excellent in parts, but it contains a lot of tainted material.
The administrative clauses of the bill are well drafted. They
are quite similar to legislation in some provincial jurisdictions.
The rules are comprehensible. I am perfectly aware that many
mining industry executives regard acceptance of C-55 as
preferable to continued regulatory uncertainty.
Having worked in that industry for many years, I think I
understand the corporate mind. If a company is effectively
blocked by bureaucratic stalemate, it will accept almost any
compromise in order to survive. As the crofter said: ``It is better
to sleep with the devil than to lie a'cold''.
My objections to the bill are based on the proposed
composition and terms of the reference of the Yukon surface
rights board. Like its evil older sisters, Bills C-33 and C-34,
this bill is tainted by racial bias. The board will consist of a
chairperson and from two to ten other members. Since these will
be prize patronage appointments you can be sure that the higher
number will prevail. At least half of the members shall be
appointed, and I quote: ``on the nomination of the Yukon
Council of Indians'' or to express it more crudely and directly:
``They shall be Indians''. As my hon. colleague has just said,
this is a double-edged sword. Not only is it expressly directed
that five members of a ten member group shall be Indians but it
is also expressly directed that five of them shall not be Indians.
I thought I lived in Canada. Can anybody imagine the uproar
that would ensue if the articles of a quasi-judicial provincial
board, let us say in Ontario, required that a certain percentage of
its members be Caucasian?
Just in case the board is not sufficiently biased, there is
provision in clause 23 of the bill to budget funds for and again I
quote: ``cross-cultural orientation, education and other
training''. That is to say for social brainwashing.
(1655 )
Perhaps in so far as the board's duties will deal partly with
disputes involving native settlement lands, a little
well-intentioned genetic bias can be justified, but why in the
name of common sense should the colour of a person's skin
determine eligibility to rule on disputes concerning
non-settlement lands, that is to say on public lands?
Even if the biases were applied only to settlement lands, it
should be remembered that the board will arbitrate
compensation for expropriation of these lands. Yet half of its
members are required by law to be beneficiaries of such
compensation. Does that make sense?
7652
Remember, this unaccountable board will have wide ranging
powers and its decisions will have the force of law. Should not
its independence be protected?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief opposition
whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the division
of the question now before the House stands deferred until
Monday, November 14 at 6.30 p.m. at which time the bells to
call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would invite you to seek
unanimous consent to determine if we could defer this vote until
Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act
and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on
Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the
Unemployment Insurance Act.
When I first had the chance to review the amendments contained
in this bill it was immediately apparent that a good deal of time
and effort have gone into determining ways in which the
application rules for income security benefits could be made
more flexible.
It is obvious that clients have complained about some of the
application requirements and certain restrictions in the current
legislation. Undoubtedly each of these requirements or
restrictions had a reason for being at the time they were
introduced. However, by listening to the public the government
has found ways in which both the client and the integrity of the
programs can both be well served.
(1700 )
I am pleased to have the opportunity to highlight some of the
amendments where this is most obvious. Under the Old Age
Security Act the 60 to 64-year old spouse of a low income old
age security pensioner can, on application, receive the spouse's
allowance benefit. Also eligible for this income tested benefit
are low-income widowed persons in the same age group.
The only requirement for the spouse's allowance apart from
age and income is that the younger spouse must have lived in
Canada for a minimum of 10 years after age 18. Because
residence is a qualifier for the spouse's allowance benefit,
applicants for the allowance provide a history of their residence
in Canada after age 18 and up to age 60.
When spouse's allowance recipients turn age 65 they become
eligible for the old age security pension in their own right.
However, the amount of their old age security pension is
dependent on the total number of years they have lived in
Canada after age 18. For those who were in Canada prior to July
1, 1976, 10 years of residence in Canada immediately prior to
age 65 entitles them to payment of the full pension.
For those who came to Canada after July 1, 1976 the amount
of their pension is equal to one-fortieth for each year they
resided in Canada after age 18.
For the most part the administration knows from the
information provided on the spouses allowance application
combined with the payment history of the spouses allowance
how many years of residence the client has at age 65. Therefore
it is possible to calculate the old age security pension
entitlement without going back to the client.
Currently, however, the client is required to apply for the
basic old age security pension and to provide the administration
with much of the same information and documentation that the
individual provided with his or her spouses allowance
application.
7653
Given that in the majority of cases the administration already
has the spouses allowance recipient's residence history in
Canada the requirement that this individual apply for old age
security is unnecessary.
Therefore I am pleased to see that this bill proposes to give the
Minister of Human Resources Development discretion to deem
an old age security application to have been made by the 64-year
old recipient of spouse's allowance. In addition, given that the
administration already has the income information it requires
the income tested guaranteed income supplement form will also
not be required for the remainder of the GIS payment year.
Approximately 20,000 recipients of the spouse's allowance
turn 65 each year. As the majority of these clients have lived in
Canada for the required number of years to receive a full old age
security benefit, this amendment will benefit a great many
people.
This automatic conversion from spouse's allowance to old age
security is not a new concept. Currently under the Canada
pension plan 64-year old disability recipients do not have to
apply for their retirement pension to commence at age 65.
A Canada pension plan retirement application is deemed to
have been received because the administration already has the
information necessary to put a retirement pension into play.
I am pleased that we are now offering the same quality service
to 64-year old spouse's allowance recipients.
Another provision of the Canada pension plan is also being
mirrored in the amendment in this bill which recognizes that
some individuals because of incapacity are unable to apply for
their old age security benefits on time. Specifically, the minister
will be able to deem an application to have been received earlier
than it actually was received if the lateness is due to incapacity.
Benefit entitlement to the basic old age security pension and
the income tested guaranteed income supplement and spouse's
allowance is contingent on an application being made for these
benefits.
If this bill becomes law retroactivity for all of these benefits
will be a consistent 12 months. Therefore anyone applying more
than 12 months after the first month in which they could have
received benefits loses some benefits.
For the most part a limited period of retroactivity is
considered fair.
(1705 )
Individuals have a certain responsibility to come forward in a
timely manner to receive their correct benefit entitlement.
However, there are cases in which the individual is mentally or
physically incapacitated and this incapacity renders them
incapable of making an application. Unless these individuals are
fortunate enough to have someone who realizes that application
can be made on behalf of such an incapacitated person, benefit
entitlement can be lost.
The amendments in this bill would allow the minister to deem
an application to have been made by or on behalf of an applicant.
This would only apply if the applicant were at the time of
application incapable of forming or expressing an intention to
make an application.
As I noted earlier, the Canada pension plan already has such a
provision and this important protection is now being proposed
for old age security clients as well.
Another very interesting amendment contained in this bill
would allow old age security pensioners to cancel their benefit
entitlement. On the face of it one wonders why such an
amendment is necessary. Surely if someone does not want the
benefit all they have to do is not apply. For the small number of
individuals who do not want to receive the old age security
pension the majority do not make application. However, in some
cases it is only after becoming a pensioner that an individual
decides that he or she no longer wants to receive the old age
security benefit. The current legislation, because it does not
provide for benefit cancellation, cannot accede to these
requests.
As I am sure most people will agree, someone should not be
forced to take the application they do not want. Therefore this
bill would allow individuals to cancel their benefit. However,
recognizing that circumstances can change, the bill will also
make provision for a cancelled benefit to be reinstated if the
pensioner should subsequently change his or her mind. The
reinstatement would be effective the month following the month
the request for reinstatement was made. A pensioner would be
reinstated on the same calculation of residence that had been
used when application for the old age security pension was first
made.
A very similar type of amendment is also being made to the
Canada pension plan. Currently the Canada pension plan allows
for an assignment of retirement pensions between spouses in an
ongoing relationship. A Canada pension plan retirement
beneficiary whose spouse is over 60 and receiving any
retirement benefits he or she is entitled to under either the
Canada or Quebec pension plans can apply for and receive a
share of the retirement benefits they both earned during the
course of the marriage.
The legislation currently provides that the assignment ceases
on the death of either spouse, on the twelfth month following the
month the couple separates, the month the non-contributing
spouse becomes a contributor or the month a divorce or
annulment of marriage is finalized. Therefore, even though
pension assignment is done at the request of the couple, the
couple who remains together cannot cancel the assignment.
7654
While the administration has received very few requests for a
pension assignment to be cancelled, there is absolutely no good
reason this should not be allowed. Therefore, I am pleased that
this bill provides for cancellation at the written request of both
spouses.
This type of amendment emphasizes that the government is
listening to what clients want and what they have every right to
expect.
The last amendment I want to deal with is another obvious
example of listening to the desires of clients. As I am sure we are
all aware, the Canada pension plan was amended in 1977 to
provide for a division of pension credits between spouses should
the marriage end in divorce or annulment. While these
provisions have been extended and improved over the years, the
amendment I want to talk about has to do with limitations that
only existed up until 1987.
Specifically because the administration had no experience
with this type of provision in 1977 the division of pension
credits earned by both spouses under the Canada pension plan
during the course of the marriage was only allowed if very strict
conditions were met. The marriage had to have lasted a
minimum of three years. An application for a division of
pension credits had to have been made within three years of the
divorce or annulment.
