CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 8, 1995
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9322
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 9324
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9326
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9326
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9326
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 9327
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9327
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 9328
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9328
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9329
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9329
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9329
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9329
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9329
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9329
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 9334
Motion for concurrence in 58th report 9334
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9335
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9336
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9336
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9337
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9337
Bill C-47. Report stage 9339
Bill C-47. Motion for third reading 9339
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9341
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9345
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 9348
Bill C-65. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading. 9348
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9348
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9361
9321
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 8, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate His Excellency the Right
Hon. Roméo LeBlanc, who has just been sworn in as Governor
General of Canada. Mr. LeBlanc is clearly an excellent person
for the job.
He has worked tirelessly and unstintingly for a united and
prosperous Canada. In his speech this morning, Mr. LeBlanc
expressed his love for Canada. As he said, it is up to us to build
our future together as Canadians.
The choice of Mr. LeBlanc is an honour for all Acadians. As
you know, he is the first Acadian to be appointed to the position
of Governor General. We are proud of him.
I would like to wish His Excellency the Right Hon. Roméo
LeBlanc and Mrs. LeBlanc success and happiness throughout
this mandate.
* * *
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to acknowledge, on behalf of the official opposition,
the swearing in today of Roméo LeBlanc as the Governor
General of Canada. Following his long career as a member of
Parliament, minister and Liberal senator, his appointment as
Governor General recognizes a life dedicated to politics.
Just as the Leader of the Opposition congratulated the Prime
Minister in the House when the appointment of Mr. LeBlanc was
announced, we also congratulate the Prime Minister on
choosing, for the first time, an Acadian as Governor General.
We hope the Governor General will play a role in promoting
the rights of francophone and Acadian communities in Canada.
We acknowledge and respect the Governor General's right to
defend Canadian unity, just as we must recognize the right of
sovereignists to defend their plans because, when all is said and
done, the decision is for Quebecers to make and for them alone.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in her Standing Order 31 statement yesterday the hon.
member for Brant attributed to me ``comments denying any
racism in the video depicting conduct of some members of the
Canadian Airborne Regiment''. I assume the hon. member took
this statement, out of context and misrepresenting my position,
from a media report.
Now I consider calling someone or an organization racist to be
a very serious charge and demand factual evidence before
levelling such a charge.
It is one thing to have my position misrepresented in the
media but quite another to have it misrepresented in the official
records of this House of Commons.
I make this statement to make clear that I did not and will not
condone racism in any form. However, neither will I join the
politically correct in flinging charges of racism before I know
all the pertinent facts.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Project
Preservation, an environmental youth group in my riding of
Parry Sound-Muskoka.
Recently the group was honoured with the Ward Smith
environmental youth award. This award is presented by the
North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority for outstanding
youth contributions to the local environment through awareness
and action.
Project Preservation was established in the fall of 1986 as a
response to the growing need for an active environmental group
dedicated to education.
Within the past eight years, the need to protect our
environment has grown and Project Preservation has evolved
with it. Project Preservation's main focus is the publication of a
bimonthly newsletter called ``Nature's Plea''. ``Nature's Plea''
9322
covers a wide range of environmental issues and provides an
optimistic outlook to the problems we face.
Within the past year Project Preservation has organized
numerous tree plants, litter clean-ups, benefit music festivals
and campaigns such as the bad mail campaign, a project to
combat junk mail.
My congratulations and best wishes are extended to Project
Preservation and to-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, federal public servants are the government's most
precious resource; they implement its programs, deliver its
services and apply its regulations.
[English]
If there are to be program cuts or service cuts of any kind in
the coming budget I ask that the government privatize or
contract out these activities and give first crack to those public
servants affected. I also ask that the government change the
Superannuation Act to permit those affected from age 50 and on
to be able to take voluntary early retirement without penalty.
Let there be no public servant penalized because of public
service renewal.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
were very surprised to hear that Quebec's Minister of Finance
completely changed his mind last Monday about assuming a
share of the debt if Quebec separates.
Minister Campeau stated that an independent Quebec will not
be forced to accept something that undermines its economic
development especially because ``it is not our debt, it is
Canada's debt''.
The minister's recent statement basically contradicts a
statement he made in 1994, that Quebec was worried when it saw
the cumulative national debt reach $550 billion as of March 31,
1994, because Quebecers have to pay 25 per cent of it.
The uncertainty created by such statements can only
undermine the efforts of those who are working hard for the
country's economic recovery.
* * *
(1405)
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
the Prime Minister only too ready to make disparaging remarks
about federal civil servants, who according to him are sitting
around and doing nothing, and with the government poised to
slash public spending, four Liberal MNAs for the Outaouais
prefer taking it easy in the sun to defending the interests of their
constituents.
The stakes have never been higher for the federal public
service in the Outaouais, as it faces the worst cuts in its history.
Outaouais residents are worried about privatization, reduced
services and the loss of their jobs. And while they worry, MNAs
Middlemiss, MacMillan, Lafrenière and Lesage are away,
indifferent to what is happening and doing nothing to stop it.
What sort of political commitment is it when these Liberal
MNAs would rather relax in a warm climate than look out for the
real problems of those they represent?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
serious allegations have been made concerning the business
activities of the member for St. John's West for some months
now. The Liberal government has been advised of the situation
and a petition for recall has been circulated throughout her
riding.
The Evening Telegram in St. John's has reported on this fiasco
at length. CBC St. John's this morning made public that she is
indeed the subject of an RCMP investigation.
This government talks so much about ethics, but will not walk
the walk when its own members are involved. Since this
government refuses to allow the ethics commissioner to report
to Parliament or investigate individual MPs, then recall
legislation introduced by the Reform member for Beaver River
which was turned down by this government is now more
important than ever to the people of St. John's.
Let me quote Janet Ryan from Torbay, Newfoundland: The
Prime Minister ``as leader of the country and the Liberal Party is
morally bound to demand her resignation''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
invite you and all my parliamentary colleagues to come to St.
Boniface, Manitoba, to take part in the Festival du Voyageur,
which starts Friday, February 10.
This festival is a celebration of our history, our traditions and
our culture, as well as the contribution of Manitoba's other
founding nations, including all of Canada.
9323
Well-known stars will perform in Manitoba this weekend.
We offer an impressive line-up of shows and events and we also
have our joie de vivre.
This will be an opportunity to demonstrate how a small, rather
isolated community can still be quite vigorous and willing to
live and work with others.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
here a letter written by the member of Parliament for New
Westminster-Burnaby dated January 9, 1995 in which he
writes:
There is only one kind of event that will motivate the government to take notice
of what mainstream Canada wants-soaring Reform Party memberships.
A burgeoning ``card carrying membership'' is far more effective than protests,
letter writing, petitions, or other traditional types of lobbying.
I know you will understand why this is true.
I do not know why it is true. It is a flagrant misuse of taxpayer
supplied stationery and franking privileges. It totally
misrepresents the impact of petitions, letters and our work here
in this House. It certainly makes me wonder why the member
stands up to present petitions.
To all Canadians, especially to my constituents, I will listen to
their opinions, whether they have a party affiliation or not. All
Canadians have the right to be heard. They should continue to
sign petitions, write letters and call their members of
Parliament. They have a right to provide input to our work in this
House.
* * *
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I wish to
congratulate the senior men's team from the Cornwall Curling
Club in my riding of Stormont-Dundas. This foursome
represented the province of Ontario at the recent Canadian
Senior Men's Curling Championships held in friendly and
hospitable Saint John, New Brunswick.
Lead George Dolejsi, second Keith MacGregor, third Thom
Pritchard, the lone Glengarian on the team, and Skip Bill Dickie
proved to be the pride of Ontario and Cornwall by winning the
coveted Canadian Senior Men's Curling Championship.
(1410 )
We commend them for their effort and dedication to this
popular sport that enabled them to win such a prestigious
national championship.
[Translation]
We are proud of them and we congratulate them.
* * *
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, results of the Léger & Léger poll published today
clearly show that a No vote in the Quebec referendum means the
exact same thing to English Canadians as it does to Quebec
sovereignists.
Far from being a bargaining chip, a No vote is construed as a
No to any constitutional change and any form of renewed
federalism. The poll found that scarcely 10 per cent of
respondents were not opposed to a special status for Quebec. In
fact, two thirds did not recognize Quebec as a distinct nation.
The poll also shows that half of those surveyed feel that
Canada should recognize Quebec as a sovereign nation should
the Yes side win. In addition, some 58 per cent of Canadians are
in favour of maintaining economic ties with an independent
Quebec. Beyond the calculated threats of politicians, Canadians
are saying clearly that they want to build a partnership that is
sound and productive for everyone.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Immigration and Refugee Board is out of control.
In January, Boujan Inthavong was released from prison in
B.C. and ordered deported because of his role in a brutal gang
murder. Knowing the system, he got himself a lawyer and
delayed his deportation by making a refugee claim.
Unbelievably, the IRB gave refugee status to this dangerous
criminal in a 15 minute hearing. Now he is here forever.
The IRB completely disregarded his crimes. But even more
unbelievable is the stated refusal of the minister of immigration
to intervene and stop this ridiculous refugee claim which has
made a mockery of justice and a laughing stock of the taxpayers.
He had the power to halt the hearing before it got started but
decided not to. He went on record to say that he would not even
attempt to overturn the decision.
Canadians are used to the stupidity of the IRB, but for the
minister who refused to act when he had every legal right and
responsibility is itself nothing short of criminal.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would urge all of us in our
statements under Standing Order 31 to be very judicious in our
choice of words as we are coming very close to attacking one
another as members. I would appeal to all of you to look at the
9324
statements that you are making and please see to it that the
statements that are being made do not engage in personal attack.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time that Canada began to take a lead
role in the establishment of alternative sustainable institutions.
With the rapid globalization of capital, the people of the world
need more than ever institutions committed to democratic
governance, decentralized decision making, transparency,
community involvement, full and open public participation and
full public accountability. We need institutions committed to
sustainable development which promote social and economic
justice including global health and education, energy
conservation, renewable energy, micro-enterprise, sustainable
agriculture and forestry, mass transit and the reversal of
economic degradation.
Canada is hosting the G-7 in Halifax in June. We can begin
this important process by taking a lead role as the host nation in
calling for and working toward a full and fundamental review of
the policies and practices of the 50-year old Bretton Woods
institutions, projects and programs.
* * *
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to speak of a young man
from Thunder Bay, Private Phillip Badanai.
Private Badanai was a member of the Lake Superior Scottish
Regiment and is now a member of the Royal Canadian
Regiment. He was serving as a peacekeeper in Bosnia on
December 31, 1994 when he was injured in action. I am pleased
to report to the House that he has made a full recovery.
Private Badanai is the son of Sharon and the late Norris
Badanai of Thunder Bay, but more important, he is the grandson
of Hubert Badanai who served with distinction as the member
for Fort William from 1958 to 1968.
I am sure his father and his grandfather would be very proud
of Private Badanai as all Canadians are with respect to his role as
a peacekeeper on behalf of all of us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was a great pleasure for me to attend the
swearing-in of the 25th Governor General of Canada, the Right
Honourable Roméo LeBlanc.
(1415)
His Excellency delivered an historic speech. As an Acadian,
he was able to link our past to our present, and to set forth the
principles which will guide all Canadians to a promising future.
The new Governor General is a remarkable man to whom all
Canadians will be able to relate, because of his simplicity, his
humility and his great wisdom.
I wish the very best to His Excellency, the Right Hon. Roméo
LeBlanc, and to Mrs. LeBlanc in their new roles. As a
French-speaking person from New Brunswick and member for
the riding of Madawaska-Victoria, I speak for my constituents
when I say how proud we are of this great Canadian, this great
Acadian, who has shown that, in Canada, it is possible to achieve
great things without relinquishing one's identity.
_____________________________________________
9324
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, following allegations that the Reform Party had been
infiltrated by a CSIS agent, the Prime Minister said repeatedly
in the House that federal intelligence services had no mandate to
spy on politicians, whoever they happened to be.
On December 16, Michel Robert, acting chairman of the
Security Intelligence Review Committee, stated there was no
file on the leader of the Reform Party. However, in a letter dated
January 27, the executive director of the SIRC confirmed that
since October 1989, there had been a file under the name
``Preston Manning''.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why
did the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, in
October 1994, say in the House that no intelligence service had a
mandate to spy on politicians, when we now know that CSIS
actually has a file on the leader of the Reform Party and has had
one for five years?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this matter was explained fully in a letter to the
parliamentary subcommittee by the chair of the Security
Intelligence Review Committee.
He said that the file in question did not relate to the leader of
the Reform Party but rather to a low level investigation about
possible financing by a foreign country of the election campaign
in question.
9325
When it was found that this was not the case, the
investigation was terminated. The heading on the file did not
accurately relate to what the file was about. It was not a file
involving an investigation of the leader of the Reform Party.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it was probably a coincidence that they picked the
name of Preston Manning for their investigation. Just a
coincidence, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the Solicitor General how Canadians and
Quebecers can be expected to trust the Security Intelligence
Review Committee, after its chairman denied the existence of a
file on the leader of the Reform Party in December 1994 and its
executive director confirmed, in January 1995, the existence of
a file, that happened to be under the name ``Preston Manning''?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should give complete information to
the House. What the executive director of the Security
Intelligence Review Committee said was that in spite of the
initial name of the file, it did not relate to the leader of the
Reform Party but rather to the investigation of possible
financing of an election campaign by a foreign country, which
did not turn out to be correct.
I think the hon. member should give the whole story to the
House. It would help us have a better question period.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Exactly, Mr. Speaker. We would like to have the whole story in
the House. We wonder why the SIRC first denied the existence
of the Preston Manning file before committee members and then
confirmed that there was a file on the leader of the Reform Party.
Would the Solicitor General agree that the only way to get to
the bottom of this, as he claims he wants to do, is to set up a
genuinely public and independent commission of inquiry?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish the hon. member had listened to my answer
instead of reading out the question he had already prepared.
My answer made it clear that based on information provided
to me by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the file in
question was not about an investigation of the leader of the
Reform Party but about the possible questionable financing by a
foreign country of an election campaign.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee, under the
statute creating CSIS, is in effect a permanent royal commission
with a specific mandate to keep under review the activities of
CSIS. The quality of its work has been demonstrated by the
comprehensive report of the Heritage Front affair that brought
to light the issue about which the hon. member is talking.
While the Security Intelligence Review Committee operates
at arm's length from the government, I would think that if the
subcommittee wanted to hear further from the Security
Intelligence Review Committee on this subject it would be
happy to come back to the subcommittee.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
On March 16, 1994, I asked the defence minister in this House
how senior officers at CFB Petawawa could let 2nd Airborne
Commando members go around the base displaying Nazi flags
on Canadian Forces vehicles as well as white supremacist and
Ku Klux Klan insignia. Almost one year later, the broadcasting
of revealing videos spurred the minister into action.
Can the defence minister assure us that the board of inquiry's
mandate will not be limited to the events in Somalia because, if
it is, we must conclude that dismantling the Airborne Regiment
will allow the officers and NCMs who have committed
unacceptable acts to avoid punishment by being redeployed to
other regiments or even decorated?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
already announced publicly that the inquiry will begin as soon as
the last court martial is concluded, which will be about the
middle of March. It will deal with the Canadian Armed Forces
deployment to Somalia in 1992-93; how the regiment was
prepared for that deployment; how particular incidents which
occurred in Somalia were reported, investigated and handled,
both on the ground in Somalia and here in Ottawa at national
defence headquarters.
I want to assure the hon. member and Canadians generally
that all of the concerns that one might have about the incidents
in Somalia and our engagement there will be subject to the
inquiry's terms of reference, once the inquiry is established. As
I said before, that inquiry will begin as soon as the last court
martial is concluded.
9326
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think that the minister forgot to answer part of my question. I
also asked him for an investigation into the events on the base
itself.
My second question is this: Does the defence minister
confirm that, in a recent investigation, the military police seized
a third videotape whose content may be more violent and even
more shocking than the two previous ones? Can the minister
promise that this new tape will not be destroyed like some of the
evidence relating to the events in Somalia, which has vanished?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no
knowledge of the existence of the tapes or other evidence to
which the hon. member is alluding.
If he has such evidence then hopefully he would make it
available to me, and I could pass it on to the military police
authorities. Of course that could be a subject of interest for the
inquiry at a later date.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, many months ago the Minister of Human Resources
Development launched his much touted review of social
programs. He promised to radically transform our social safety
net to make it more efficient and restore hope to those entrapped
within it. Now, months later and millions of dollars later,
nothing. The minister has failed to deliver on any of his
promises and his failure will cost Canadians dearly in the
budget.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given the
government's failure in this regard, what plans does it now have
to reform social programs and when can Canadians expect the
results?
(1425 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon.
member is attempting to cast a very important initiative which
has been very broadly and strongly endorsed by the Canadian
people to help reform social policy in a light that only reflects
his own particular pessimistic view of things.
The government is very much committed to continuing with
social reform. We now have the committee report which has a
number of recommendations in it. We are looking at that report
very carefully. We will be responding to it within the time
required by the House in terms of a specific policy and we are
going forward with our plans to bring in legislation this fall.
Social policy is well on track, unlike the policies and
positions of the hon. member.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the failure of the social program review has a direct
impact on the spending in the budget.
As the government knows, over 60 per cent of its spending is
in the social area. The budget cannot be balanced unless both
social programs and social spending are substantially reformed.
Will the government not acknowledge that the primary reason
the finance minister is now considering tax increases, which he
was not doing two months ago, is because the human resources
development minister failed to deliver on social programs and
social spending?
In other words, will the government acknowledge that it is the
taxpayers who are going to pay for the human resources
development minister's failure?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the answer
once again for the hon. member. I recall very well that during his
election campaign he was a strong advocate of listening to the
judgment of the people. Since he has been elected to the House it
seems he no longer has much faith or trust in their judgment.
We still do and that is why we undertook for a period of four
months a very serious, very extensive, very broad based
discussion with Canadians. Over 100,000 participated in one
way or the other.
Our reforms will be based on the judgment of the people, not
on the curious and strange ideology of the hon. member
opposite.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has not yet provided any satisfactory
explanation for the failure of the social program review. Surely
one of the reasons is that the minister handed out millions and
millions of dollars to liberal thinking special interest groups to
lobby for the status quo and against spending reductions.
This is becoming the Achilles' heel of the government. The
parole board has been weakened by patronage and special
interest politics, as has the IRB and the social program review.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Instead of
excusing and justifying patronage and special interest politics,
when is the government going to acknowledge that it is this
addiction which weakens the government's integrity and do
something to correct it?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the member calls an
addiction
9327
to special interest groups could much more properly be
expressed as a real interest and willingness to find out what
Canadians believe and what they say.
The proof of the value of having that kind of broad based
discussion with Canadians is demonstrated in the kind of
recommendations that the majority members tabled when the
committee reported this week, unlike the Reform Party's
recommendations.
The member for Calgary North, a member of the committee,
is quoted today as saying that she hopes people do not
misinterpret aspects of the Reform Party's report on social
policy, admitting ``they were not thought through very well
before they were rushed into print''.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: That is priceless.
An hon. member: Are we surprised?
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, there
is no question that the member for Calgary North is certainly
much more correct than the hon. member for Calgary south.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party promised
to put an end to patronage. But when it comes to appointing legal
advisors, the government just keeps breaking its promises.
Can the Minister of Justice confirm that his department
recently stopped dealing with a Cowansville law firm and gave
its business to the law firm of Eugène Bachand, who is the
president of the Brome-Missisquoi Liberal Association, while
the law firm of Liberal candidate Denis Paradis was allowed to
continue to do business with the Department of Justice to the
tune of $100,000 a year on average?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the government
goes to the private bar to obtain lawyers for assistance the chief
criteria for that selection are competence and merit.
In Brome-Missisquoi and in places across the country the
Department of Justice, since the election of the government, has
reformed the process of selecting legal agents to ensure that they
are properly trained and supervised, that they act without
conflict of interest, and that services are provided in accordance
with the highest standards of competence. Those are the criteria
upon which we select agents.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of
Justice gave this work to Eugène Bachand to get him to
withdraw as the Liberal candidate for Brome-Missisquoi in
favour of Denis Paradis?
The Speaker: My colleague, it seems to me that your
question does not exactly fall within the mandate of the minister
in question, but has to do with the party rather than the
administration of this particular department.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of Winnipeg, or is it western
economic diversification?
I recently released a critical study of his department which
showed conclusively that his home town of Winnipeg was
receiving a disproportionate amount of WED dollars. This
report, which was based on information obtained directly from
his department officials, showed that Winnipeg received five
times more than Vancouver, seven times more than Calgary, and
seventy times more than Regina between November 1, 1993 and
November 15, 1994.
Why is the minister funnelling far more taxpayer dollars into
Winnipeg than any other western city?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems to be my day with
the Reform Party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): As we heard in the
last round of questioning-
The Speaker: It is getting more and more difficult to hear the
questions and the answers. May I appeal to members to listen to
both the questions and the answers.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, as
we discovered in the last round of questioning, the accuracy and
reliability of Reform Party reports are somewhat questionable.
We can see it even more so in the report cited by the hon.
member wherein the statistics were based upon only 20 per cent
of the actual approved projects for western Canada.
If the hon. member and the Reform Party are trying to
demonstrate to Canadians that they are the soul of rectitude
when it comes to finances, it seems to me they should learn to
count.
9328
(1435 )
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister stands here and gives his version of the facts while
officials recently told the media that Winnipeg receives a
disproportionate amount of funds, even more than I stated in my
report. No matter how we slice it, western economic
diversification is largely about pork barrelling.
Is the minister willing to dismantle the department to show
Canadian people that he will put the nation's finances ahead of
his own pork barrel agenda?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just to point out the old
adage that figures never lie but liars use figures-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Many times in the past we have quoted great
writers. I would ask the hon. minister if he would withdraw the
word ``liars'' used in that context. Would you please withdraw
that word.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker,
seeing that it is a saying I learned at my mother's knee, I would
certainly not want to have it refer to that specific member. I was
using it as a general philosophical saying.
The Speaker: My colleagues, we cannot go from quoting
great writers to our mothers' lullabies. Would the minister
withdraw forthwith.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly withdraw any specific reference or any interpretation
that the hon. member was a liar.
I will seek to refer to Bartlett's quotations-
The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. minister would go directly to
his answer.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, just
to answer the hon. member directly, I would first point out that
in this past year, if one looks at the geographical allocation
which of course we do not do because we have been promoting a
strategy that tries to look at projects on a pan-western basis to
benefit all regions, the province of British Columbia received
close to 50 per cent of all funding coming from western
diversification.
One member alone who happens to be a Reform Party member
received upward of $37 million in one grant. He takes the cake
for having the largest allocation of any member. I congratulate
the hon. member for his effectiveness. However, when we make
city to city comparisons, I would also like to say to the regret of
my Manitoba colleagues the city that benefited most per capita
from investment from western economic diversification was the
great Queen city of Saskatchewan. I compliment the members of
that area.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. By proposing in
its budget to levy a tax or entrance fee of $3 per vehicle and
$1.50 per person entering the United States, the American
government stirred up unanimous opposition in Canada and in
Quebec, where such a tax is felt to be utterly contrary to the
North American Free Trade Agreement.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us how the U.S.
government reacted to the protest made by Canada through its
embassy in Washington?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House yesterday, we
have raised this issue with the United States trade
representative. We did so last week and we have done so more
formally with the State Department. Our protests have been duly
noted, but the response has been generally that the proposed
measure has no chance of passing through the U.S. Congress.
Indeed it was only today that U.S. Senator Gramm of Texas
said the proposal was as dead as Elvis Presley.
Some hon. members: He is alive, Roy.
The Speaker: It is always easier for me if I can see the
person's face when the response is over.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the
Governor General's cocktail party has gone to some people's
heads.
However, I would like the minister to get up again and tell us
what retaliatory measures he intends to take if the U.S.
government insists on imposing a tax which would affect
Canadians crossing the border? I want the minister to answer
like a man.
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical to a degree.
We do not anticipate that this tax will be imposed. If it were to
be, there may be measures we can take to respond to such an
action on the part of the United States government.
I would say again to the member opposite that it is our
impression it is most unlikely that proposed tax will be applied.
9329
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
someone over here said that we should research our questions a
little more. I have a long disgusting list of Liberal research
grants at my disposal.
My question is for the Minister of Finance who is making
great sport of assuring the Canadian people in foreign money
markets that his government is serious about fiscal
responsibility.
Is he aware that the Ministry of Industry recently approved a
grant of $33,800 for the study of major league baseball in
Detroit: ``The Detroit Tigers, 1945 to 1992''? Can he explain to
beleaguered taxpayers how spending their money like this is
more important than lowering taxes?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon.
member is referring to grants under the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council, an independent arm's length
body that has done a great service to university researchers and
has provided a very important foundation for knowledge in the
country.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
have we changed finance ministers in this government?
Perhaps the question was not fair to the finance minister so I
will give him another opportunity to explain it. If he feels it is
too tough, perhaps he could explain the $13,000 grant given by
the Ministry of Industry to study ``Yankee Seamen: A Mariners'
History of Massachusetts''.
(1445)
Will this be useful to Canadian industry or is the government
researching what happened the last time the people revolted
against unfair taxation in Boston harbour?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
reiterate. The Reform Party has singled out individual
components of what has been an extraordinary effort over a long
period of time for the culture of this country supporting efforts
in the universities, supporting the development of knowledge
which has made a major contribution to the economy and to the
well-being of Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
According to persistent rumours, the next budget will reduce
government funding for women's groups, which is causing
concern among many women's groups, including the Fédération
des femmes du Québec.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to continue the policy of
the previous federal government by once again reducing
government funding for community agencies that help women?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said
repeatedly, I do not intend to release the contents of the budget,
in this House or elsewhere, before the appointed time.
However, I can assure the hon. member that the next budget
will be very fair and that we are fully aware of the need to deal
fairly with women's needs.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would nevertheless like to warn the minister about the impact of
such cuts.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that by cutting funding to
these groups he will put their survival in jeopardy, when these
agencies play a unique role in promoting women's rights and
improving their living conditions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can inform the
hon. member that yes, we do realize that. We made that clear in
the last budget, and we will do so again in the next one.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday some Liberal colleagues and I talked
about the future of the white paper on financial institutions.
I wonder if the secretary of state could give us an idea of when
this paper will be released. This was extremely important for
many people in my community who have a great interest in this
particular issue.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for her question.
I will be tabling a set of proposals, a white paper, on extending
the safety and security of Canada's financial institutions. I will
be doing so tomorrow.