This latter requirement was felt necessary so that divorced
individuals would have some idea of what their retirement
benefits were going to be when they reached retirement age. It
was felt at the time that a CPP contributor should not be left in
limbo. He or she had a right to know if the pension credits were
going to be divided. In this way the individual could better plan
for his or her retirement years.
(1710 )
Three years was considered to be long enough after the
marriage was over for one of the spouses to make application for
a division of pension credits. Unfortunately, what the original
legislation did not provide was for an extension of the
three-year time limit.
I am pleased to note that there are many divorced couples who
hold no animosity toward each other. These individuals still
want to ensure that their ex-spouses are treated fairly.
The administration has been approached by couples who were
divorced prior to 1987 when the time limit was removed who
would still like to have a division of pension credits. Such
persons accept the fact that Canada pension plan contributions
are a joint family asset to which both spouses contributed
equally during the course of their marriage. Even though for the
most part only the male partner made CPP contributions or at
least consistently contributed to the plan during the course of the
marriage, he recognizes that his ex-wife has as much right to
these credits as he did.
The people who are coming forward do not want a three-year
time limit to prevent them from dividing their pension credits
with their ex-spouse. Therefore, an amendment contained in
Bill C-54 will allow the three-year time limit to be waived
where both spouses request this waiver in writing.
The Canada pension plan is an income security program that
truly belongs to its clients. The plan is totally funded by the
contributions that employers and their employees make and the
investment of any moneys not immediately needed to pay
benefits and expenses. Therefore, this plan should definitely
listen to the people to whom it belongs and the waiver of the
three-year time limit for spouses who divorced prior to 1987 is
proof positive that this government is willing to both listen and
act on what it hears.
This government has a commitment to improve the way it
does business. This bill before us today exemplifies how this
commitment can be acted upon.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-54, an Act to
amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the
Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment
Insurance Act. In other words, this bill directly concerns social
programs.
I am puzzled since, throughout the election campaign, the
Liberals kept referring to their red book and the creation of jobs
and more jobs. However, the reality is that, since they took
office, the Liberals are constantly looking at cuts in social
program budgets.
The social policy reform provides a good example of the cuts
which this government intends to make. Under the
circumstances, I feel that the current debate is essential, since it
concerns the poor. This bill deals with the benefits of an
important group in our society, namely our seniors, our fathers
and mothers, to whom we owe so much. These people played an
active role in the economic life of our communities, and they
still do, often in a volunteer capacity.
Seniors in my riding are of that calibre. However, they are not
exempt from the problem of poverty which confronts many
elderly persons. In 1992, the average income of seniors living
alone was $18,434. Moreover, 21 per cent of seniors belong to
the low-income group. It is tragic to see people who helped
build this country being faced with the prospect of poverty.
Regardless of what the Liberals in this House may think, the
income level of many seniors coincides with the poverty line.
These are real figures. Why then is the Liberal government so
bent on getting tough and tightening up the social system by
saving money at the expense of the poorest of the poor?
7655
(1715)
Some of the objectives of Bill C-54 are acceptable, namely,
improving client services, managing programs more efficiently,
and taking the necessary steps to harmonize programs. The Bloc
Quebecois supports the objective of this bill which is to make
the rules more flexible in order to make life easier for senior
citizens. It even agrees with some of the amendments, which can
only benefit seniors. However, the Bloc cannot condone the fact
that savings are being achieved at the expense of already
impoverished senior citizens. We must make sure that senior
citizens do not lose what they have gained so far.
Despite its Good Samaritan act and all its talk about fairness,
the Liberal government does want to standardize the Old Age
Security programs by limiting retroactive payments to one year.
When we know that senior citizens can now receive
retroactive Old Age benefits for five years, one must question
what the government is doing. If it is not making it harder for
senior citizens, what is it doing then? I say it is saving money by
taking away from senior citizens what they had gained
previously.
The Liberal government is waving a carrot, but the Bloc
Quebecois knows there is a stick. As to overpayments under the
Old Age Security Program, pensioners are protected against any
error by officials, that is to say they would not have to repay the
sums received in excess of their entitlement. Presently, the
legislation has provisions for a maximum two-year retroactivity
period. Bill C-54 would abolish this, saving the government
between one and two million dollars.
I would like the minister to explain where these savings are
coming from, and whether pensioners will be protected the way
they were previously.
I would also like the Minister of Human Resources
Development to explain to me the provision of the bill granting
the minister the right to acquire, use and manage assets. It is
quite natural that I should question this provision since the
intent of the minister is far from clear in this bill. He certainly
lacks openness in this case, contrary to the openness he shows as
far as personal information on pensioners is concerned.
The Liberal government, although it denied against all odds
that CSIS was spying, wants to increase the number of
departments and agencies which will have access to personal
information.
The Bloc Quebecois considers that the collection of
information is legitimate, but it believes that the access to such
information should be limited.
The Liberal government should clarify the rules for access to
privileged information and the provisions dealing with
sanctions in case of disclosure.
The integrity of this information must be respected. The
government should be more specific and should demonstrate the
need for a wider distribution of privileged information.
(1720)
Considering that the bill in its present form fails to reinforce
the confidentiality of personal information pertaining to
beneficiaries of programs for seniors and that the government is
saving money at the expense of the poorest members of society,
and that certain measures seem obscure, I will support the
amendment presented by my colleague for
Argenteuil-Papineauville.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-54, something
we as Reformers would like to address in an enormous way and
revamp.
The bill is to streamline OAS, CPP and UIC systems. It is
essentially a housekeeping bill. I hope these changes will result
in increased efficiency and increased targeting for those who
most need it, decreased expenditures and less abuse in the
system, something we in the Reform Party stand for very
strongly. However, given the usual situation with this and
previous governments, I am very doubtful that will happen.
Let me give some examples. The Liberal proposals in the bill
are simply not financially sustainable. In 15 years or less,
spending on social programs plus interest will consume 100 per
cent of all federal revenues. I will get back to that a bit later.
The proposals in the bill do not address the long term fiscal
reality of declining dollars to spend on social programs and the
dramatic increase in the numbers of seniors expected in the next
15 years. This mindset occurs on just about every committee the
Liberal Party has chaired. Never are the ideas of how we are
going to pay for all the programs we ask for ever addressed in the
majority of committees that we sit on.
The Liberal proposals are not targeted to the truly needy. The
Liberal proposals do not eliminate the duplication between
various levels of government, a logical choice where we could
officially cut costs to provide more money for other programs
and to decreasing the deficit and the debt.
We in this party support the following options proposed in the
minister's paper, I must admit: moving the UI system closer to a
true insurance program; starting to target assistance to those
most in need; a voucher system for students to replace
post-secondary education; an income contingent repayment
plan for student loans which would put it on the legs of financial
and
7656
fiscal sustainability; and placing more responsibility on the
province for welfare programs. The problem and the single
most important and fundamental threat to social programs is
continued deficit spending by this and previous governments.
We have been accused in this party of being the slash and burn
party that does not care about the poor, the dispossessed, the
wronged, and those in the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds.
That is wrong. That is a fallacy that continues to exist in the
public's mind. I will try to show the House, the government and
the public what we really stand for and to put forth the only
solution that will rectify these problems and save social
programs for those who truly need them.
Currently the debt and the interest payments are providing
less money for social programs. I will explain how this happens.
It will ultimately result in the collapse of all the programs
because there simply will be no money for them. Who will that
hurt? That will hurt those who are most needy.
The problem, as I said before, is that as the debt increases the
amount of interest on it increases. Currently a quarter of all
government revenues is paid purely on interest. This serves no
function whatsoever. A quarter goes to spending on government
services and a half to social spending.
Social spending is almost $80 billion. As interest payments go
up one or two things happen: they can either take away from
social spending or other programs or they can tax more, which is
absolutely ludicrous. The people in the country are taxed to the
hilt.
An hon. member: That is the Liberal plan.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): That is right.
However there is a backlash. If they increase taxes people spend
less. Fewer people are employed. Jobless rates go up. There is
more of a demand on our social programs. Our debts go up. Our
interest payments go up. The cycle repeats itself. It is a spiral
that ultimately results in the collapse of the financial, economic
and social backbone of our country.
(1725 )
To put this into a more stark perspective, by the year 2010
interest payments and social spending will combine to swallow
every single dollar this government or any government will take
in. That is 100 per cent of revenues. That will mean there will be
no money for government services including the armed forces,
foreign affairs, RCMP, or the precious multiculturalism and
bilingualism the government holds so dear.
At best, with government services amounting to $42 billion,
the most we can reasonably cut is between $8 billion and $10
billion. The rest must come from social spending. There is no
way around this fact of life.
We in this party are not looking to slash social spending. We
are looking to cutting a modest $12 billion to $16 billion which,
in combination with the other $8 billion and the expected rise in
GNP, will result in a balanced budget in the next three years.
The threat to government programs is already very evident. I
will use the concrete example of health care that is close to the
hearts of Canadians including my own. Our health care system is
in crisis. The federal government is giving less and less money
to the provinces and the provinces are funding less all the time
because they simply do not have the money available. They are
in exactly the same fiscal crunch the federal government is in.