The proposal is the result of some major consultations with
the Department of Finance and others. On tabling the proposals I
will be asking Canadians, those institutions that are affected and
9330
Canadians generally, for submissions to the Department of
Finance on that white paper.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this government still refuses to rule out tax
increases in the upcoming budget. This should come as no
surprise considering the Liberal's spending habits. For example,
the minister of national decadence has had his Toronto office-
The Speaker: Order. I would encourage all hon. members to
address each other with decorum. I would ask the hon. member
to withdraw the word decadence.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the spending habits of
the Liberals influenced my speaking. I withdraw that comment.
(1450 )
Mr. Speaker, $500,000 spent to refurbish the offices in
Toronto, subsidization for posh houses for military brass and
paying for their golf vacations in Florida. The minister of
furnishings and oceans, not to be outdone, has spent millions of
dollars on new equipment for his department and tens of
thousands of dollars for his own office.
How on earth can the Prime Minister expect Canadians to
cough up more tax dollars? Does he believe, as the hon. member
from Broadview-Greenwood believes, that Canadians will
simply roll over and pay?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bourassa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Despite interventions by a number of women's rights groups, the
minister intends to have a refugee from Trinidad and Tobago,
who is the victim of spousal abuse, deported on Friday. She was
divorced in 1991 after being beaten by her former husband, who
has returned to Quebec on a special ministerial permit.
Does the minister intend to intervene by stopping the
deportation of Taramatie Ramsubhag and her three children
cancelled?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon.
member for his question and point out to him and his colleagues
in the House that the individual in question, although it is
difficult to talk about the facts of an individual case, has had two
refugee hearings. Both of those hearings turned out negative.
Her removal, as a consequence of those negative hearings, was
delayed so that the gender persecution guidelines-the only
country in the world to have such guidelines-could be applied,
were applied and those guidelines were negative.
I want to say to the hon. member-and I think he ought to be
fair-that the system was completely fulsome and fair with this
individual. If there is any new information that was not brought
to light in three previous hearings I would urge the hon. member
to bring the information to my attention so that it can be quickly
considered.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since I am
not satisfied with the minister's response, I now address the
Deputy Prime Minister.
Does she intend to make representations to her colleague in
immigration, since she was personally involved in 1993 in
blocking the deportation of a group of 14 immigrant women,
including Mrs. Ramsubhag, who were victims of spousal abuse?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we took measures in
1993. We are the only country in the world with an Immigration
Act that contains guidelines on the institution of proceedings in
the case of sexual discrimination. We promised this in 1993 and
we delivered.
We are the only country in the world to recognize it. Some
countries are discriminatory. These guidelines are to enable
eligible women to obtain refugee status.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during the winter
break the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food reached way
down into the Liberal hack bag in order to find an appointee for
the board of the Farm Credit Corporation. Joan Meyer, a long
time constituency backroomer, was campaign manager for
failed Liberal candidate Rob Heindrichs and is married to
Liberal party contributor and failed provincial candidate Don
Meyer.
What qualifications, apart from her unimpeachable Liberal
party credentials, does Mrs. Meyer have for this appointment?
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would ask you to consider the
nature of the questions. Perhaps they might better be answered
and more specifically answered on the Order Paper when we get
down to specifics.
9331
(1455 )
I ask you to consider that when framing your questions. If the
minister of agriculture wishes to address himself to the question
I will permit it.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the
question.
The person named by the hon. member is a very effective farm
manager. She is also a business manager in her home community
of Swift Current, operating a small business. She is heavily
involved in a variety of community organizations, including
providing assistance with respect to their financial matters. She
is a new member of the board of directors, consistent with my
policy and that of this government of enhancing gender balance
on all government boards and agencies. I want women involved
in the Farm Credit Corporation.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Brian Mulroney could
not have answered it better.
Does the minister not realize that he does not enjoy the
confidence of western Canadians and that appointments of this
nature just further erode that confidence?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it came time to make the
appointment of Mrs. Meyer and others, I had the opportunity to
consult with a broad variety of people across the country,
including senior representatives of farm organizations. I
indicated who I had in mind to appoint. The recommendations I
was about to make were very well received by the farm
organizations.
I suggest that if the hon. member wants to put his credibility
on the line on who is the most popular in Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, I will take him on any day.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very good question, unlike the members on the
other side.
My question is addressed to the Minister of National
Revenue. Canadians are made to believe by the Reform Party
that their income tax goes only toward the federal government
because there is no deduction shown for provincial taxes on
paycheques.
In the case of Ontario the provincial tax box is blank.
However, I believe this is misleading. What action can the
minister take to make sure Canadians know which government
is really getting their money and by how much?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has raised an important point
and I thank him for it.
The design of the form is ambiguous in certain respects. In
Quebec, which administers its own individual taxes, the amount
is shown in a separate box on the form but in the other provinces
and territories, which harmonize with the federal government,
the taxes collected are shown as a single lump sum.
I can assure him that this process is the most administratively
efficient. It does lead to some misunderstanding and there is no
intention to mislead Canadians concerning the amount of
provincial tax paid.
We will take his representation and I will have the department
look at it with a view to redesigning the form so that we can deal
with this confusion that does exist with respect to which level of
government receives the taxes individual taxpayers pay.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, N.D.P): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Yesterday over 500 members of the RCMP marched for the
first time ever on Parliament Hill to denounce the attempt of this
government to deny them collective bargaining rights and to
punish them for even talking about collective bargaining.
In view of the fact that this bill was condemned yesterday by
the Liberal chair of the justice committee who said the bill was
slid by the Liberal caucus and is an attack on the civil rights of
RCMP members, how can the minister continue to defend this
dictatorial, jackboot approach to dedicated members of the
RCMP?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, while the chair of the justice committee can speak for
himself, I understand that he feels his comments were not
completely and fully reported by the press. I would suggest that
my hon. friend take that into account.
Also, there are 15,000 uniformed members of the RCMP.
They have had their own labour relations system since 1975.
They elect representatives to work on their behalf full time to
protect their interests vis-à-vis management. I ask the hon.
member to take that into account as well.
(1500)
The study of Bill C-58 is beginning this afternoon in the
appropriate committee. I think at that time it will be confirmed
that the bill simply confirms the basic position with respect to
the management of the RCMP. It does not add to the powers of
the commissioner and it does not take anything away from
9332
members of the force. That is why the House gave it second
reading.
I commend it to the committee and to the House. It is designed
to protect and enhance the position of the force as the prime
policing organization in Canada and perhaps in the world.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to call your attention
to the presence in the gallery of four very distinguished visitors
to our House today.
I would like to introduce to you the Hon. Henry N.R. Jackman,
Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Also, I would like to introduce to you the Hon.
Ed Tchorzewski, Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: As well, I introduce to you the Hon. Glyne
Murray, Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office of
Barbados.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would also like to
acknowledge the presence in our gallery of Antonine Maillet,
the distinguished author from New Brunswick and a source of
great pride for Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I have a point of privilege and three points of
order which I would like to hear.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I raised a question of privilege on November 2,
1994 regarding an incident that arose from question period on
November 1, 1994.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister
quoted from a letter I wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
regarding a concern of one of my constituents. This was done
without my prior knowledge or permission or the prior
knowledge or permission of my constituent.
At that time the Deputy Prime Minister stood in the House and
argued that the letter was public domain. It was on this argument
that the matter was dropped.
Since then I have received a copy of a letter from the CRTC to
my constituent which was in response to my letter. In the letter
from the CRTC the manager of correspondence and complaints
division writes: ``In accordance with your rights and the CRTC's
obligations under the Privacy Act, unless you advise the
commission otherwise, within three weeks of the date of this
letter it will follow the usual practice of placing a copy of all
correspondence related to your complaint on the licensee's
publicly accessible file''.
Clearly the CRTC regards the correspondence relating to my
constituent's complaint as private as defined in the Privacy Act.
The letter from the CRTC is dated December 13, 1994.
Considering the three-week requirement before making the
correspondence public, my letter to the minister was not a public
document until January 3, 1995.
The Deputy Prime Minister quoted from my letter relating to
my constituent's complaint on November 1, 1994, two months
before the letter was deemed a public document.
(1505)
In light of this new information, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you
reconsider the matter. If in your deliberations of whether what I
raise today constitutes a prima facie question of privilege, I ask
that you consider the following.
By making my private letter available to the Deputy Prime
Minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage breached
confidentiality. In so doing he interfered with my ability to
function as a member of Parliament by calling into question
whether issues on which constituents asked my assistance will
be made public.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you find this to be a prima facie
question of privilege. If you do so find, as is the usual practice of
the House, as described in Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation
118, I will move that this question of privilege be referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are two points for the Chair to consider. I
submit this does not constitute a valid point of privilege.
The allegation is that there was a breach of confidentiality by
the CRTC in giving information to the Deputy Prime Minister
and that this may have been a violation. This is not
acknowledged by our side at all. Even if it was, it would
constitute a dispute in law on whether that law was breached. It
is not something that the Speaker usually rules on. The Speaker
has made the point on several occasions in the past that his role
is not to discuss whether an issue is legal or otherwise but only
whether the privileges of members of the House have been
violated.
9333
Finally, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the member has
such a complaint with the CRTC he should file an appeal with
the Privacy Commissioner and indicate in his appeal that he
believes, if such is the case, that the privacy of his constituent
has been denied.
In either case, this is not a matter for the House to deal with.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I read some place over the
holidays that I usually take some time to deliberate.
The hon. member did raise this point in November. At that
time I invited him to come back with new information if he had
it. I wonder if the House would again extend to me its patience.
If necessary I will come back to the House on this matter of
privilege.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order in accordance with Beauchesne's sixth
edition, page 111, citation 374. In a Standing Order 31 statement
yesterday the member for Brant attributed to me comments
which I assume were taken from a media report. The media
report had taken me out of context and completely
misrepresented my position.
It is one thing to have erroneous comments in the media, but it
is quite another to have it read into the official record of the
House of Commons. I respectfully request that the reference to
me in that statement be withdrawn.
The Speaker: The hon. member gave me notice that he was
going to raise a point of order. I would like to review not only the
``blues'' but also the television tapes so I can ascertain precisely
what was said and in what context. I will return to the House if it
is necessary.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you refused a question from the member for
Saint-Hubert during question period. This question pertained to
a matter which I will state, and I would then ask you why you
refused it. This question dealt in part with appointments made
by the government, thus pertaining to the role of government,
and secondly, with the possible reasons for these appointments,
pertaining therefore to the ethics of this government and of this
Parliament. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
alike are to serve as guardians on matters of ethics, as was
emphasized at the very beginning of this session.
(1510)
So we are curious to know why this question was refused
since, it would seem, such appointments and ethics are issues of
government.
The Speaker: May I remind the hon. member that the Speaker
does not normally have to state his reason for refusing a
question, but I may say that it seemed to me at that moment, as I
indicated, that this question did not pertain to the specific
responsibilities of this minister of the government. I made that
decision in good faith and I hope you will accept it as such.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for us to
meet so you might explain to us-
The Speaker: Certainly. If the hon. member or the hon.
member who asked the question would like to discuss it with me,
I will be pleased to meet with them in my chambers.
_____________________________________________
9333
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
several petitions.
* * *
[
English]
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 58th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the membership of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 58th report later this day.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans in relation to the Freshwater Fish Marketing
Corporation.
9334
The committee requests a response from the government
pursuant to Standing Order 109. I have a very short comment.
The committee travelled to many points in western Canada
including Edmonton, Hay River as well as places like Garden
Hill. We heard from over 100 witnesses on this very important
issue.
The committee report is an attempt to strike a balance
between the conflicting needs of those who are served by the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, in order to assure those
who feel that their interests are not being best served. They
actually can aspire to success and those who are successful can
continue to be so.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I make this report from
the fisheries committee to Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, allow
me to mention that the hon. member for Gaspé, who is
vice-chairman of the fisheries committee, was present each
time the committee sat, went to all of the hearings in
communities out west and was very active in the drafting of the
report.
Since he is absent today because he is a member of the
important committee on the draft bill on Quebec's sovereignty, I
will present the Bloc Quebecois' dissenting opinion. Overall,
the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the committee's report and
agrees that responsibility for processing and marketing
freshwater fish should be transferred to the provinces.
However, we have a problem with the conditions of the
transfer. Since the committee recommends that responsibility be
transferred, we think that now is not the time to change the rules
on marketing freshwater fish, before even consulting the First
Nations, the provinces and the territories which will be affected.
(1515)
Therefore, given the difficulties fishermen in remote areas are
experiencing, the Bloc Quebecois recommends that, at the first
possible opportunity, the federal government jointly study with
the provinces and the territories the possibility of granting
special vending permits to remote communities throughout the
transition period.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present the eleventh report of the Standing
Committee on Finance, a report concerning Bill C-59, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application
Rules, in both official languages. We will table it with two
amendments.
I wish to thank all members of the committee for their hard
work and co-operation.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous
consent of the House and in accordance with custom, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, that
the speech of His Excellency the Governor General, the Right
Hon. Roméo LeBlanc, together with the address of welcome
made by the Prime Minister in the Senate Chamber on February
8, 1995, be printed an appendix to the official report of debates
of the House of Commons, and form part of the permanent
record of this Parliament.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the hon.
member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, that the 58th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, laid upon
the Table today, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent pursuant
to a conversation in this House on February 6 for the following
motion:
That the Hansard and the Journals of the House of Commons be corrected to
reflect that on December 13 on Bill C-226 the hon. member for Winnipeg North
did vote on that bill and voted yea on the motion in question.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Editor's Note: Revised Division No. 146 is as follows:]
(Division No. 146)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Cannis
Chamberlain
Chatters
Collins
9335
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jennings
Keyes
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Payne
Penson
Peric
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Terrana
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-137
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blondin-Andrew
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélisle
Caccia
Campbell
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hickey
Irwin
Jacob
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mercier
Milliken
Murphy
Nunez
Paré
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Shepherd
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-103
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Bachand
Bevilacqua
Bouchard
Cauchon
Collenette
Crête
Dubé
Lalonde
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Minna
Ménard
Robichaud
* * *
(1520 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise before this House on day three of this initiative to present
petition number three, the second petition having been
presented yesterday to the Clerk of the House.
These petitions are being presented on behalf of constituents
who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul
Thompson. April 11, 1995 is the date that has been set for his
parole hearing.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
9336
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to
present four petitions from the riding of Prince
George-Bulkley Valley all to do with the issue of euthanasia.
The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
change to the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
The first petition is from the Mennonite Brethren, Nechako
Community Church in Vanderhoof, B.C. The second petition
dealing with euthanasia is also from Vanderhoof, B.C. The third
and fourth petitions are from Prince George, B.C. I am pleased
to say that I personally support all four of these petitions.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting two petitions from the
citizens of Ottawa South, one of them signed by 55 members of
the riding.
The first petition calls upon Parliament to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition signed by 63 members of the
community asks that the names of young offenders be released.
It also asks that the age limit for young offenders be lowered to
allow the punishment to meet the severity of the crime.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to table four petitions on behalf of residents of my
riding of Bruce-Grey.
Three of the petitions request that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the human rights act or the charter of rights
and freedoms in any way that would indicate societal approval
for 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.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
last petition requests that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to rise in the House and present two separate
petitions signed by my constituents from Red Deer.
With respect to the first petition the citizens express their
disapproval to the government regarding any privileges
extended to same sex relationships.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly 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 and that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the second
petition the citizens express their sentiments and great concern
with respect to the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or
passive euthanasia.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to table
three petitions from constituents of my riding.
The first petition was signed by 133 members of the
Shaunavon Wildlife Association at their annual awards banquet.
They state that gun control regulations in Canada are already
excessive and without evident benefit. Therefore, they call upon
us in Parliament to desist from passing additional restrictive
legislation with respect to firearms or ammunition and to direct
our attention to the apprehension and adequate punishment of
those who criminally misuse firearms or other deadly weapons.
I heartily concur with that petition.
(1525 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my second petition is
also from constituents of mine, mostly in the Pangman, Truax
and Ogema districts of Saskatchewan, requesting that the
Canadian Wheat Board continue to be the sole marketing agency
for export wheat and barley sales.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final petition has
65 signatures of constituents mostly from the Swift Current
area. They are petitioning the House to immediately amend the
Criminal Code to extend protection to the unborn child, to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
9337
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by 351
residents of Kingston and the Islands. The petitioners call upon
Parliament to reject any reduction of social benefits for seniors
in any form, including deindexing or means testing.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my honour to present a petition today, mostly signed by
members of the Chilliwack Fish and Game Protective
Association in my riding. They are concerned that the proposed
gun legislation being put forward by the Minister of Justice is
excessively bureaucratic, will be extremely costly and they
believe will be totally ineffective.
They ask Parliament to reject this legislative proposal and to
direct the Minister of Justice to reconsider this approach toward
coercive gun control. I agree with their sentiments.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
before me three petitions today from people in the Peace River
riding.
The first one deals with the inclusion of the undefined phrase
of sexual orientation in the human rights code. The petitioners
request that Parliament not amend the human rights code that
would change in any way and indicate society's approval for
same sex relationships or homosexuality.
The petitioners feel that the majority of Canadians believe the
privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should
not be extended to same sex relationships. I agree with their
petition.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions which have been signed by 148 members in my
riding dealing with the subject of doctor assisted suicide and
euthanasia.
The petitioners request that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced and that the sanctity of human life be respected. The
petitioners also ask that Parliament not repeal or amend section
241 of the Criminal Code in any way and thus protect the most
vulnerable members of our community. I concur with them.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of 93 Canadians.
The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Divorce
Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec
Civil Code. It states that in no case may the father or mother
without serious cause place obstacles between the child and the
grandparents and that failing agreement between the parties the
modalities of the relations are settled by the court.
They also request an amendment to the Divorce Act that
would give a grandparent who is granted access to a child the
right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the
health, education and welfare of the child.
I am pleased to state that I am happy to endorse the contents of
this petition.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition today on behalf of the constituents
of Simcoe Centre.
The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not
amend the human rights act to include the phrase ``sexual
orientation''. The petitioners are concerned about including the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human
Rights Act. Refusing to define the statement leaves
interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to
set. Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that
legislation cannot be misinterpreted.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present a petition on behalf of Don Petersen and 27
others.
(1530 )
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the
following. Whereas the majority of Canadians are law-abiding
citizens who respect the law; whereas the majority of Canadians
respect the sanctity of human life; whereas the majority of
Canadians believe that physicians in Canada should be working
to save lives, not to end them, the petitioners pray that
Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law
which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions.
First, I have a petition which is signed by residents of a
number of communities in British Columbia, including the
Fraser Valley. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to
the fact that the current Criminal Code denies people who are
suffering from terminal or irreversible debilitating illness the
right to choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the
assistance of a physician.
9338
They therefore call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal
Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity
by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and
debilitating illness the right to the assistance of a physician in
ending their lives at a time of their choice, subject to strict
safeguards to prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is
free, informed, competent and voluntary.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP):
Second, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition
which has been co-ordinated by the Hellenic Canadian Congress
of Canada and signed by hundreds of Canadians of Hellenic
origin and friends in British Columbia.
The petitioners note that Canada has strong and enduring
economic, political and strategic ties with Greece, being its ally
during every major conflict in this century. They comment on
the historical evidence with respect to Macedonia having been a
part of the Greek nation for over 25 centuries that Greece has no
claim on the territory of Fyrom. They express concern about
Fyrom hostile propaganda campaign against Greece and its
hostile constitutional provisions.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from
taking any action involving recognition of Fyrom until such
time as its government renounces the use of the name
Macedonia, removes objectionable language from its
constitution, abandons the use of symbols implying territorial
expansionism, ceases hostile propaganda against Greece and,
finally, adheres fully to the norms and principles of the
conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): The
third petition, Mr. Speaker, is a petition which calls upon the
Parliament of Canada to recognize the absurd waste of money in
the Senate of Canada.
It notes that the Senate is not elected and is not accountable to
the people of Canada and therefore calls upon Parliament to end
this wasteful use of taxpayers' money and abolish the Senate.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): My
final petition, Mr. Speaker, is one which relates to the issue of
the conversion of military jobs and facilities to civilian use. It is
signed by a number of British Columbia residents and calls upon
Parliament to use 1 per cent or more of the savings produced by
the reduction in the Department of National Defence budget for
the establishment of a national conversion resource centre and
local conversion committees at each Canadian defence facility.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if Questions Nos. 96 and 126 could be made Orders for
Returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that
Questions Nos. 96 and 126 be made Orders for Returns?
An hon. member: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 96-Mr. Hill:
For each of the last three years, (a) how many times were firearms used in the
commission of criminal offences, (b) how many charges were laid under section
85 of the Criminal Code in each province, (c) how many of those charged with this
offence were the legally registered owner of the firearm used in the commission
or attempted commission of the crime, (d) how many charges were withdrawn,
(e) how many charges resulted in acquittals, (f) how many charges resulted in
convictions, and (g) what sentences were levied when convictions were
registered?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 126-Mr. Simmons:
What action is being taken by the Department of Finance and the Department
of National Revenue to resolve the problems associated with the tax assistance
for retirement savings TARS program, including the need to improve
accountability for the costs and results of the TARS program; the need to review,
revise and strengthen the current compliance strategy; and the need for both
departments to improve the information provided to Parliament on TARS, as
outlined by the Auditor General in his 1994 report?
(Return tabled.)
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would as that the Notice of Motion for the Production
of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the Notice of Motion for the
Production of Papers be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
9339
9339
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-47, an act
to amend the Department of External Affairs Act and to make
related amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendments) from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade.
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-47, an act to amend the Department of
External Affairs Act and to make related amendments to other
acts, as amended be concurred in at the report stage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1535)
[English]
Mr. Manley (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today
in support of Bill C-47, as amended by the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank the official opposition
and the Reform Party for their co-operation in improving the
bill by suggesting certain technical changes. This is what I enjoy
about Parliament, when parties can work together to improve a
bill.
This bill contains housekeeping measures related to the
Department of External Affairs Act. As I have previously stated
in this Chamber, the government made a commitment to
Canadians to change the name of the Department of External
Affairs to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade.
This change in name reflects the accomplishments and
independence of Canadian foreign policy since World War II
and Canada's maturity from a colony to a dominion, to a
sovereign nation. It embraces the contemporary mandate and
responsibilities of the department. The changes to the
Department of External Affairs Act contained in this bill are not
substantive. The bill changes the legal name of the department,
titles of the minister and titles of senior officials.
Under this act the Secretary of State for External Affairs will
become the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The title of the Minister
for International Trade will remain unchanged. The title of a
junior minister, the Minister of External Relations, will change
to become the Minister for International Co-operation.
The official opposition had some concern with that, why have
that position if it is not filled? The government would like the
flexibility in case there is a need to appoint such a minister in the
future.
The titles of senior officials, including the term
under-secretary, will reflect the changes made to ministerial
titles. For example, the Under-Secretary of State for External
Affairs will become the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The amendments passed by the committee following second
reading of Bill C-47 were housekeeping measures as well.
Clause 7, for example, was amended at the request of committee
members of the official opposition to more clearly define the
roles and responsibilities of the minister as they related to aid
and trade. This was done.
Government members sponsored amendments to clauses 18
and 19 of the bill. Clause 18 of the bill was amended due to a
technical error in the drafting of the bill. Clause 19 was amended
so that it would concur with amendments that have been passed
by Parliament to the French version of the Financial
Administration Act.
Bill C-47 makes no substantive changes to the structure of the
department. Rather, the change in name contained in this
legislation reflects the current mandate of the department and
the modernity of the Canadian statehood as reflected in the
government's response to the special joint committee reviewing
foreign policy that was tabled here yesterday in the House by the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and also by the Minister for
International Trade.
Both of these reports highlight how important foreign policy
and this department are to Canadians. At home and abroad the
employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade serve and promote the interest and values
that Canadians hold dear. Let us join together in congratulating
them on many years of excellent service and their continuing
commitment to Canada and Canadians.
The Governor General this morning at his installation
complimented and praised our peacekeepers and the good they
are doing and the positive image they are giving Canada around
the world. I would like to take this opportunity to give the same
recognition to our foreign service members who work abroad,
all of them, whether it be in the external affairs section or
international trade, because Canada does have an excellent
image. Anywhere you travel around this globe or in speaking to
the diplomatic corps here in Ottawa, you will hear nothing but
the highest praises for Canada.
(1540)
We all can take some credit. The people representing Canada
around the globe especially deserve a lot of credit for the kind of
9340
image building, for the spreading of Canadian values and
interests around this globe. Hopefully through our example
people around the globe will have better lifestyles.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have before us today, in third reading, Bill C-47 to amend the
Department of External Affairs Act. This is a bill of very little
substance, containing almost nothing but changes in wording. It
is not very innovative, and does not drastically change the way
the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
operates.
All in all, this is a bill of little significance, which fits in
nicely with the general level of the bills introduced by this
government so far, since the opening of the session, in January
1994. Like the GATT agreements implementation bill, Bill
C-47 makes cosmetic changes. It is therefore without much
enthusiasm that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill which,
after all, rejuvenates somewhat the old Department of External
Affairs Act by giving it a more modern name.
However, the government could have taken this opportunity
to make changes that could have had the merit of eliminating
grey areas and clarifying certain aspects related to the purpose
of Canadian foreign policy. We would have liked the new
legislation to streamline the department's corporate structure by
removing a few positions that have remained vacant since the
Liberals came to power and which cannot be all that crucial if
they have not been filled. I am referring to the positions of
minister responsible for international co-operation, associate
deputy minister, and co-ordinator for international economic
relations.
I believe the position of Minister for International
Co-operation is totally useless, since the current government
does not deign to attach enough importance to international
development to include in a piece of legislation the mandate and
the principles governing the responsible agency. Why appoint
another minister, or leave that possibility open, if that minister
is going to be accountable to another department? Canadians no
longer have the means to afford illusions. The government does
not want to abolish positions which are deemed useless since
they are currently vacant. Is its insistence that these positions
remain in the act due to the fact that it wants to preserve its
authority to make discretionary appointments? Do the Liberals
have friends looking for jobs?
It is true that, considering the social program reform which
they want to impose to Canadians, the Liberals probably do not
wish to see their friends out of work. On a more serious note, I
will try to show that the government missed a great opportunity
to clarify its objectives in the context of official development
assistance.
The day after the government tabled its foreign policy
statement, it is appropriate to remember that there are three key
objectives that will guide the government's activities on the
international scene: the promotion of jobs and prosperity; the
protection of our security in a stable international framework;
and the sharing of our values and our culture.
Among the values that the government wants to promote, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs referred, in his speech here
yesterday, to generosity, compassion and co-operation. As well,
the majority report of the joint committee reviewing Canadian
foreign policy proposes that the government set the reduction of
poverty in the world as the first objective for official
development assistance.
That being said, how are we to interpret clause 7 in Bill C-47,
and I quote:
The minister may develop and carry out programs related to his powers, duties
and functions for the promotion of Canada's interest abroad, including the
fostering of the expansion of Canada's international trade and commerce and the
provision of assistance for developing countries.