This results in the deplorable situation of rationing,
particularly the rationing of essential health care services. Less
money, increased demands, an aging population and more
expensive medical technologies all combine to comprise
people's health. The most essential of health care services right
now are being withheld from people, which will result in people
suffering and people dying.
There is a five-month waiting list in Ottawa for heart surgery
at the Ottawa Heart Institute. In the province of Quebec there are
tens of thousands of individuals on hospital waiting lists, 800 of
whom require urgent surgery now. That is absolutely deplorable.
Seventy per cent of individuals in severe pain who need new
hips, which generally applies to the aged, will wait at least five
months and 40 per cent of them will wait 13 months to get hip
transplants. Imagine ourselves, imagine our parents, imagine
our grandparents suffering in severe pain waiting for a hip
replacement that may never come.
The federal government is taking away money on one hand
and forcing provincial governments to adhere to the archaic
Canada Health Act. It in itself philosophically compromises the
health care of every Canadian.
What do we propose to do in this party? We do not propose to
destroy the Canada Health Act. We propose to amend the Canada
Health Act to ensure that provinces have the ability to take care
of their finances and to enable them to experiment with various
funding models to be able to pay for the essential health care
services people require.
Right now people are not getting essential services. How do
we prevent a two-tier system wherein the poor will suffer? The
way to do it is to define essential health care services, which is
the job of the government. We are more than happy in this party
to help the government toward this realization of defining the
health care system and ensuring that those services will be
covered for every Canadian in the country regardless of
socioeconomic situation.
An hon. member: Liberal compassion, keep on spending.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): This is Reform
compassion. This is the way the Reform Party wants to deal with
health care. The Reform Party wants to save publicly funded
health care to ensure that all people in the country will receive
the timely essential health care services they require. There is no
other option. To further the health forum is going to take four
years to make any substantive difference. It is only going to
7657
offset the decisions that we in this party know have to be made
now.
(1730 )
I beg this government to heed what is being said here today
and to accept our hand in working toward a coherent, forward
thinking health care policy and social policy for all Canadians to
ensure that all Canadians, particularly those in the lowest
socioeconomic circles, will have their needs met.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to
speak to Bill C-54. My speech will deal with two aspects. First,
there is the whole issue of personal information. The reason we
are opposed to this bill as it now stands is that the government
wants to add Canada Post, among others, to the list of agencies
and departments which already have access to this information.
We may wonder why Canada Post needs to know this, but I think
there is no reason to be concerned in this case.
Correctional Service Canada is a little more disturbing. Why
Correctional Service? They may need it for criminal
investigations, and that would be okay, I suppose. But the
RCMP, the Minister of Justice, members of Parliament? At the
moment, the management of intelligence services is raising
many questions and creating a great deal of uncertainty among
the general public.
I think that now is not the time to add to the list, especially
when dealing with clients, in this case seniors, who may be more
vulnerable to fuller disclosure of personal information or to
allowing a larger number of government organizations,
departments and agencies to look at seniors' files.
We know that seniors-it will be our turn some day-live in
insecurity, especially those with few resources. We in the
Official Opposition are very concerned about the provisions
adding a significant number of government bodies to the list of
those with access to personal information. That is why the other
day the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel proposed an
amendment which was rejected but which would have imposed
some limits on the collection of personal information.
The second aspect is, of course, the efficiency measures. They
want to improve service to seniors-as stated in the objectives
of the bill-and simplify access to old age pensions, while at the
same time taking measures to recover money from clients who,
as I said earlier, are very worried. I saw people again this week
in my riding office who are worried about social program
reform. I do not want to indulge in grandstanding, but old age
pensions are excluded from this reform. Meanwhile, the
Minister of Finance is travelling across Canada and telling
everybody that there will be a reform of social programs but that
spending will also have to be cut.
Seniors-for whom I want to speak out-are worried. Again
yesterday, two seniors told me the same thing at a meeting of the
Committee on Human Resources Development. Can we
guarantee that old age pensions will not be affected?
Unfortunately, we see here some measures that reduce the
retroactive period for an application to one year from five.
Previously, seniors could apply to the government and had up to
five years to do so. Now it is reduced to one.
(1735)
Eliminating the grace period would, it is estimated, save the
government $1 to $2 million. The bill has a provision whereby
the minister can stop making benefit payments while an appeal
is reviewed.
Imagine someone who wants to appeal a decision under this
bill. Now, all of a sudden, as a result of the minister's
discretionary power or the department's delegated authority, his
benefit payments would stop. This means that the burden of
proof is on him, because he is penalized right away, and his old
age pension payments are stopped until a decision is made on the
appeal.
These economy measures are somewhat contrary to the
purpose of the law, which it seems was meant to make the
Canada Pension Plan procedures easier for seniors.
For these two main reasons, especially the increased number
of agencies, if the bill is passed as is, it would give access to
private information on individual seniors. Moreover, the
savings would be made on the backs of people who are among
the most vulnerable in our society, seniors, most of whom, as we
know, are barely scraping by.
I think that the government-because the amounts saved are
about $1 or $2 million in each case, for a total of around $4
million for all of Canada-should not make seniors feel more
insecure. These savings are not worth it. These people have
contributed to society all their life and I think they deserve
peace of mind and reassurance about their pensions.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7658
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, I have been requested by the chief government whip to
defer the division until a later time. Accordingly, pursuant to
Standing Order 45(6) the division on the question now before
the House stands deferred until Monday, November 14 at 6.30
p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be
sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself I
think you would find unanimous consent to further defer this
vote until Tuesday, November 15 at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find the House
favourably disposed to proceed immediately to private
members' hour.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding with
Private Members' Business, I have a statement to make
concerning Private Members' Business hour for tomorrow,
Friday, November 4, 1994. I have received written notice from
the hon. member for Don Valley North that he will be unable to
move his motion during private members' hour tomorrow.
Since it has not been possible to arrange an exchange of
positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order
94(2)(a), I am directing the table officers to drop that item of
business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), private members' hour
will thus be suspended tomorrow and the House will continue
with the business before it prior to private members' hour.
It being 5.40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
7658
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in co-operation
with the provinces, seek to put in place a process aimed at ensuring the
portability of credentials obtained in and outside Canada in order to fully
utilize the talents, skills and experience of all Canadians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate on my
motion, No. M-303 as stated. This motion presents the House
with the unique opportunity to assert its leadership and fulfil its
duty to the people of Canada, to do them justice. This motion
strikes to the heart of what Canada wants for its citizens and
what citizens want from their Canada.
This motion ought to transcend partisan interests. Why?
Because Canadians by birth and by choice want and need the
dignity of work. They want and need to contribute to the
economic and social fabric of their great nation. They want and
need to find fulfilment and a sense of personal identity in their
chosen occupations. They want and need to support themselves
and their families.
I believe no one in this House or in this country would
disagree that Canada wants her citizens to obtain these goals.
Insuring the freedom, productivity, contentment and security of
citizens is the chief interests of any democratic government.
That is why I believe our federal and provincial governments
must co-operate with one another and with other governments
worldwide to see to it that Canada's citizens are able to
maximize their productivity, their earning potential, their
self-esteem and their creativity.
Simply put we in this House must work together to make the
accreditation of foreign and out of province credentials a
simple, orderly and timely as possible without compromising
occupational standards for even a moment to ensure the full
realization and utilization of the talents, skills and experience of
all our citizens.
Professional and academic standards act as a kind of
guarantee to the public. People can trust their affairs with a
lawyer or trust their lives with a doctor, knowing that each of
them has met local professional standards. As our children
attend school from kindergarten through advanced degrees it
seems only reasonable for us to believe that teachers are
qualified in their fields. It is just as natural for us to want our
children's academic achievements to be solid and substantial.
We would like them to be as qualified as possible.
7659
To retain the confidence of the public, regulatory bodies
enforce a certain level of competence and knowledge.
Professional standards are upheld. In general, most people in
our communities accept that system.
The fairness of the system is tested when newcomers to
Canada request that their credentials be recognized. In fairness
to the public and to members of the professions and trades here
in Canada, the domestic authorities must conduct rigorous and
comprehensive examinations of foreign credentials.
(1745 )
People who are familiar with the credentials issue know how
complex it is. My motion is in no way a criticism of the people
now working in the field. My hope is that we can better support
their efforts.
There are costs associated with portability of credentials. I
believe co-operation and co-ordination are the means to contain
those costs effectively and to fairly allocate any expense that
remains.
My motion calls for co-operation between our federal and
provincial governments and on the international level. In
academic and professional areas where provinces and territories
have jurisdiction, the resources of the federal government can
minimize the difficulty and expense. The benefits of an effective
recognition process fully justify the efforts governments make
to create it.
Job creation is the number one priority of this government. It
is the foundation upon which this government has built a vision
for Canada's entry into the 21st century. That vision
encompasses the interests not only of Canadians here today but
of those who will join us here tomorrow and rightly so.
Canada can and should do much more to ensure that
immigrants and all citizens are able to participate fully in the
labour force. Canada is a land of immigrants. Over the years,
over the centuries, first one group and then another have come
here to make new lives.
Some people were fleeing political turmoil. Many could find
no opportunities in their countries of birth. Certainly, some of
the people who came to Canada believed they would find
adventure and excitement in the open spaces as well as
economic and political freedom.
Some people come to Canada empty handed as political or
economic refugees. The only fortune they can carry is their
knowledge. A good education might be the only inheritance they
can give their children. In all fairness we should help people
make the most of what they have, not the least.
A Statistics Canada report released last July titled ``Canada's
Changing Immigrant Population'' points out that the labour
force participation rate for Canadian immigrants was lower than
that of Canadians born in Canada, despite the similar
proportions of university degree holders in the two groups.
Based on this information, the report concludes that recent
arrivals ``may take more time to adapt to Canada's labour
market''.
I submit that the more plausible alternative explanation is the
absence of an effective process or mechanism for accreditation
of foreign-obtained credentials. As compelling as the statistical
data in the report are, it is the people behind the numbers who
make the strongest case for an orderly system of accreditation.
I would imagine that all members of this House are familiar
with cases in which highly skilled immigrants have come to
Canada only to find their foreign credentials do not entitle them
to work in their field of expertise.
A striking example was recently documented in an Ottawa
Citizen article titled ``Educated immigrants face work barrier''.
This story detailed the case of a woman physician from
Honduras who arrived as a refugee in Canada and has been
forced to clean houses to support her family.
In my home province of Manitoba there are now close to 100
medical doctors who want to practise the healing art. Yet
barriers exist to prevent them from doing so. I know of one
physician who recently immigrated with his family from
Ukraine. He is unable to practise despite his impeccable foreign
obtained credentials.
This doctor and his family are not the only ones who suffer in
this instance. Indeed our Winnipeg community incurs a loss as
well, a loss of expertise. There are many more examples in many
other disciplines and fields.
Throughout Canada there are hundreds and thousands of
highly skilled engineers, technologists, technicians, teachers,
accountants, lawyers, mechanics, electricians, plumbers,
dentists, nurses and many more. They have one thing in
common. They chose Canada as their new home in which to
raise their families. They want to contribute to the development
and prosperity of their chosen land. I ask, how can we in
conscience turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to them? How can we?
(1750)
The issue of accreditation of foreign obtained credentials has
been before this House since at least 1989 when this member
took the issue before the Standing Committee on Industry,
Science and Technology and the committee on health and
welfare, social affairs, seniors and the status of women.
I am pleased to note that both the Department of Human
Resources Development and the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration today have now seized on the importance of this
issue. A four part report released last year states and I quote:
``Few examples of mutual recognition of foreign credentials
within an occupation and between countries exist. This is in part
due to differences in standards and curricula that exist between
provinces. Recognition of qualifications between provinces
7660
must exist prior to mutual recognition of professional
qualifications between two countries''.
The report adds, and I again quote: ``Given the provincial
nature of education and occupation regulation, the potential
exists for duplication of effort-any lack of co-ordination
between provinces could lead to-a foreign-trained worker
receiving recognition in one province but not another''.
The acknowledgement in the report of the importance of this
issue clearly illustrates the need for the federal government to
assert its leadership role by co-ordinating the efforts of the
provinces in the area of accreditation.
I am particularly pleased to see that a new government
strategy released just two days ago by the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration has reinforced the intention of
another department of this government to do just that.
In the new framework for immigration titled ``Into the 21st
Century'' the citizenship and immigration minister clearly
states his support of one particular objective of the Department
of Human Resources Development as indicated in its social
security review book released last October 5.
This objective is and I quote: ``To facilitate adaptation so that
recent immigrants who come to Canada with needed job skills
and professional qualification can more easily gain access to
employment services and succeed in the transition to the
Canadian labour market''.
Furthermore, the document states that the two departments
will work together to develop a national clearing house on
accreditation in which the federal government will and I quote:
``work with the provinces, employers, unions and voluntary
groups to develop a Canada-wide system of credits recognition
to assist immigrants to find and keep meaningful employment
commensurate with their skills and knowledge''.
Portability of occupational credentials across provincial
boundaries is an important and relevant part of my motion. I am
therefore pleased the agreement on internal trade signed by first
ministers on July 18 of this year contains a chapter on labour
mobility which limits the use of residency requirements and
establishes a process for mutual recognition of occupational
qualifications and requirements.
This is crucial since without a co-ordinated national system
of national accreditation, the idea of working with foreign
governments to achieve the ultimate goal of mutual recognition
seems more remote.
Why is this joint effort on the part of the provinces and the
federal government necessary? I would submit that the sheer
complexity of the issues facing those who seek accreditation of
their foreign obtained credentials will need to be confronted
head on by experts culled from all areas of the country and all
sectors of the government and the labour force.
I am therefore pleased to note that at the immigration deputy
ministers' meetings in July and September of this year, a
federal-provincial work group led by the provinces on access to
trades and professions was established to advance co-operation
on this issue.
This approach eliminates the potential for duplication of
effort and ensures that all interested parties are pulling in the
same direction and thereby saves cost, time and perhaps
personal anguish.
We should remember that bureaucracies have a different
sense of time than the people waiting for them to respond. What
is swiftness for a government office can be agonizing delay to
newcomers who are eager to work at their professions and trades
and become part of their communities. The stage has been set for
federal-provincial co-operation in this matter.
(1755)
That is why I again call upon all members of this House to
support Motion No. 303, to support the efforts already under
way to make accreditation of foreign credentials a more
effective and efficient process. Accreditation of credentials
should be a dynamic process, linking governments, professional
bodies and schools.
New categories of employment and new professions are
emerging faster than ever before. We know that. We need the
creative energy, optimism and determination of all these players
if the process of accreditation is to become an instrument for
facilitating personal mobility, national productivity and, not
least, human dignity.
Ultimately a successful accreditation system can ensure that
Canadians, especially young Canadians, have qualifications
which are respected and valued throughout the world, a truly
urgent need and in our national interest. Indeed accreditation
can open the world to Canada and to Canadians. In return, we
open Canada to the world. Canada has much to offer and much to
gain.
In conclusion, I believe those of us who have benefited from
the portability of credentials have an obligation, a duty to make
a case for so many others who are not here to speak for
themselves.
I hope I have done them justice in my own little way. I hope
this House will do them justice.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at first glance,
the motion tabled by the member for Winnipeg North may seem
quite interesting, since it provides that the government should,
in co-operation with the provinces, seek to put in place a process
aimed at ensuring the portability of credentials obtained in and
outside Canada in order to fully utilize the talents, skills and
experience of all Canadians.
7661
In other words, the member wants skills acquired in a
province to be recognized in the other provinces as well as in
other countries. To that end, the member proposes that the
federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, seek to
put in place a recognition process of credentials. However, one
can see that this motion is very much in the spirit of the social
program reform.
Indeed, one of the proposals made by the Minister of Human
Resources Development in his discussion paper is the delivery
of a learning passport. The passport would, in one place,
document an individual's learning experience as well as any
academic and vocational credentials, and would be recognized
across the country by employers and learning institutions.
Such an initiative would require national education standards.
However, it just so happens that, according to the Constitution,
and this is something the Official Opposition keeps repeating,
education falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
For the majority of provinces, except Quebec, manpower
mobility does not pose any linguistic problem, since the English
language is used. There might be a problem with New
Brunswick, which has a large proportion of French-speaking
people, but in the majority of provinces this does not present any
problem.
(1800)
I have to relate an historical event, which occurred in 1990
and which disappointed many Quebecers. There was the
Charlottetown Accord but, before that, the Meech Lake Accord
was also rejected. One thing which disappointed a lot of
Quebecers has to do with the recognition of Quebec as a distinct
society, based on its language and its culture. As sociologist Guy
Rocher often points out, culture is a group's own way of
thinking, acting and feeling. In other words, the difference is not
merely of a linguistic nature.
In Quebec, not only do we have a different way of thinking,
acting and feeling, but we also have a civil code which, as
members opposite know, is totally different from the one used
elsewhere in the country. In Quebec, we have a civil code based
on the Napoleonic Code. It goes back a number of years but was
updated last year by the previous Liberal government, involving
a lot of work and extensive changes.
Incidentally, when we consider our legal system, all citizens
are concerned and not just lawyers. We always go by the
principle that everyone is supposed to know the law. But here,
we have a whole collection of different standards.
If we allow mobility in the case of education, for instance,
what about language? To have a standard that is acceptable
across the country, how many hours of second language or first
language courses should be offered from coast to coast? I see
this as a major problem.
If a proposal in this respect were up to the provincial Ministers
of Education who could try to define minimum standards that
would be acceptable to all concerned, we could go along with
that, because the Bloc Quebecois does not think Quebecers
should live in a vacuum. It has never been opposed to the
principle of free trade, and I mean free trade in more than goods
and services. Free trade also involves individuals who move
around to sell and promote their products, for instance.