In committee, the clause was split in two: A and B.
(1545)
How can a foreign policy focus on promoting Canada's
interests and at the same time claim that eliminating poverty is
to be the goal of its official development assistance?
During the foreign policy review, many witnesses and experts
stressed the need to clarify the objectives of official
development assistance. The joint committee also reminded the
government that it was not CIDA's role to promote trade.
Unfortunately, clause 7 appears to maintain these
inconsistencies. We would have liked to see another amendment
to the existing legislation, specifically on international
development. The official opposition in this House has already
suggested that a specific legislative framework was needed for
the Canadian International Development Agency. We believe
that Bill C-47 could have provided for these changes. In fact, in
our dissenting report on Canada's foreign policy review tabled
last fall, we recommended such changes.
There would have been a number of advantages to adopting
enabling legislation for CIDA. Separating Canadian official
development assistance, once and for all, from any involvement
in international trade is a prime example. In fact, the confusion
today within the Department of Foreign Affairs about interests
and objectives as they affect international development exists
because there is no separation between trade and aid. The
Auditor General made that clear in his latest report.
We certainly do not want to give the impression that it is
wrong to promote Canada's trade relations. On the contrary. We
too are aware of the fact that over 20 per cent of jobs in Canada
are tied to our exports of goods and services. What we do not
9341
agree with is the government's refusal to separate what should
be separated, thus making official development assistance
dependent on commercial interests. This is no doubt why the
government made no commitment either in its policy on the
gradual elimination of tied aid, despite the recommendation of
the joint foreign policy review committee. The same
recommendation was made by the development assistance
committee of the OECD.
The official development assistance budget is suffering in all
this confusion. Too many Canadian businesses are currently
benefiting from CIDA funds that should go instead to
international development, because of the ambiguity
surrounding this issue. The priorities of the aid program simply
cannot be linked to the objectives of Canada's trade policy. It is
vital that CIDA be protected from the influence of the various
departments it regularly deals with, often to the detriment of the
aid itself.
CIDA's mandate should also have been clarified in a
constituent act. However, we understand from the government's
recent statement on Canadian foreign policy that such an act is
not one of its objectives.
Yet the special joint committee responsible for reviewing
Canadian foreign policy recommended, in response to pressure
by Bloc Quebecois members of the committee, that Parliament
pass a bill establishing the fundamental principles of
development aid. It also recommended in its majority report that
such development aid provided by the government be subject to
regular review by committees of the House and of the Senate.
The response of the Canadian government was that, while the
intention was noble and justified, the government did not intend
to pass such a bill on the grounds that it would not necessarily
serve the goals of aid and would reduce program flexibility. In
other words, the government was of the opinion that legislation
on development aid would be too restrictive.
By clearly establishing the goals of development aid and the
mandate of the agency responsible for carrying out international
cooperation programs, the government would evidently be
forced to follow strict rules of conduct. It would probably no
longer be possible to promote international trade via
development programs or, at least, this would be somewhat
awkward for a government which prides itself on being in charge
of one of the most generous countries in the world.
(1550)
Small gestures most often reveal the underlying agenda of a
government, and, in this regard, clause 7 is quite revealing.
Although the ministers of this government make speeches about
eliminating poverty and reducing the gap between rich and poor
countries, when bills are tabled in the House of Commons, other
considerations always take precedence over Canadian and
Quebecois values, even though the government claims it wants
to promote them.
This comes as no surprise, considering that, in its February
1994 budget, the government cut the official development
assistance budget, tightened unemployment insurance
eligibility and forgot to address the inequities in the tax system
that the official opposition had been pointing out for months.
It was with the same agenda that the government claimed to
go ahead with social program reforms, while its real goal, which
was finally announced by the Minister of Human Resources
Development, was to cut the social program budget by $15
billion over 5 years.
Therefore, the government's method is the same whether it is
dealing with domestic or foreign policy: it says one thing, but
does another. Thus the meaning of the slogan of the foreign
affairs committee's former chairman is becoming clearer:
foreign policy reflects domestic policy and domestic policy
reflects foreign policy.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois criticizes the government
for not having clarified in this bill where it is going with its aid
programs for the poorest countries of the planet. Instead, it
satisfied itself with simply changing the name of the
Department of Foreign Affairs. Instead of checking into a spa to
rejuvenate and revitalize, it preferred to slap on more make-up.
We can only wait for the next attempt.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure and some degree of surprise that I rise in the House
today to debate Bill C-47, an act to amend the Department of
External Affairs Act.
I would like to tell the House why I am surprised to be
speaking today. It is because I was not told until 4 p.m. yesterday
that the bill would be up for debate. The government did not
bother to tell our House leader's office until 3.30 p.m.
Is it another example of how the government wants to act in
matters such as this one? It possibly handles the country like this
as well. Even more surprising, Bill C-47 was not an upcoming
government bill on the House of Commons Order Paper for
Monday.
Only yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Government House Leader attempted to lecture my esteemed
Reform colleague from Peace River and myself on a point of
order about how hard the government was working to give us
advanced warning of upcoming events.
If less than a day is what the government considers to be
plentiful warning time, I suppose the member for Kingston and
the Islands was right. However, with the bill going into third
reading the government has no real reason to spring it on us.
9342
I would ask the government to give us an informal call in
the future so that we have a fair chance to prepare ourselves.
After all, if we cannot have serious, well prepared debates in
Parliament, Canadians will not be getting the service they
deserve.
Getting to the issue at hand, Bill C-47, the Reform Party will
be supporting the bill. It modernizes the Department of Foreign
Affairs. Although Bill C-47 will not bring about major changes
in substance to the way the Department of Foreign Affairs is
operated, it shows an evolution of the department to reflect the
needs and values of Canadians in the 1990s.
I would like to highlight what I think Canadians expect from
the Department of Foreign Affairs. Many people do not even
realize it is of much importance to them. My constituents will
ask why we are spending so much time working on that
committee and in that area. I could ask them what they watch in
the newscast at night, what their jobs are or what many of their
jobs are related to. In my constituency we have a large
petrochemical industry, almost 90 per cent of which goes to
foreign areas. We have agriculture, a great deal of which goes to
the United States and other places. When those matters are
mentioned they realize the importance of foreign affairs in their
everyday life.
(1555)
As a result we have hopefully encouraged more interest in
foreign affairs. At least now I am asked on occasion: ``What is
happening in foreign affairs?'' The modernization the
government is undergoing in Bill C-47 provides an opportunity
to highlight the directions in which we think foreign affairs
should go as the people of Canada are telling us from a
grassroots level.
Canadians want to think of us as a middle power, as being in a
middle power position. They want to be proud of Canada. In
many cases we are a bit laid back when it comes to talking about
how great our country really is. Only when they travel outside
the country and talk to others about Canada do they realize what
sort of country we have and what sort of profile we have. We
need to use that profile to develop a far thinking foreign affairs
policy to help us utilize not only opinions from outside but what
we have going for us on the inside.
In yesterday's statement I was disappointed in not seeing
emphasis being put on the use of more of our multicultural
benefits, our people who are trained, who know, who have
relatives and understand other countries. I was also
disappointed that we did not make more use of our foreign
students and Canadians we send to universities around the
world. They are a great asset we do not keep track of and we do
not utilize.
I hear on the streets that CIDA needs to become more
accountable. Certainly people want a transparent agency. They
are not prepared to hear about the terrible mistakes made in that
agency or about the ridiculous projects that are funded such as
the underwater breeding of water buffalo in Thailand. They do
not particularly want to fund projects unless they see some
value to them for the people they are trying to help.
There has to be accountability. There has to be a reporting
mechanism to Parliament. There has to be a greater utilization of
NGOs in that whole area. One of my colleagues will be talking
about that later. We certainly need to target what we have to do.
We cannot do everything for everybody, and we recognize that.
In looking at the bill, we should be concerned and asking
questions about administration from the top. We should be
asking if the minister really needs under-secretaries. Do we
really need the deputy positions? At this point in our financial
crisis we need to be asking: Should we not be cutting from the
top instead of doing it the easy way by cutting from the bottom?
Often we cut from the bottom up instead of from the top down.
We should emphasize to the minister that we want it to be
different in the Department of Foreign Affairs. We should be
examining under-secretary and deputy positions long before we
talk about cutting people in the field.
As far as world organization is concerned, I agree with the
hon. member opposite who said that our foreign service is doing
an excellent job. I have had the opportunity to visit a number of
our foreign consulates and will continue to visit them. We have
some great leadership out there and people who are doing the job
for us. I will come back to that point in a minute. The world is
now divided into three units. It consists of the EU, developing
and working together, becoming a very important economic,
political and in some cases military unit.
(1600)
The second unit is the Asia-Pacific region. It started out with
one tiger, then two. Now there are seven tigers that are really
moving forward in the world. We must recognize that and learn
how to deal with them.
The third unit is the Americas, which have been ignored by us,
with the exception of the U.S., for a long time. Now we are
starting to look at these countries, at Mexico and Central and
South America. They become the third major unit of the world
with which we will be dealing.
It is important that we put into place our role in the Americas.
It is important that we become a leader. When talking to people
in some countries, particularly in South America, they say: ``We
want Canada to be our mediator, to be between us and the
elephant. You are used to sleeping beside that elephant and
dealing with it. We want you to take a leadership role in helping
us to know how to deal with the U.S.'' They are looking for us to
9343
show leadership. At this point they are basically saying that they
have not seen us take that role as strongly as we might.
I mentioned peacekeeping. That is a very important area and
one in which Canada has a high profile. It is important that we
thank all those peacekeepers for the fantastic ambassadors they
are to the world. I believe we all agree on that. As well, we must
recognize that we need to know where we are going and what we
are doing when it comes to peacekeeping. We just cannot be
everywhere. Therefore, we must develop criteria.
The old threat of the cold war is gone. Now we have a much
more difficult threat to our security. We have all kinds of things
like health problems, the AIDS epidemic and many other health
problems that threaten our country.
We also have environmental problems. Countries like China
are proposing to build coal generating plants which could affect
the environment around the world. We need to be leaders in that
area and show that leadership to other countries of the world.
Immigration, migration and refugees are also problems we
have to deal with.
We are concerned that 80 per cent of trade is with the U.S. We
realize we must diversify. Unfortunately, a great many people
say: ``Okay, I deal with the Americans. They speak the same
language, they understand us and it is very easy''. However
when times get a little tough, companies start looking offshore
for trading arrangements and then as soon as times get better in
the U.S. they drop those connections and go back to the U.S.
Industries must be encouraged to change.
I have had an opportunity over the last year and a half to meet
a lot of different people. I recall some members here met with a
Kuwaiti group of MPs. The one question we had from the
Kuwaiti MPs was: why did Canada not get more contracts?
Obviously we were there and we tried to do our share in that
whole situation in Kuwait, but we did not get the contracts. We
were there to do everything else but we did not get the business
contracts for the rebuilding of the country. Why? There was one
answer which was that we are not aggressive enough. We are too
passive, too laid back. We do not push this country they way we
need to.
I met with the ambassador to Chile and received much the
same message: Why are you not more aggressive? Why do you
not take more action?
This summer I was in London, Sweden and Paris and I asked
the question: ``How could we do more business? What more
should we do?'' I was told: ``You need to become more
aggressive''. That is the message the world is giving us. As MPs
we must then carry that message and certainly foreign affairs
has to get that message out.
(1605 )
Foreign affairs is important to Canadians. It now represents a
couple of million jobs in this country. It represents 30 per cent of
our GDP. Therefore when we talk about its importance we
should not have any trouble convincing anyone.
The new arrangements replacing GATT with the World Trade
Organization will go a long way in helping us market our
products. I really believe this will be a forward moving process
for us as Canadians.
The expansion of NAFTA obviously is of significance,
something that the Canadian government should greatly
encourage. It should be part of any foreign affairs policy and one
that should be greatly emphasized.
We cannot underestimate the importance of the Americans.
They have largely been responsible for our becoming the
seventh largest trading nation while we are only 31st in
population. While Canadians strive to diversify their trade, we
must continue to emphasize the importance of our relationship
with the U.S. Therefore the trade aspect of foreign affairs is
extremely important.
In the embassies I have visited I have found they now put
more and more emphasis on the trade aspect. It must be
encouraged and continued. We have to be a little careful as well
because someone in France raised an interesting point with me.
We have about $6 billion in trade with France and about $6
billion in trade with Korea. But 60 per cent of the trade with
France is in sophisticated fine tuned instrumentation. With
Korea about 95 per cent is raw materials.
Before we change the whole emphasis of foreign affairs and
get rid of our European connections to go rushing to the new
markets of South America and the Orient, we have to be a little
careful and look at what we are selling. We will run out of raw
materials. That is not where the jobs are. That is not the area we
should be emphasizing. Trade is an important part of foreign
affairs. The Canadian people expect it to be an important part.
We have mentioned other areas that we should discuss very
briefly, certainly UN reform. The United Nations is 50 years old
today. It is disappointing to look at the document we got
yesterday to see a lack of any sort of forward thinking in terms of
what we mean when we say that we are in favour of UN reform.
What do we mean? What are we going to do? How are we
going to be leaders to change the UN? We can make many
suggestions but the same terminology comes out of foreign
affairs or any department of government. We must look at
efficiency, accountability and effectiveness.
We hear the horror stories. People like Major-General
MacKenzie talked about phoning the UN on a Friday afternoon.
``We have the troops pinned down. What do we do?'' He was
told: ``Call back on Monday''. Then the system was reformed.
They
9344
put in a fax machine. We could then have written confirmation
that he was in trouble. He still had to wait until Monday
morning.
The United Nations needs to be reformed and it should be
done from the top. We need some ideas. We need to start off. We
need to force countries to pay their dues. I do not blame the
Americans for not paying their dues because they are saying:
``Get your act together and then we will pay our dues''. We have
to be in a position where we can be leaders in those reforms.
The UN needs an early warning system. My wife and I toured
Rwanda and stayed in villages in 1985. We knew then a conflict
was brewing and that the two tribes were having problems. We
have had all kinds of peacekeepers and all kinds of NGOs tell us
about the problems brewing but we did nothing. I applaud the
government for mentioning in its statement yesterday that it
needed to develop an early warning system. Then I noticed that
the government totally forgot about the bad idea it had about the
sort of UN force where we would lose our sovereignty. While
that idea was floated it certainly died, fortunately for all of us.
(1610)
We need to deal with international criminals. The people who
commit these atrocious crimes need to know that they are going
to be punished by the world. They need to know that the UN will
deal with international criminals and that it will be much faster
than our criminal justice system.
We need to have a whole administrative reorganization and
we can be leaders there. Also, we need to examine our
membership and we need to push for a much higher role in the
United Nations.
As well, we should look at the reorganization of the whole
Department of Foreign Affairs and, most important, our foreign
missions. We are opening more and more of them but we need to
examine the job they are doing. We need to set some criteria.
Last year I visited nine embassies and I asked them: ``If you
were on the foreign affairs committee what would you want to
change?'' Almost to the very last person and almost to the clerks
they said: ``We want a definite direction; leadership from the
top; set an example and stop sending mixed messages. One day
you are this way; the next day you are that way. We do not know
what we are supposed to represent Canada as being because we
are getting mixed messages from the top''.
I am emphasizing leadership and that is what we should be
getting out of the reform of Bill C-47. We should be coming up
with major ideas for that leadership.
Again mentioning peacekeeping, criteria must be developed.
It is so important. How long are the peacekeepers going to be
there? What is it going to cost? What exactly are we trying to
accomplish? We have a great many hot spots on the burner right
now. Places like Burundi, Nigeria and the former Soviet Union,
just to name a few, are potential hot spots where we may have to
get involved. We need some very important planning.
The last couple of days we have heard a lot about grassroots
public input. I get a little upset when I read in the reports that we
have spent five days debating major foreign affairs issues. The
problem is that we could have read the results or what was going
to happen in the newspaper the day we were preparing our
speeches. The decisions were released early. They came out at
the United Nations. We had already confirmed we were going
back to Bosnia but we were debating it.
As rookies we can probably take that, but I guess after we
have been here a while we start saying: ``Yes, we want
consultation, but do not make up your mind until you hear it''.
That has to be the message that goes through when we start
talking about reforming foreign affairs and the way it is handled.
Listen to us. Do not make decisions beforehand.
I understand that in the next week-and we probably will not
find out until the day before-we are going to be debating
whether we should send our troops back to the former
Yugoslavia. It would be nice to think that every member in the
House could talk about that; could give their point of view on
whether we should renew our return over there or has the
government already decided? I hope that it has not.
When it comes to public input I go a bit further and look at the
national assembly that we had, the group which met here. We
invited 125 people. The only problem was that they were
academics. They were the elite of the country. They were not the
grassroots. They were all by invitation and it was pretty
disappointing.
(1615 )
Why do we not use our 295 MPs to go out in their
constituencies and talk to their people, give them some
information and get the people's opinions? Do not just go to the
elite and get that answer from them.
Canadians expect foreign affairs to be a leader, to be an honest
broker for dispute resolution and effective multilateralism. We
should be a respected and effective middle power. Canada can
make a special contribution. Let us make sure that we do make
that. Let us make sure that when we say we are modernizing the
whole department we really mean that. Let us live within our
means. Let us be proactive and effective in showing fiscal
responsibility. In that role we can add a great deal.
In looking to the 21st century a lot of good things are going to
happen. As we heard this morning in the swearing in ceremony,
let us talk about some of the good things.
We in foreign affairs will have the advantage because Canada
has such a good reputation. Let us use that. Let us play on that.
Let us make the very best of that. Let us make Canadians start
feeling better about themselves as well. We tend to be shy. We
9345
tend to be apologetic. We do not tend to be as strong as we
should in the area of foreign affairs.
I felt the committee report was excellent. We worked well
together. I felt the information we gathered was of high quality. I
felt the report process was successful.
However, I was disappointed yesterday because I saw things
like we will some day try to achieve 0.7 of GDP. The reason I
have problems with that is let us face it, today and for the
foreseeable future we are probably going to go to 0.3. It is not
even feasible that we can maintain 0.4 where we are
approximately today. Why put in 0.7? That sends the wrong
message to the NGOs. It sends the wrong message to foreign
governments. It does not show leadership. I feel that is
incorrect. That is a bad image and that is how we are going to
tarnish that image of Canadians.
I feel as well totally ignoring the CIDA problem is at the peril
of the government. People are saying cut off aid. We know that is
wrong. We know that is not just. We know they do not really
mean that. We have to explain it to them. What are the
advantages of aid? What is the advantage of CIDA? Let us make
sure that it is not just a government slush fund for the minister
and Prime Minister when they travel abroad. I think that is a
vital part of the selling job that should be done.
As far as culture is concerned we would really like to see
business get involved in that. If it is really as useful as we say it
is I am sure business will want to be involved.
The reform of the international monetary system and looking
at the IMF is an area that was not touched. We have again a great
opportunity to show leadership this year in Halifax in June when
the G-7 meets to talk about the reform. I know that we are going
to deal with that in the committee. I hope it will be looked at and
thought about more clearly than our foreign affairs report was.
In conclusion, as I have said we are going to support this
motion. We are supporting this bill because it is a
modernization. We hope it will also go much further to really get
into what Canadians are thinking and to really put forward a new
approach going from this century into the next one. I am sure
that will make Canada an even greater country than it is today.
(1620 )
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-47, a bill to
change the name of the Department of External Affairs to the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
We have no opposition to this bill at all and therefore no
position to oppose it whatsoever. It does not change the resource
allocation within it, nor any significant restructuring. However,
as we broker no opposition to it, let me talk about some concerns
I have about the department and let me give some hope and
constructive suggestions we have to perhaps change its focus
somewhat, making it an even better organization than it already
is.
I preface what I am about to say by reaffirming what my
colleague said, that we have only had a few hours to address this
bill. We hope that in the future the government will give us more
time to do that.
First and foremost, if we are to have a Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade it must be one that lives within
its means. Currently, as we know, the government is spending 25
per cent more than what it takes in. The department must, as all
departments must, make an effective cut to its budget.
As I said before, the government is now spending over $40
billion more than what it takes in. If the department of foreign
affairs were to make at least a 25 per cent cut, then we would
have a department that would be able to live within its means.
The joint committee had an ideal opportunity to go ahead and
do this. It could have given the Minister of Finance a hand by
putting forth some constructive suggestions to do this.
Unfortunately 20 out of the 60 recommendations that were put
out asked for more money, if not explicitly then at least
implicitly.
This does not make any sense whatsoever. It does the
department and the people who worked very hard on the
committee a grave injustice. I cannot emphasize this enough. I
hope in the near future the department will take it upon itself to
put forth the constructive cuts required to make it sustainable in
the future.
I will not put forth criticisms without putting forth some
constructive suggestions in some areas of budgetary cuts. One
of the areas that our party has put forth is that bilateral
government to government aid should be decreased or
eliminated.
Unfortunately, when we go out in the field we see that a lot of
the aid Canadians and our government give in good faith to help
those people who need it the most tragically does not get there. I
have seen foodstuffs given by the Canadian government being
sold over the counter to various areas or being bargained for
arms and ammunition. This is not where the Canadian
government or people want this aid to go.
Another thing we have to do and which we did not do in the
committee, although we listened to a lot of NGOs, is to
determine which NGOs are doing a good job and which are not.
Which are giving the money they are given to the people who
need it the most and which are not? We need to determine
criteria that can be applied to the NGOs to tell us which NGOs
are doing a good job and determine ways in which we can
9346
measure this in the future. This has never been done but it is
something we must do in the future.
Another thing we have not done as a country and that no
country has done is determine which international organizations
we should and should not be members of. Currently we are a
member of a vast number of international organizations, in
many of which there is a lot of duplication.
If we are having difficulty in being a member of these
organizations, so are other countries. No country in the world
has taken the initiative to try to streamline these down. Canada
has a unique opportunity to do this. We ought to go ahead and
determine which organizations are duplicating themselves and
which are not, making some constructive suggestions to the
international community to determine where we can co-opt the
functions of these organizations into one or fewer. It would save
us money and would therefore save a lot of other people money.
Another thing we ought to, which this bill gives, is a method
to streamline the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade. By changing the name perhaps we can use
this as a stepping stone to amalgamate various areas within the
ministry to save the taxpayers a significant amount of money.
Another area we need to address is one that I recently had
some experience in, the Department of International Trade.
(1625 )
There are a number of exporters in this country who have
spoken to me about the fact that they would like to be able to
capitalize on international markets more effectively. They are
not able to do this for a number of reasons.
One thing the Department of International Trade can do is
inform Canadian exporters about places where our exporters can
capitalize, where we have an expertise that other countries do
not.
Currently the biggest problem is getting the information out
in a timely fashion. As a result other countries can get contracts
on the international stage that really should belong to
Canadians. They are jobs that could be brought home, jobs that
we can do as well or better than other countries.
I would ask that people in the department look for ways to tell
our exporters in a timely fashion about opportunities that exist
abroad that they can capitalize on for themselves and for
Canadians.
One area that we have not used enough is our embassies. We
can utilize our embassies internationally to be the eyes and arms
for our exporters abroad. They are in the trenches and they can
tell the department what is available to our exporters.
I will move on to a slightly different focus. If we stand back
and look at the large threat that exists today we will see that the
world is not a safer place in the post cold war era. Last year there
were at least 120 conflicts in the world. Over 90 per cent of these
conflicts were internal. Why is this so? There are a number of
reasons. One essential reason is the burgeoning world
population that has been out of control for decades.
From 1950 until the present, a short period, we doubled our
population; a population that took from the beginning of time
until 1950 to develop. In the next 25 years we will double that
population again.
There are those who say this is not a problem, that we will find
ways to deal with this. I would submit that right now we have no
way to deal with it and there has been nothing in the recent past
to prove otherwise.
Out of this expanding population will be an increasing
conflict for limited resources. Out of that conflict will come a
migration of people. We have seen recently on television the
horrible genocide and carnage.
In the trenches all of the foreign aid and development that
countries such as Canada and other principle countries put forth
will go for nothing. We will wind up back at square one. It makes
absolutely no sense whatsoever not to address this threat to
security if we continue to give aid. It has to be addressed before
our development needs are addressed.
Security not only involves the military aspect, which is what
we have had over the last hundreds of years, but also security
involving the environment, economic and resource
management. This is the single most important threat not only to
foreign security but also to our own. Many people in this country
would argue who cares what happens half a world away, put a
fence around them, let them kill each other. This has sometimes
been said about Bosnia.
If we want to argue independent of humanitarian terms, argue
on what affects us, let us say that what happens half a world
away will one day wind up on our doorstep. These conflicts
produce a number of things, a migration of people, a demand on
our resources through international trade and also on defence. It
also puts our people in harm's way, our defence personnel who
have provided exemplary service in the past.
There is one way to deal with this in the near future. It is
something that no country has ever taken the initiative to do, but
I think Canada can, the aspect of preventive diplomacy. This
country has a unique opportunity to go around the world and
develop a consensus to try to address these conflicts before they
blow up. Once they blow up we get into the very expensive
aspect of peacekeeping and peacemaking and everything it
entails. On the other hand preventive diplomacy is cheap by
comparison.
9347
(1630)
Why Canada? As our new Governor General mentioned this
morning in a very eloquent speech which I thought was one of
the few speeches that brought us together and concentrated on
our similarities rather than on our differences, we are one of the
few countries in the world that has managed to bring together a
truly historic mosaic of people in a peaceful setting.
That reputation should not be undersold by anybody in the
House because it is internationally renowned. We may not
realize it, but people in countries around the world look to
Canada as the example of a country that has managed to merge
different people from different walks of life, different colours,
different religions and different ethnic groups into a peaceful
and relatively harmonious mosiac.
We can and we must take the initiative to act as the honest
broker to bring together NGOs, academics, politicians, the
United Nations and international financial institutions to
determine a series of reproducible measures that we as the
international community will enforce when conflicts are about
to blow up. This is fundamental to international security in the
future and, as I said before, cost effective.
Finally I will concentrate on a few specific issues I have had
recent experience in and, as I have seen before, cause a great
deal of tragedy. One is the trafficking of small arms. People may
not think it is much of a problem, but I was recently in a third
world country where the destabilizing effect of small arms is
dramatic. I was in areas where an AK-47 could be bought for as
little as $20. In these areas resources are depleted, populations
are growing and small arms are proliferating. The result is a pot
ready to boil over and an area that is very unstable.
We must act as a world leader to develop an international
consensus on how we are to go about severely restricting the
production, sale and movement of small arms. Canada should
act as a leader in banning two things: first, mines and, second,
anti-personnel devices. These weapons have absolutely no
place in warfare. They are meant merely to destabilize a civilian
population and are meant to kill civilians. I have seen it with my
own eyes.