However, when we get to the question of manpower training
and professional qualifications, Quebec does not operate the
same way the other provinces do, with a few exceptions.
We do not want to be perceived as people who are against what
English Canada wants to do, if it is against exchanges between
the English-speaking provinces. And we are not, whether we are
sovereign or operating under a federal system, against
exchanges between individuals in Quebec and the other
provinces, nor do we have any objection to Quebecers being able
to work, for instance, in NAFTA member countries such as the
United States, Mexico or elsewhere.
It is an interesting principle, but to implement the proposal
made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, we must consider
setting standards in the field of education. I understand the hon.
member's emphasis on co-operation and I admire his
democratic philosophy, but as far as implementing this approach
is concerned, we must remember that for years there has been a
very strong consensus in Quebec among all parties on
professional training. However, for more than a decade, there
has been no agreement on how governments should operate in
this area.
(1805)
Considering that the Minister of Human Resources
Development was unable to get the provincial ministers
responsible for education and professional training on side,
co-operation would seem to be a major problem. If we consider
education and financial assistance, we saw, for instance, in Bill
C-28 that the Minister of Human Resources Development had a
number of new provisions to increase his discretionary powers,
while formerly, it was up to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
to determine who is the appropriate authority for education,
while according to the new provisions, the minister himself
would be able to designate the appropriate authority. He
becomes some sort of a super education minister for the whole
country, once again infringing upon an area of provincial
jurisdiction.
If the invitation from the member for Winnipeg North was
well received by the provincial education ministers, together, at
their own level, they could define a set of minimum standards,
regardless of the political context, be it sovereignty or the status
quo. If these ministers could agree on some minimum standards,
they may not have to be wall-to-wall in agreement to have
specific provisions for Quebec, and recognize Quebec as a
7662
distinct society, while having different standards for the rest of
Canada.
The more I attend the meetings of the committee on human
resources development, the more I listen to people from across
Canada, the more I realize that in this country, there are two
different countries and people with a totally different mind-set.
In English Canada, people identify more strongly with the
central government, that is the federal government, whereas in
Quebec, we identify with our provincial government. In English
Canada, when there is disagreement between the agencies and
the province, people favour the federal government; this is
somehow what the proposal from the member for Winnipeg
North does. I believe it deserves to be taken into consideration,
but in its present form, it is unacceptable to Quebec. The
responsibility should lie solely with the provincial education
ministers.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this well intentioned
motion.
I appreciate also the desire of my colleague to make the
portability of credentials across the country easier for
professionals and for those in the trades. There is no question
that in our increasingly mobile society many people do
experience difficulties and frustrations when trying to start a
professional practice or to practise a trade in a different region.
I also appreciate better than most I suspect the frustration
many new Canadians have with the credential process that exists
across the country. Many individuals in my riding have
expressed this concern to me and I understand where my hon.
colleague is coming from.
However, I fear that my hon. colleague, the author of this
motion does not understand the implication of the proposed
measure. Further I believe we can conclude only one of two
things about my hon. colleague and his government from this
motion. Either he does not have a good understanding of how the
business profession and trades work in this country or he does
not care and is willing to see the imposition of a profound
draconian government control over areas that should not be
controlled.
Should this motion become a bill I have no doubt that tens of
thousands of people who belong to professions that would be
affected by this measure would make the folly of this motion
very evident indeed. Allow me to lay out how it is that trades and
professions such as the ones that would be affected by this
motion are credentialled and what effect this motion if it
actually became policy, which it will not, would have. Let us use
the examples of doctors, lawyers and engineers.
(1810)
Doctors, whether inside or outside Canada, must receive
degrees in medicine from recognized universities and then they
must write exams under the observation of provincial medical
associations. Only then will they be allowed to practise in the
province and in Canada. Granted, recently some barriers have
been placed in the way of doctors who want to practise in a
province other than the one they have written an exam in, but
those restrictions have happened because of a surplus of doctors
in some areas and have reflected the best judgments of the
provinces and the provincial medical boards.
Engineers educated in Canada and receiving their degrees
must write an exam in each province they wish to practise in.
The exam deals with local safety codes and local standards. The
province specific exam is necessary since each province has its
own safety standards and its own building and engineering
codes. These are standards and practices unique in that
province.
Should someone come into the country with a degree in
engineering from a university that is not recognized and if that
graduate has at least two years of experience they are permitted
to write an additional examination more strenuous than the first
for obvious reasons. It tests not only the knowledge of local
codes and standards but also their general ability and knowledge
of the field they are intending to practise in. After passing this
exam they are able to practise in that province.
It has come to my attention that there are many engineering
graduates educated abroad who are not able to pass the second
more strenuous exam. While that difficulty is undoubtedly
heartbreaking for the exam taker, we cannot avoid the
observation that it reflects a lack of knowledge of standards and
of techniques and practices in Canada. Those who are not up to
the Canadian standard of knowledge and excellence should not,
with all due respect, be allowed to practise.
I think my hon. colleague knows how the regulations of legal
credentials work in Canada across the provinces. After an
individual graduates from an English Canadian law school he or
she must write a bar exam regulated by the provincial bar that
allows him or her to practise in that province. My hon. colleague
from the Bloc just pointed out some of the pitfalls in that region
alone.
Is this protectionism? Is it guarding one's own turf? Of course
it is and for good reason. I know I am stating the obvious, but
this motion is so contrary to common sense when one sits down
and really looks at it. A statement of the obvious is necessary to
demonstrate that it is not workable.
Each province has its own laws, a wealth of laws, volumes and
volumes of laws. Those specific laws require such a degree of
specialized knowledge it is imperative that provincial bars
7663
protect the consumers of the province by requiring tested
knowledge of those laws.
An hon. member: Not in criminal law.
Mr. Hanger: Well criminal law is a partial exception but still
there are requirements for the particular province. It is
imperative to the consumers of the legal profession that local
bars protect them from free floaters who would like to practise
everywhere or anywhere in the country but would not have a
degree of knowledge of the provincial laws that would allow for
a proper and responsible practice.
I will admit that things might be easier to manage if the
credential process were centralized if the feds took it over, or
regulated credentialing. Easier is not necessarily better.
Yes, professionals and those with specialized trade skills are
protected to some degree from overseas competition by strict
credentialing. Granted, professionals in each province might
even be protected to some degree by the control local
professional guilds have over credentials but so is the consumer
and so are standards of quality. The system is not perfect.
Professional guilds can become protective and inward looking
and there is no question about that. We have seen several
examples of the barriers that are imposed.
However, we must ask the philosophical question: Who can
do a better job of looking after quality standards of a profession
and the interests of consumers of specialized services,
professional guilds or the federal government? Who should be
allowed to impose regulations, those who are intimately
involved in the delivery of the specialized service or product, or
the federal government?
(1815)
Where should the onus for protection of consumers and the
regulations of local standards be located? Locally or in Ottawa?
Needless to say the Reform Party believes that things affecting
provinces directly must be under the direct purview of the
provinces. The more local the better; the more decentralized the
better.
There is a fundamental philosophical difference between
myself and my party and my hon. colleague from Winnipeg
North. We believe Ottawa should play as small a role as possible
in the affairs of the provinces and in the affairs of business and
the professions.
We believe consumers must be protected from abuse not by
Ottawa but by the provinces. Where the private sector can do an
adequate job of something we believe the government at any
level has no business whatsoever getting involved. I know that is
not the opinion of my colleague. Obviously not.
The proof is in the pudding. The motion if passed, which I hope
it never will be, would establish a bureaucrat monster not unlike
so many of the bureaucratic monsters that currently lurk in this
town.
In closing I applaud the intentions of my colleague but this
will not work and it should not be allowed to happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by applauding this initiative of
my colleague from Winnipeg North. Why? Because it is a very
important point. What is he seeking? He is not seeking any
special power for Ottawa or trying to impose undue constraints.
What he is trying to do is bring some justice to the men and
women who come to Canada. He wants their degrees to be
considered in a fair, objective and serious manner.
Why is he proposing this? Because we have a number of
Canadian men and women, born and educated abroad, who are
qualified for specialized jobs, but cannot get recognition due to
the lack of any mechanism to review their degrees.
I am sorry, but the hon. member did not understand what my
colleague is proposing. Why he is proposing this? Because the
present situation not only creates injustices, it also deprives
Canadians or landed immigrants from finding the job they are
qualified for, the job that would challenge them, the job they
really want.
My colleague is seeking a process, a mechanism which will
not only bring some justice to these people, but will also allow
them to work in their field of expertise. That is what he wants,
nothing else.
[English]
The motion would achieve a couple of very important
objectives. It would address out of country qualifications which
we must do. It is a mess right now. It does not ask that Ottawa do
it; it asks that it be done. Bring the partners together and work it
out. Of course we are going to be sensitive to language.
[Translation]
Clearly, except in an emergency, we do not want to send
somewhere a medical practitioner who speaks neither French
nor English, and will not understand his patients. Of course we
will be sensitive to that, we have to, and that is what my
colleague is proposing.
[English]
It would also address the in-country qualifications. We are
like 10 or 12 separate countries. My colleague and I understand
that there are profound differences but there are also
similarities. We are not asking anyone to give up their culture,
their language, their constitutional responsibilities, or whatever
it is they have to do. We are asking people if we can sit down and
make it better for Canadians whether they were born in the
7664
country or out of the country. That is what my colleague is
recognizing.
The previous speaker said that he hoped this would not
happen. I have news for him. It may. I note that the Minister of
Human Resources Development and the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration have recognized a need. I want to quote from a
recent document which is a year old: ``There are few examples
of mutual recognition of foreign credentials within an
occupation and between countries''. In other words this does not
exist. They have recognized that need. The report goes on to say:
``Recognition of qualifications between provinces must exist
prior to mutual recognition of professional qualifications
between two countries''. They could have added territories.
(1820)
In a more recent report entitled ``Into the 21st Century'' the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had this to say: ``To
facilitate adaptation so that recent immigrants who come to
Canada with needed job skills and professional qualifications
can more easily gain access to employment services and succeed
in the transition to the Canadian labour market''.
That is what my colleague from Winnipeg North is trying to
do. It is not to create a monster in Ottawa. It is not to try to crush
people, to take away the constitutional responsibilities or to be
insensitive to their cultural rights, imperatives, dreams and
desires.
There is more. This is a key for the speaker who just preceded
me. These two departments will ``work with the provinces,
employers, unions and voluntary groups to develop a
Canada-wide system of credits recognition to assist immigrants
to find and keep meaningful employment commensurate with
their skills and knowledge''. That is what these two departments
will do. I applaud that initiative and the insight of those
ministers.
I want to repeat, as my colleague said, that there was an
agreement signed on July 18 by the first ministers, the
agreement on internal trade which established a process for
mutual recognition of occupational qualifications and
requirements. A lot has been done.
Here we are with 10 to 12 separate jurisdictions and we are
going to quarrel about whether or not a doctor, teacher, plumber
or electrician can come and work on my turf. If I am having a
serious heart attack, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not ask the
doctor if he or she is from Manitoba; send him over very quickly.
Why is it that the European countries, even though they have
different traditions and different languages, can come to grips
with it and can resolve the problem? I guess my colleagues
really think that we are not as able as the Europeans. I assure the
House, with all due respect to those gentlemen and gentle ladies,
that we can do as much. Perhaps we can even do more because
we can use their example and hopefully we can improve it.
I have more news for my colleagues. There is what we call the
red seal initiative in Canada. It involves 42 trades and
professions that can go from one part of the country to another.
Nobody gives them any hassle. Why? It is because it was a
process. They have the red seal. If we can do it in certain areas
and we have done it, why can we not extend it? Where is that
huge monster that has been created in coming to grips with that?
There is no huge monster. It is in the imagination of men and
women who sometimes do not let their spirits soar.
There is also the Canadian Information Centre for
International Credentials that helps people try to get some
appropriate attention. I have more: the Council of Ministers of
Education for Canada. I wish my colleague were still able to
hear me; perhaps he can. There is so much information here that
it may be overwhelming.
There will be a report out by September 1995 on public
schools to say how we might be able to transfer more easily.
Thank goodness. That is common sense. The Council of
Ministers of Education intends to remove university barriers by
the fall of 1996. There is more. Then it is the colleges. I would
think it was about time.
I have some really good information for my friends in the
Bloc.
[Translation]
He may not know it, but one of the best mechanisms to evaluate
credentials is in Quebec.
I find it extraordinary, almost incredible, that he should be
unable to support enthusiastically, energetically, my colleague's
motion.
We have international agreements. We have GATT, we have
NAFTA. We have all kinds of agreements everywhere in the
world and more coming every day.
(1825)
We are supposed to want to be more open to the world, yet we
have barriers that prevent us from talking to each other, helping
one another and working together. Barriers erected by men and
women, because they did not know enough, because they wanted
to protect their own little world rather than open up and say:
``Here is what we have, what do you have? Can we work
together?''
[English]
I want to end on that note. We have all these international
agreements and there will be more. We are opening up to the
world and the world is unfolding. We need to unfold with it. We
need to open our minds to the possibilities that are reflected in
my colleague's insightful and very timely proposal.
7665
There is no monster here. There is a search for fairness and
justice and equity for those who are born outside of Canada as
well as those born in Canada so that we can move more freely
from one area of our great country to another and so that we can
move to other countries in the world and so that others who come
into our country can be appreciated for their just worth. Let it
not be an arbitrary process. Let it be a process that good thinking
men and women have thought out and have applied so that we
can treat our fellow human beings with dignity.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great regret that I follow the member for St.
Boniface. I would have preferred to speak before him. He has
certainly given a very passionate and powerful articulation of
support for my colleague for Winnipeg North.
In my own modest way I would also like to stand and give my
own support to this member's motion. I have two personal
situations I would like to put before the House with regard to this
particular issue.
I worked previously in the field of employment equity with
the Ontario universities before coming to the House as a
parliamentarian. I would like to congratulate the member on this
motion because he addresses something of real concern to the
academic communities in this country. By addressing these
concerns we will realize more equitable employment practices
in our universities.
Often foreign credentials are rejected not on the basis of real
difference in academic standards but have more to do with the
perceptions that are based on stereotypes and lack of
information.
The member for Winnipeg North has truly recognized an
opportunity to provide all Canadians, those who have been here
for a long time or those who are new to this country, the ability to
fully contribute all of their skills to Canadian society.
The member has also identified another serious problem
which is portability within this country. I draw an example from
my own family to the attention of the House. My sister was a
dental hygienist in Ontario. She moved to Alberta and had to go
through a recertification and testing process. If the member
opposite were concerned about bureaucracy and all of this I
would suggest this is a real case of bureaucracy and wasted
resources for my sister to have to go through this. As well, there
was a considerable level of stress.
I would also like to point out, as my hon. colleague on this
side of the House has already done, there were a number of
things ignored by the member opposite in terms of some of his
remarks. A lot of professions and trades have standard practices
and there are no problems with portability across this country
for accreditation.
With new Canadians coming to this country, particularly in
the medical profession, he said they have to pass stringent
medical tests. I agree with him. We want to ensure that we have
capable and skilled individuals practising medicine in this
country. However, in many cases newcomers to this country are
denied the opportunity to even take these exams.
If the member opposite has read any newspapers in recent
months he would realize that the federal and provincial
governments are moving to harmonization on many different
fronts. This is just one example of how we can work together
co-operatively in this country.
I mentioned bureaucracy. Let us talk about 11 kinds of
bureaucracy in this country. We have to challenge those kinds of
overlap and duplication.
(1830)
The costs. There is a cost to our society and to human talent in
that they have to continually go through these things if they
choose to move to another province.
We had an idea in the red book which I hope this government
will continue to act on called the national apprenticeship
program. This was lauded by industry and a number of people in
my riding. I campaigned on this. If we take a look at a country
like Germany, one of the reasons it is so strong industrially is
because it has a very strong national apprenticeship program.
The process this government had proposed was to have these
standards co-developed by industry, government and the
educational sector. Again I would like to say that I fully support
this member's motion. I thank him for bringing this very
important issue to the attention of the House.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak
to this motion with great pleasure because I have been very
privileged to have received an education and also to have
worked in the education field all of my life to this stage, some 31
years.
I taught high school for four years. It is illustrative to what the
hon. member is saying when we talk about the portability of
credentials to tell members about an occurrence when I first
started my teaching career.
The hon. member for Saskatoon across the way will
appreciate the fact that I am a graduate of the University of
Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. When I first graduated from that
illustrious institution and tried to get a job in my home province,
because I had a high degree of loyalty, unfortunately most of the
school boards in that province thought I was over qualified since
I had two degrees. I was very young and inexperienced. They
said they could get a teacher with some experience and less
training for less money. I was not able to get a job, but they hired
me in Alberta.
It was very interesting. I went to a rural county in Alberta. I
applied for a job in writing. The superintendent phoned and
asked me whether I could come and work. He offered me a job. I
sad: ``Ho, you have not interviewed me. You have not seen my
credentials''. He said something that is very fitting to this
debate: ``We have hired a great number of teachers from
7666
Saskatchewan and we have not yet regretted one of them''. We
could all applaud that for the University of Saskatchewan.
There are differences in credentials accruing to the place at
which one got an education. The University of Saskatchewan
built a reputation in western Canada that teachers trained in the
faculty of education-it was called the College of Education at
that time-were well trained and were able to compete.
Hon. members are going to have to think very carefully when I
state this statistic because it is a catchy one. One of the people
who was from Saskatchewan who taught in that rural county in
southern Alberta said that the worst teachers from
Saskatchewan go to Alberta and the teaching standards in both
provinces rise. If one knows statistics they will get the
significance of that statement.
I would like to also relate the fact that I taught at a
post-secondary technical institute for 27 years. Here I have a
point that is very important. We need to hear this. It is a waste of
financial resources to try to train people who are not ready, who
do not have the prerequisites. I believe it is very important as our
students go all the way from kindergarten through grade 12 that
at each level there be a good degree of quality control and that
they be passed on to the next grade only when they have
achieved a certain standard.