Unfortunately, when a so-called war is over, because of the
proliferation of the aforementioned a country is unable to get on
its feet for decades. The cost to the international community is
in the billions of dollars. It is one of those things we can pay now
or pay later. I would submit it is a lot better to get involved in
this early than late.
I hope the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department
of International Trade will take these suggestions into
consideration in their future endeavours. I know people on this
side of the House are prepared to work toward furthering those
suggestions.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask a question of the hon. member who just spoke. Because of
his experience in being abroad and seeing some of the firsthand
work our money is doing around the world, I wonder whether he
has any insights to share with respect to how we can produce
some long term results in some of the countries in which we are
putting money.
What could we do that would finally make these people
independent and contributing members to the world society
instead of drawing from it?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. If I had that answer it
would certainly be wonderful.
There are a few things, I would submit in my humble
experience, we could do. One would be to address the
international security aspects. We cannot get a country back on
its feet until the security aspects are dealt with. As I said before,
that involves freeing the country of mines and putting in place a
strong judicial system, as well as the necessary foundations of
democracy to have a populace with confidence in its
government. We are a democratic country, one that is well
respected for our democratic institutions. We can and have done
a lot to help these democratic institutions.
(1635)
Another fundamental aspect is how we channel our aid. I think
we will find a lot of agreement in the international community
that international aid must go through NGOs as opposed to
through governments. Much aid in the past has gone directly
into the hands of foreign governments and in turn has become
parts of personal bank accounts in Switzerland and other
countries, or has been used to build people's personal empires
through the purchase of arms and bribery. That is completely
wrong and is not where our international moneys were meant to
go.
As I said before in my speech, we need to look at the NGOs to
determine which ones are doing a good job and which are not.
We have to determine a set of criteria. We have to determine an
end point that we want to address through committee reports.
That is something the government agrees on. We wish to help the
poorest of the poor. We can do that but we have to determine
which NGOs are doing a good job and which are not. Once we do
so, we can determine where we are proportioning our money.
It is an interesting and an exciting project, one that I hope the
government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and the
Department of International Trade will take up. If we can do
that, we can effectively channel the aid money Canadians give to
other countries.
9348
I will finish by saying that many people in my riding and
other ridings ask: ``Why are you giving money to people half
a world away?'' If we want to argue purely on selfish grounds,
the economic impact in a positive way to our exporters is very
great because we are generous on the international stage. We
take part in international organizations in an effective fashion
and we bring forth to the international community some sense
of peace, stability and sensibility.
If we continue to do so we will have on the international stage
a clout far greater than what our population would normally give
us.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a comment and then a fairly quick question.
One point is on the saleability of foreign assistance and why it
is necessary. The member struck on a very important point. It is
becoming increasingly difficult to convince people that we
should be spending increasing amounts of money on foreign
assistance. Yet, for some of the reasons the member mentioned,
it is still important.
Could the member comment in general terms on the
advisability of increasing spending on primary education in the
third world as part of our aid package as opposed to university
education?
One report I read mentioned that basic education in the third
world decreases the number of children in a family from an
average of four and a half or five to three or three and a half. The
reason is that a basic education allows a person to get a job, to
understand basic birth control methods, to expand their horizons
in business and so on.
As opposed to a very costly university education that we
support around the world, does the member think we should
emphasize or spend more of our money on the basic education
aspect?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, my
hon. colleague hit on a very important point. We do get more
bang for our buck by investing in primary education versus
expensive post-secondary education.
We cannot have a stable country without a stable populous.
We cannot have a stable populous unless the populous has a
vested economic and social interest in the country in which it
lives.
One primary way of doing it is to enable the people to have the
rudiments of an education: give them some literacy and give
them the ability to take care of themselves. If we give them the
knowledge to take care of themselves we have helped to create a
sustainable situation.
(1640)
It is also more difficult for individuals to sway a population
for their own illicit gain if the population is educated. It is easier
to reason with a population that has the rudiments of education
than one that is living in a primitive state of affairs. That has
borne itself out time and time again.
As my hon. colleague just mentioned, one of the great benefits
of providing primary education is that we see a population
reduction. We see a reduction in the number of babies born. It
gives women control of reproduction, which is fundamental in
enabling them and their families to get control of their economic
and social lives.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: 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 New Westminster-Burnaby-gun control; the hon.
member for Davenport-Bill C-62.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent, after
the consultation I have had with the two opposition parties, for
the following motion:
That from 5:30 p.m. today until the time of adjournment the House will not
entertain any adjournment or other dilatory motions.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain
federal agencies, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-65 which makes an attempt at
reorganizing and dissolving certain federal agencies. The one I
will be talking about is ACOA.
The attempt in the bill is to reduce the number of board
members from 18 to 7. I want to talk about whether or not that is
truly effective. Another thing I want to talk about with respect to
the bill is patronage, about which we had a long discussion
yesterday.
My hon. colleague from Burin-St. George's said yesterday
that there will always be patronage. Whilst the Liberals main-
9349
tain that there will always be patronage, perhaps there will be
people whom we know to be competent who should go into
certain jobs. I call into question whether or not patronage is
appropriate in some positions. I have for a long time been rather
outspoken about patronage appointments to the Senate. The
Reform Party has been rather clear about a triple E Senate,
which is elected, effective and equal.
We have seen time after time Liberals and Conservatives
putting their friends in the Senate where they are paid until age
75 and live rather well on the backs of the taxpayers. It is time to
give up on those kinds of patronage positions which give your
friends truly a more advantageous position in life than those
who are equal and even perhaps more qualified for the positions.
(1645)
Look at the recent Senate appointments which fly in the face
of the vast majority of Canadians. There were five Senate
appointments made by this Prime Minister to the Senate. One of
them indeed was a sitting member of Parliament. I question the
anti-democratic move of doing that. This individual was elected
in his own riding and now the Prime Minister just fetches him
out of it and says: ``I am going to run one of my buddies in here
and see if we can get him in as well''.
That flies so much in the face of what people believe. I cannot
believe this government is reproducing what the Conservatives
did. And the Liberals yelled and screamed about that when the
Conservatives were the government. Even the Governor
General's appointment is basically patronage today. That speaks
for itself.
I have had a great deal of experience with refugee boards
which are again political appointees. They make a pretty good
salary and make what really amounts to life and death decisions.
Some of the decisions have been far from credible. Some of the
individuals on those boards are far from credible and do not
meet the qualifications, skills or abilities in some cases.
Yet we still have patronage. Members from the opposite side
say patronage will always be. I have to question the logic of that.
Many people are questioning the logic of it and what we get is
more patronage.
I have to question the patronage in parole boards. I have to
question the patronage of immigration adjudicators, the
patronage in harbours, boards, commissions across this country.
Why can we not publicly advertise for these positions and take
people based on their qualifications, skills and abilities?
There is a recent patronage appointment that we complained
about two days ago. We would have complained about it again
today but we could not get it on in question period because we
only had five questions and it was number six.
Let us look at the individual who was most recently appointed
to the CRTC. The Prime Minister stood up in the House
yesterday and talked about that very position. He talked about
the need to look at people for skills and abilities and so on.
When we checked on that appointee we found there were
problems. In fact the Prime Minister said himself that if we
found certain problems with this perhaps the government would
not make that appointment but it has made the appointment. We
find problems with it. If we really dig deep in a lot of these
positions it sways, it gets away from skills and abilities and
qualifications. That is wrong for government.
We have to look at the damage that creates in the parole board,
in refugee boards, and so on. We have to look at the victims and
the common ordinary citizens who by the way never get this
opportunity unless they have been a member of a Liberal
campaign committee and so on and so forth. What opportunity
does the average law-abiding Canadian citizen get for these
kinds of jobs? It does not happen.
Let us look at the cost of these positions: $85,000 and $90,000
for some of them. Why not advertise for these positions? Why
not do what any other corporation does? Crown corporations do
it.
I really want to talk about ACOA. It is my favourite thing to
look at in this country. I was glad to hear the minister today
announce that he is doing away with grants altogether. I would
not give the minister much credit for that. The announcement
was made subsequent to when we disclosed all of the bad grants
in ACOA. While it is nice that the minister did that we will take
credit for it in the House of Commons and throughout this
country.
(1650 )
Now to reduce the ACOA board in members only is actually
laughable. Just think about this. The minister says that what is
going to happen is that ACOA will no longer give grants. It will
basically be giving loans. They will not be forgivable loans but
repayable loans as far as I understand it from yesterday's
discussion. It is venture capital basically.
FBDB does the same thing. Why is it we are just reducing the
number of boards? Why can we not just collapse this
organization, get rid of its administration and allow FBDB to do
the job?
I asked that question yesterday of the member from Halifax.
On December 8 I asked a question in the House about FBDB
versus ACOA. I did not get a satisfactory answer from the
minister so I asked the same question last night in what we call
the late show. I put the question clearly and distinctly.
What I received from the member for Halifax who answered
the question was a two minute speech, your basic Liberal
rhetoric on issues about ACOA, but it did not answer the
question. Therefore, I am going to come back to that and I am
9350
going to ask it again and again and again. Hopefully the member
for Halifax will not be answering because I do not think she
knows much about it.
The question has to be: Why are we reducing the number of
board members in ACOA? Why are we not eliminating ACOA?
What we are doing here in C-65 is surface scratch. One does not
have to go very far with this Liberal government to look at
surface scratch. One only has to look a little at the Young
Offenders Act.
The majority of people in this country are concerned about the
Young Offenders Act. They talked, we talked and many people
talked about lowering the age, about advising citizens out there
of sexual offenders and so on. The Minister of Justice came up
with a ridiculously weak, limp act for young offenders.
Gun control was the same thing. In trying to address crime the
government went to gun control. The budget was the same thing.
The Liberals did nothing on the budget last year and they are still
spending money like Mad Hatters over there. We demonstrated
that today in some of the ridiculous research grants.
Bill C-44 did all but nothing in immigration because in the
final analysis they will not be removing the bad guys anyway.
That is what I call surface scratch.
When somebody brings in a bill like Bill C-65 which states
that the number of board members is going to be reduced from
18 to 7, I ask what is wrong with these folks across the way?
Why can they not go out and do the job fully? Why are we
surface scratching?
We have to look at a new vision here. There are a lot of
documents now that mention a new vision. In his book the leader
of the Reform Party talks about a new vision. Lots of documents
refer to a new vision in Canada.
What we have here is a traditional party entrenched in an old
vision. So old is that vision that when they tried to come up with
something new in HRD with the social programs, it collapsed.
They stand in here today and have the gall to try to tell people
that is what they want. We heard it all across the country. They
said that is what they want, no change, which is exactly what
they received with this government because this government
lacks vision. It is vision that we need.
Bill C-65 is not a new vision, it is traditional. They are talking
about saving money but it is surface scratch. There is hardly any
money in this.
(1655 )
If you want to get rid of an organization, get rid of ACOA and
save some money. The administrative travel expenses within
ACOA are a national disgrace. It is all over the country.
Everybody knows about it. There is nothing touched in it. They
just reduced the number of directors.
Let us not talk about surface scratch here. Let us talk about
new vision. We had an admittance yesterday that the Liberals
have practised ``corrupt patronage''. That is a quote in Hansard
and came from a Liberal member by the way. I believe it was the
member for Burin-St. George's.
I would agree with that. You only have to look at some of the
patronage appointments. I will refer to the Globe and Mail. I
think everybody across the country has read this by now and are
shaking their heads about patronage appointments.
Look at this: A tax court judge was an MP. Here is an
individual, former provincial candidate in Mississauga,
southern Ontario. Here is a fellow, a candidate in Quebec in
1993, one from Calgary Northeast and a three time candidate in
Edmonton. On and on and on it goes. It cannot be a coincidence
that all of these past candidates in 1993 have the skills, abilities
and qualifications for the job. That cannot be the case. This is
clearly padding your friends and it is totally wrong.
In 1992-93 ACOA wrote off in excess of $53 million. I would
like to ask members opposite what the difference is between a
repayable loan that is written off so that the borrower does not
have to pay, and a grant.
An hon. member: There is no difference.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): There is no difference
between a grant and a loan that is never repaid. If ACOA is now
into repayable grants many of which are written off, then
collapse ACOA. Fold it. Do not just get rid of the directors, get
rid of ACOA. Save the taxpayer a whole bundle of money. Save
them $50 million in write-offs for certain and then let FBDB
take its place, or the banks. Has anybody ever thought of dealing
with the banks?
Yesterday another speaker opposite said that we already have
a very efficient government. I have to ask, if the Liberals think
they have an efficient government then they are really out to
lunch. That is what the change is all about. That is why the last
party from Jurassic Park sits with two members here. That is
exactly the mentality that is going to have this second party join
Jurassic Park in the next election. The assumption that it already
is an efficient government is totally erroneous.
I cannot say much more about this because I could run down
all of these other reductions in boards and institutions but they
are basically all the same. This is surface scratch. The
government does not really intend to save a lot of money here. It
is just taking out a few things to make it look good. It has done it
time and time and time again in the last year.
The question is: Who does the government really think it is
kidding over there? There are people actually watching and they
9351
are a lot smarter today than they were before. Bill C-65 is
surface scratch. It is Liberal do nothing legislation, much like
Bill C-44 was.
(1700)
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if in questioning the hon. member whether he
would consider the appointment of the National Parole Board,
for instance. The new chair of the National Parole Board is a
career civil servant with no political connections. He came
through the ranks, was appointed on the basis of his
qualifications after being interviewed. I wonder if he would
recognize that as something the government has started, and is
that what he considers to be a patronage appointment?