Teaching in a post-secondary institute for 27 years, I have
experienced receiving there many students, some of whom were
really sharp, whiz kids with good intelligence and good prior
education. They did very well. Some of those students however
were not as intelligent. They did not have the same mental
capacity. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the same when I
run in a race. I am at the tail end of the race, physically speaking.
Mentally there is also a variation.
(1835 )
I am proud to say that many students who were of average
intelligence in the post-secondary institute where I worked did
very well because they were able to compensate for that by
good, solid, hard work. They did very well. They graduated,
some of them with high marks, and they went on and chose their
careers.
A number of my students passed me in earnings. A number of
my students have already retired. They earned so much money
they could afford to do that due to the training that they got. Not
all of them were exceptional students. They were just hard
workers.
I want to come to this point of international education. I also
experienced on a number of occasions foreign students. We had
a number of students from foreign countries who excelled just
the same as we had students from Alberta, from other provinces
in Canada, some from the United States and many from other
foreign countries.
We had them on the whole spectrum. Some were really good
students. They breezed through the work. Some were average
and there were some with difficulty. I am thinking of one young
man from a foreign country who came to us. Our prerequisites in
the programs I taught in required a grade 12 when they came in.
That is from Alberta standards. I do not know how that compares
with grade 13 here but it is probably comparable to grade 12.
This poor student-I liked him-did not have the
prerequisites. Somehow he got into this country on the
credentials of his government. He enrolled in our institute and
consistently got zero in his exams. It just tore me apart but I
could not begin to give him marks because I was training a
person who was going to work, providing services to other
people. I could not give him marks that did not reflect his actual
ability.
I counselled him and tried to help him. I tried to persuade him
to go backward, to take a lower level course, to get the
prerequisites and to get up to speed. There we found a real
problem because of the fact that there were no international
standards, no agreement.
That part of what the member is proposing in this bill in terms
of standards between provinces-we could extend that-should
simply be expanded so that we have a quality control system, a
testing system. Before students move on and particularly before
they graduate they should be required to demonstrate an ability,
a competency that is truly worthy of the profession or of the
trade that they have entered.
My last comment is going to be with respect to the federal
government's involvement. We all know that the constitutional
mandate for education at the pre-post-secondary level is a
provincial jurisdiction. We need to move in this country not to a
federally mandated, federally controlled, federally organized,
federal bureaucratic system but to a system whereby provincial
governments will voluntarily get together in order to establish
some national standards.
The same is true for post-secondary institutions, whether they
are technical institutes like the one I worked at or universities or
trades. It is very important. We need to have national standards
so that there can be free trade among our trained people as well
as among our goods. We need to have free trade in this country in
order to be strong economically and to be able to compete
internationally.
I would favour that. I would be opposed to the federal
government doing that. Let it help in terms of getting the
provinces together but let us not create another federal
bureaucracy. I have found in my experience that when we work
with a federal bureaucracy we all get pulled down to the lowest
common denominator.
7667
Let us, rather, establish standards and allow the individual
provinces to work and work hard in their organization, in their
training, in their statistical quality control so that we have the
very best trained people who we can possibly have.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to be able to add this to
this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time has lapsed but I
will underwrite a reply and recognize the member for Winnipeg
North. This item is not votable, therefore I would ask the
member to pose his remarks within the framework of no more
than two minutes.
(1840 )
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker, for your kind consideration. I would like to thank
all the participants in the debate, those who supported the
motion and even those who were not prepared to support the
motion at this time. I am an optimistic person and I hope that in
due course they will see the beauty and wisdom of this motion.
My point is to ensure that an orderly process, a mechanism, be
put in place. The best way that I can think of is to challenge and
allow the federal government to play the co-ordinating
leadership role, not to take from the jurisdiction of the provinces
but to ensure that in this process we will attain the ultimate goal
and that is what Canada can do for its citizens and what citizens
can give to their country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 21 I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs
when Canada would introduce legislation to ratify the chemical
weapons convention and what Canada was doing to support the
enforcement agency which was to be set up in The Hague.
The chemical weapons convention is the result of 24 years of
work at the Geneva disarmament conference and had its origins
in the first world war when poison gas attacks caused 1.3 million
casualties and 100,000 fatalities. Canadians will recall that
many Canadian soldiers were killed by gas attacks in the first
world war. Therefore this treaty should mean a lot.
Following the first world war and the horror of people all over
the world at the use of gas during that conflict, there was an
attempt to get a treaty to ban chemical weapons. We did get the
1925 Geneva protocol which banned the use of chemical
weapons in war, but there was no enforcement agency and there
was no provision against the production or stockpiling or
trading in chemical weapons.
This treaty that I am talking about tonight was signed in Paris,
France in the middle of January 1993. It bans the use of chemical
weapons and also the development, manufacture, distribution,
transfer and stockpiling of chemical weapons. It also provides
for the monitoring, inspection and enforcement of the treaty and
provides for penalties when the treaty is broken.
It is the most complete disarmament treaty ever developed
and has the most comprehensive system of verification and
compliance of any multilateral disarmament treaty.
The problem is that while the treaty was signed by 150
countries, it requires 65 ratifications to make it enforceable. So
far only 16 have ratified after nearly two years. Only 16 have
ratified and we need 65 to make it enforceable.
I put my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: When
will Canada table legislation to ratify this treaty and what is it
doing to support the enforcement agency which is called the
organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons to be set
up in The Hague in the Netherlands?
I would hope the minister's parliamentary secretary would
have an answer for me tonight.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon.
member is the past president of Parliamentarians for Global
Action and is a continuing member on the international
executive.
Through that organization I know the hon. member has
devoted much time and energy to convince leaders and
politicians around the world to ban the production, stockpiling
and use of all chemical weapons.
In view of the fact that 150 countries signed such a treaty
indicates that the will is there, but it must be disappointing to the
hon. member that only 16 countries out of the 65 required have
ratified the treaty in their Parliaments.
(1845 )
I can assure the hon. member though that with his assistance
our government will likely table the required bill in this House
in the new year, contingent on interdepartmental and industry
consultations which are currently under way.
7668
In addition to the information provided to the hon. member by
the secretary of state I can tell him that pending ratification of
the chemical weapons convention Canada pays a yearly
contribution to support the activities of the preparatory
commission for the prohibition of chemical weapons, the
enforcement organization known as OPCW.
Canada has also created the chemical weapons convention
action fund which provides grants to organizations or
individuals who undertake activities to raise awareness about
and compliance to the chemical weapons convention either
internationally or within Canada.
In addition to this direct financial contribution, Canada has
created two positions at our embassy in The Hague to participate
in the various preparatory activities and to represent Canada's
interests at the preparatory commission or the OPCW.
Other Canadian officials with special expertise have been
made available to the OPCW for work on special committees, in
particular a Canadian chairs the committee on chemical
weapons storage issues which is responsible for drafting the
model facility agreement which will be the basis for all future
facility agreements.
I congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
for taking international leadership in making this planet a safer
place for our children and their children.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of the
Prime Minister's announcement of October 26 which created the
Canadian Tourism Commission and added a new boost of
federal funding to the tourism industry.
Most Canadians do appreciate the features that our country
has to offer from our shores to our plains to our mountains and
the fact that these are simply backdrops for a variety of cultural
and sporting pursuits that Canadians and visitors can follow.
I wonder if Canadians are aware that the care of those visitors
employed 1.2 million people in 1993 and generated $30 billion
in revenue which lead to $11 billion in tax receipts. These
numbers are impressive but we know there is tremendous room
for growth here because Canada has recently slipped from being
the sixth most popular tourist destination in the world to the
tenth today.
In this competitive world it is important to know your
strengths and to emphasize them. That is why the Prime
Minister has shown leadership here by recognizing this industry
and this particular way that we might improve our economy by
investing federal funds.
Today when most Canadians are concerned about the deficit and
the financial situation of their country this is good news because
this is going to be money well invested.
It also is an opportunity for Canadians to help with that deficit
reduction, with that increase in jobs and increase in the economy
because Canadians make decisions about their tourism
destinations, where they are going to go on their vacation and
how they are going to spend their money.
I think the Prime Minister is showing leadership and he is
inviting Canadians to join in this effort to pick Canadian
destinations, to show their children Canadian attractions,
Canadian mountains, Canadian rivers, et cetera, and to help us in
this pursuit.
Canadians have been asking me in my riding how they can
assist with the deficit reduction. They are showing tremendous
generosity and a team spirit in this effort and I wanted to share
this idea with them today because perhaps they are planning
their vacations for next year right now.
I would like to follow up my earlier question with a question
to the parliamentary secretary, asking him what he sees as far as
future job possibilities based on the Prime Minister's
announcement of the Canadian Tourism Commission and the
investing of a large number of federal funds in this industry.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to respond to the characteristically eloquent and excellent
question asked by the hon. member for Oakville-Milton on the
tourism industry in Canada.
(1850 )
As the member has indicated, the government has recently
announced a tourism strategy that recognizes the importance of
this industry. Tourism is big business in Canada.
As the member has also stated, it is an industry that provides
hundreds of thousands of jobs and produces billions of dollars
for our gross domestic product.
We believe that tourism also has the unique ability to create
jobs not at the entry level alone but, contrary to the perception of
some, in higher skilled, higher paid categories.
The Prime Minister's special advisor on tourism, Mr.
Buchanan, stated in his report that a Team Canada approach is
essential in the tourism industry. As the Prime Minister said, the
federal government for its part accepts Mr. Buchanan's
recommendations.
Mr. Buchanan and the Minister of Industry will work together
to establish a Canadian tourism commission by the new year.
This commission will be a partnership of the industry and both
levels of government with the board of directors made up of
7669
representatives of the tourism industry, provincial and
territorial governments and the federal government. It will help
us to co-ordinate our efforts and get the most out of limited
resources.
We agreed with Mr. Buchanan and the hon. member that for
the tourism industry to be able to create new jobs the federal
government should increase its spending on tourism promotion
at home and abroad. The federal government is increasing its
spending on tourism by $35 million to a budget of $50 million.
The goal in this new partnership is to create a $100 million
marketing fund that will re-establish Canada as a force in the
global tourism industry.
When we fully achieve the partnership between government
and the industry that the Buchanan report has recommended we
will create many thousands of new jobs for Canadians all over
the country. We will generate considerable new revenues for
companies, for Canada and for all levels of government. I might
add that we will substantially improve our balance of payments.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I
tried to get an answer to my question. I hope to get one today. I
am not sure who will answer. In any case, it is up to the
government to decide.
Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Human Resources
Development about an incident reported to the media. It
involved a young unemployed who had been told not to go to
Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi, in Gatineau, but instead go to
another centre, to find work. The reason given was that
Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi had a job-search group which had
lost its funding of $240,000. In spite of enjoying strong support
from the community, that agency had not managed to convince
the Department of Human Resources Development to review the
decision. We know that the money thus saved was given to other
centres, including a new one set up in the neighbouring riding,
which just happens to be the riding of the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
So, this was not a real saving: It was a transfer of funds. One
excuse made was that Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi wanted to
provide its services to people who were not getting UI benefits.
In this case, the young man was entitled to unemployment
insurance benefits, but could not avail himself of the new
service provided by Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi, because the
civil servant concerned forbade him to do so. He wanted the
young man to go to another centre.
We asked the minister if he could justify this action.
Unfortunately, the minister says that it is a judgment by
employment counsellors as to the advice they give to clients of
our employment centres as to the best services that can be
provided to them.
In other words, having delegated his authority, the minister was
saying that nothing could be done. He allows civil servants to
resort to blackmail. He added that the La Relance project has a
75 per cent success rate, which is why people were referred to it.
Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi also has a 75 per cent success rate.
In the second part of his answer, the minister stated that cuts
were made, but that Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi receives
$550,000 from the federal government, compared to only
$100,000 from the province of Quebec.
(1855)
On checking today, we find that the province contributes
approximately $600,000 to Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi and that
the contribution of the constituency is $50,000. This is far from
the five to one ratio that the minister mentioned yesterday
during Question Period, which was more a question period than
an answer period, since the answer was not satisfactory.
As we can see, cuts are being made in youth training centres
by the Department of Human Resources Development while
consultations are being held on the social program reform. The
government did not even wait for the consultation results to go
ahead with these cuts. If only this was to achieve savings. But
no. The money saved will be transferred to other ridings, and the
province and the federal government will continue to wrestle
with each other. This will only maintain the indescribable mess
in manpower training in Quebec.
Meanwhile, the federal government is trying to establish the
Canadian Youth Service Corps at $10,000 per participant, when
Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi in Gatineau only cost $1,000 grant
for each and every young participant. A survey of the people
who found a job in previous years with the help of Carrefour
Jeunesse-Emploi shows that, with an investment of $240,000,
those who found a job paid $1,385,000 in federal taxes.
So, it was profitable for the government. In spite of this, the
government still continues to thwart Quebec's job training
objectives, by going after a centre in Quebec which already was
a one-stop service centre, and provided a great number of
services to young people. And because one criterion to lower the
number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits is
not being met, young men and women are being blackmailed.
I am hoping for a satisfactory answer and especially a
comment indicating that this will stop.
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
priorities of this government is the training and adjustment
needs of youths.
7670
Until recently two job finding clubs were in operation in the
Outaouais region offering many of the same services. Given
budget limitations and based on the needs of the local labour
market in that area, the local Canada Employment Centre in
consultation with the Outaouais community has chosen to
finance La Relance which has a 75 per cent success rate in
helping participants find a job within a three month period.
This choice will enable us to serve 25 per cent more clients
than we would have had we kept both contracts with reduced
budgets. This decision was supported by the community.
L'association des services alternatifs de développement de
l'employabilité de l'Outaouais unanimously proposed that there
be only one job finding club in the area and supported La
Relance job club proposal.
With respect to the hon. member's accusations, the
department of human resources is responsible to Canadians as to
the use of their tax dollars. Because of this responsibility, it
must purchase the most effective programs available for its
clients.
When referring UI claimants for training, employment
counsellors ensure that the needs of the clients are met.
Counsellors always try to be flexible in order to accommodate
their client's wishes.
The local Canada Employment Centre will no doubt continue
to refer some UI claimants to Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi. Even
though the club's primary objective is focused on non-UI
claimants, each case will be examined individually.
It will be noted that for 1994-95 Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi
is receiving more than $550,000 from human resources
development to offer other training and job finding services to
disadvantaged youth. This funding has been maintained.
This government is committed to assisting Canada's youth
through programs and services that will help them integrate into
the labour market as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, I put a question to the Minister of National Defence
and did not receive a satisfactory answer. This evening,
speaking on behalf of the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean,
I would appreciate a reply to this question.
The Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy
submitted its report last Monday. The publication of this report
has caused some concern among many people, especially in my
riding, and not without reason, I believe.
(1900)
The importance of the base in Bagotville for the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area is ample justification for
questioning the minister, to find out what his intentions are. The
future of the base is closely linked to the development of the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, since several hundred people are
employed on the base.
Should the representative for this area not have the right to
demand a clear answer from the minister? One can hardly expect
a whole region to wait indefinitely, without knowing what will
happen.
Recent cuts in defence spending have led to the closing of the
Collège militaire de Saint-Jean. Will this happen in the
Saguenay as well? That is what we would like to know.
The Bloc Quebecois dissociated itself from the report on
Canada's defence policy on several points; one of the major
points raised was of course the cuts which could further affect
Quebec.
Yesterday, in my question, I stressed Quebec's neglected
status. Quebec is one of the most disadvantaged regions when it
comes to economic spin-offs from the Department of Defence.
It is important to emphasize that only 13 per cent of Canadian
defence infrastructure is located in Quebec compared to 34 per
cent in western Canada, 27 per cent in the Maritimes, and 25.8
per cent in Ontario. And yet, Quebecers account for
approximately 25 per cent of the defence budget.
In a brief presented on May 9 to the Joint Committee on
Defence by the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean consultation and
development regional council, people from my area stated their
position as follows: ``We believe that efforts must be made to
bring some degree of fairness with respect to defence spending,
infrastructure location, and personnel distribution in Quebec.
The national defence policy review gives us the opportunity to
take corrective action in favour of Quebec''.
The Bloc Quebecois has been asking the government to
redefine its role within NORAD without delay.
The future of the four F-18 squadrons depends on Canada's
willingness to participate in the protection of the
North-American territory in full partnership with the United
States.
Choices have to be made, significant cuts are required
because of our economic situation and we think we have given
the minister interesting suggestions on ways to save money, in
line with a real redefinition of what our defence policy should
be.
Government members have come up with proposals which are
basically cosmetic, while our mandate was to do an in-depth
review of our policy.
A fact remains, the government must answer to the people
from my area and Quebec who are concerned with the future of
Bagotville and the place it will have in the military infrastruc-
7671
ture, since we get far less in military spin-offs than the 25 per
cent we contribute.
The people from the riding of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean are
proud of Bagotville and they intend to keep it.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to have a good idea of what the Department of National
Defence spends in Quebec, you must look at all the facts.
In 1993-94, 22.1 per cent of total military spending was in
Quebec. This is an increase from 19.5 per cent in 1992-93.
In fact, Quebec received 33 per cent of military capital
spending in 1993-94.
Of course, no single measure can provide an answer for such a
complex subject as defence; the Canadian Forces do not exist
primarily to ensure regional balance but to meet the defence
needs of the country from coast to coast.
The military presence in Quebec is quite significant: the
headquarters of the land forces command is in Saint-Hubert,
one of the three brigades is based in Valcartier and one of the two
main bases of operation for the CF-18 fighters is in Bagotville.
Six of 24 naval reserve divisions are still in Quebec. And a
Naval Reserve school is presently under construction in Quebec.
As the Minister of National Defence told this House
yesterday, the government will carefully consider the special
joint committee's report, including those recommendations
made by Bloc Quebecois members. All recommendations will
be considered in the development of a new defence policy for
Canada. Once that is done, the minister will take any necessary
action.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)