Does he want us or the government to leave the Senate
completely dominated by the Tories, holding back the Pearson
airport deal as an example? Is that what he expects to do?
Also, does he not recognize that in some of the appointments
the Prime Minister is making, such as Ed Broadbent and so
forth, that there are no pensions, no double dipping, that with
any new appointments by the Prime Minister people like Ed
Broadbent are being asked? Does he not realize that Roméo
LeBlanc, a man for all seasons, a fair, honest Acadian, a person
who fits the Prime Minister's style was a good appointment?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, when making
so many patronage appointments, the obvious thing has
happened with governments over the past decades. They make
some that are good, naturally; they even make some from other
parties, I suppose. That covers them for making the majority, or
many of them, their friends.
Look at this list. A member of Parliament's campaign
manager in Vancouver Centre was executive assistant to the
ministers of justice and energy, mines and resources in the
eighties; assistant to a former Nova Scotia Liberal leader;
assistant to various Ontario MPPs. These are Liberal Party
hacks.
Of course some will be made based on qualifications, skills
and abilities so exactly what has happened here can be done. A
member stands up and says: ``Look at this one; let me identify
this one; what do you think of it?'' That particular individual
may be good based on qualifications, skills and abilities. I do not
know the particular individual and his qualifications, skills and
abilities, but I do know there are many people on parole boards
who do not have the qualifications, skills and abilities.
Mr. O'Reilly: Answer the question.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I think I just have. He
asked me if this particular person on the parole board had the
skills and abilities. I do not know that particular person. My
answer is there are a lot who do not. I can tell the hon. member
that.
The next question I believe the member asked was on the
Senate. He asked whether-it is a wise thing I suppose-there
should be more Conservatives than Liberals in the Senate. I
think he has missed the point. We are talking about the ability to
have an elected Senate so that perhaps the senators could be
neither Liberal nor Conservative; what a novel idea, not a party
hack.
That is the problem. It is like firing your brother or your sister.
They get them into the Senate. These governments are not going
to change. As soon as the Liberals got in the whole country new
darn well they would start putting Liberals into that Senate. The
only way to stop that is to get a party into this government with
no friends in the Senate, none at all, so we will not be marrying
off: ``We need some to offset the Conservatives and the Liberals
in this Senate''. Talk about traditional thinking, that is
traditional thinking. What is wrong with a triple E Senate?
I am sorry, I am not sure what the third question was.
Mr. O'Reilly: Roméo LeBlanc.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Roméo LeBlanc, the
Governor General. That position is considered by most as the
highest plum on the plum tree. Whether or not his skills and
abilities fit the job, I am not really sure what his skills and
abilities are.
(1705)
I will say right now I am not in favour of having a Governor
General position in this country, nor am I in favour of Lieutenant
Governor positions in this country. That is why I was not at the
session today nor the party tonight. Whether or not the
individual has the qualifications it is just tradition.
I was asked today why I was not there. I said that I really did
not intend to think like these traditional good old boys here.
Maybe we should be questioning whether there should be a
governor general or a lieutenant governor. The individual I was
talking to said that is tradition. I told him that is what is wrong
here. What is wrong with questioning this good old tradition?
What is wrong with questioning the fact that this government
wants 50 per cent or more of the Senate to be Liberals?
An hon. member: What is wrong with that?
Mr. White (Frazer Valley West): There is a lot wrong with it.
You would have to go a long way in this country today to find
many people who would want Liberal Party hacks or friends of
the government or anybody else appointed to the Senate. That is
what is wrong with that. Elect them. Give the average, ordinary
Canadian citizen on the street an opportunity to be a senator.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
offer the minister a hearty nice try on his Bill C-65. The bill is
9352
an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies. This
is good. It would be a lot better if it were just a bill to dissolve
certain federal agencies.
I represent a riding with a major sea coast and my constituents
will sleep better knowing that the Canadian Salt Fish
Corporation has been dissolved. I also cannot express anything
but pleasure at the knowledge that the National Film Board has
been reduced from eight to six members. I hope it will not find
itself unable to make appalling decisions due to its short
staffing.
I want to say with a straight face that I am confident that the
President of the Treasury Board experienced real difficulties in
getting the civil service to agree to these cuts. I mean no sarcasm
by saying this.
In Mr. Martin Anderson's book Revolution: The Reagan
Legacy he describes his own bureaucratic battles to get rid of the
board of tea tasters within the U.S. executive branch. He failed. I
think the minister deserves credit for what he has done. Let us
have a hearty nice try for him and then let us get serious.
How big is our spending problem? How big are our debt and
deficit problems in Canada? The Liberal government appears
recently to have noticed that its own lust for big government
coupled with Progressive Conservative incompetence has
saddled this nation with an on-book debt of over $500 billion
and an unfunded liability in the Canada pension plan of about a
like amount, and we continue to have annual deficits in the range
of $35 billion to $40 billion.
For years the established political parties laughed the debt
off: ``We are creating assets. We owe it to ourselves. What is a
billion? We have a culture to create''. Whoops. I will tell you
what a billion is. It is a one followed by nine zeros. It is so much
money that if you spent $1,000 a day since the birth of Christ
you still would not have spent a billion dollars today. As a matter
of fact you could go on for approximately another thousand
years. If you spent $20 a day since the dinosaurs vanished, you
still would not have spent $500 billion. What I am getting at is
that it is a lot of money even by the standards of this
government.
How much has the minister saved us? How long has it taken
him to save us that money? It was Albert Einstein who once said
it is impossible to solve a problem by thinking on the same level
that caused it. He was right. If we are going to try to eliminate
our deficit and get our budget under control we are going to have
to do some bold new thinking.
(1710)
Mr. English: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Winnipeg
South rose at the time when the member for the Reform Party
rose. I would ask that you consider allowing the member for
Winnipeg South to speak.
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary is
absolutely right. The Chair made an error. A name had been
taken off the list and the next name on the list was the member
for Skeena.
If the member wishes to interrupt the speech to go back on line
to get it correct, the Chair is obviously happy to do that. I am in
the hands of members.
Does the member for Skeena wish to stand down to get the
order right? Or does the member for Winnipeg South wish to let
the member continue and the public will understand that the
mistake was made by the Chair?
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I think it would only be
appropriate since I am approximately halfway through my
remarks that I be allowed to continue.
The Deputy Speaker: I will call on the hon. member for
Winnipeg South to make a point of order if he wishes to do so.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, that is fine.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, if we are going to try to get
our deficit and our budget under control we are going to have to
engage in some bold new thinking. We cannot go on the same old
way. We cannot go on making the same old assumptions. It
really is true that as Tony Robbins expressed, insanity is doing
the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
The Progressive Conservatives certainly proved it with their
refusal to tackle program spending. What they did was
considered insane either politically or in terms of the national
interest.
Apparently the Liberals were too busy scoring partisan points
to notice what had happened, let alone why. Look at the
minister's social policy review. Having helped create our
impossibly expensive social programs, having made many
extravagant promises that drive our welfare state, the minister
set out to produce sweeping reforms without changing his
approach. He failed.
While we all feel a little pain at his embarrassment, even
humiliation, in failing so spectacularly and so publicly in the
most important assignment of his long and sterile career in
politics, those of us on this side also feel a certain annoyance
that the minister, given such responsibilities, was unable to rid
himself of old and discredited ideas about the proper role of
government.
The idea the minister did not have and the idea that the
Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs did not have are one and
the same. They did not ask whether the programs we are
spending too much money on are working. They just assumed
everything was fine, but we were not quite efficient enough.
The programs are not working. What we need is bold and
original thought. We need clearly expressed yardsticks for
measuring their success. If they are not working we need to shut
them down.
9353
Actually, as I stand here and say that it does not sound all
that clever or difficult. I wonder why the minister did not think
of it, or the Prime Minister, or the President of the Treasury
Board. If they had they would have noticed something, not
something small and subtle, not a little tiny point of light in
the distance. They would have noticed a huge, roaring fire,
consuming money in amounts that are literally astronomical,
and for nothing that we can see that we want.
I refer to our social programs. They consume two thirds of non
interest spending by the federal government. They consume
more than $80 billion a year. In a country that is unimaginably
rich by historical standards, these immense social program
expenditures are taking place side by side with the apparent
disintegration of our society. We spend billions on poverty relief
but apparently poverty keeps getting worse. We spend billions
on health care and our spending grows geometrically. Yet
waiting lists lengthen, equipment deteriorates and our
politicians go for treatment in the United States.
(1715)
We are paying 5 per cent of payroll into the Canada pension
plan yet it is an unfunded liability and has reached half a trillion
dollars to date. Half a trillion is a five followed by eleven zeros.
Meanwhile, the President of the Treasury Board, to save us all
from bankruptcy, has decreased the board of directors of the
CBC from 15 to 12. Were they spending over $12 billion each?
Perhaps the government will tell us every little bit helps. I am
here to say that it does not, not enough. I am here to say that
Ralph Klein was right when he said: ``You have to go hunting
where the ducks are''. The ducks are in the social programs, not
in the board of the Canadian Cultural Property Export and
Import Act, and that is where we have to go hunting.
When the minister spends as many months and as much
political capital as he has to eliminate the post of secretary of the
Canadian Film Development Corporation, it is that many
months and that much political capital he cannot spend on
changes that would really matter.
I do not know whether hon. members opposite ever watch Yes,
Minister or whether they are too busy living it. However, they
should watch it because it is not just funny, it is very accurate. In
one episode when the minister is criticising his permanent
secretary, Sir Humphrey Appleby, for the amount of
bureaucracy that exists, Sir Humphrey tells him quite rightly
that it has nothing to do with him, it has nothing to do with the
bureaucrats. ``The reason there is so much bureaucracy'', he
insists, ``is that the Parliament keeps creating programs and they
all need to be administered''.
The total cost of administration for the federal government is
$20 billion. The deficit is close to $40 billion. We would have to
shut it all down twice to balance the budget. This bill does not
come close.
I realize that to make a real dent in the deficit, the government
would need two qualities it does not possess in any great
quantity: courage and imagination. Even the Republicans in the
United States have found that what the public wants to hear is
that they are cutting bureaucrats, not programs. To say that is to
take the easy way out. It is not the bureaucrats who are causing
the deficit, it is the programs. Before one can say that, one has to
be able to think it and that is where the active imagination comes
in.
Many members opposite have been in politics a long time.
They do not realize that the ideas that were once bold and new
have gone stale and timid in the decades since. They do not
understand that ``government knows best'' has been tried and it
has failed miserably.
However, I put it to them directly that when one is looking at a
roaring fire that is consuming some $40 billion a year and one
responds by changing the definition of a peace officer under the
laws governing the International North Pacific Fisheries
Commission, one is totally missing the point. One had better
take a step back and take a good hard look at the overall structure
of government and then one had better be willing to tell people
openly and honestly what was found. The government has to tell
the people that Ralph was right. It has to tell them that we have
to go hunting where the ducks are and that they are in big social
programs, not in the board of trustees of museums. Then it has to
cut them.
Let us have a rousing ``nice try'' for the minister but let us be
clear that he failed. Maybe it is time that he stepped aside.
Maybe it is time that the human resources minister and the
Prime Minister stepped aside and let a party that truly knows and
truly has the vision to resolve these problems take control.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
heard some talk today from both of the speakers of the Reform
Party on this bill about bold new thinking, new vision, a new
way of doing business and yet all I hear is very old political
rhetoric. I would like to ask the member in all seriousness what
he feels is served by coming into the House and talking about the
long and sterile career of a member of the House or denigrating
the person. It is one thing to come forward and raise a legitimate
concern about an individual who may be misperforming his or
her task or about a policy decision of the government. But it is
another to come forward as members of his party have done
today and, as some might call it, slander other Canadians,
without a scintilla of evidence, without any proof, in fact
standing up and admitting that they had not bothered to check
the qualifications, but of course they were unqualified.
9354
(1720)
The question I would like to ask is in the business of good
government, how is a bold new vision served by that kind of
tactic?
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to
the hon. member's comments by stating that the minister has
been in the House for a long time, not always on the government
benches. He is part of a government that began its
administration in the late sixties with a vision of ``we can help
Canadians because we are all knowing and all powerful and able
to solve all Canadians' problems for them. All we need is their
money and their co-operation. If we do not get their
co-operation we will force it down their throats''.
This vision was expressed by the Liberal Party and has been
around for some two and a half decades now. It has failed
miserably. The consequences of that failure is what we are
dealing with today. Yes, the Conservatives had a hand in it too.
The Conservatives are culpable because they had an opportunity
to do something about it in 1984. They looked it in the eye and
walked away from it.
It is a creation of the Liberal Party. It is a creation of ministers
such as the one I was referring to. It serves the Canadian people
to understand not only how we are going to deal with our
problems but how we got here in the first place and the bad ideas
that brought us to the brink of debt and ruin.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the sad part of Bill C-65 is that the government is acting pretty
well like the Conservative Party acted in encouraging
patronage. The government is not implementing a law that is
reducing patronage at all. It is a public relations exercise, as our
colleague in the Reform Party mentioned earlier, scratching the
surface.
I wonder whether or not it is confusing a lion's roar with a
burp. Yesterday when the government introduced Bill C-65 it
mentioned it as being a great improvement in government, a
great advancement, aggressive government, progressive
government. It is as though we are dealing with Conservatives
who are giving us the impression that they are really changing
something when in fact they are not. We are living with the same
system of patronage, give or take a few things. Certainly it is the
case of the mouse that roared or mice that are trying to roar but
they are certainly not giving us much to deal with anyway.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I find myself in rare
agreement with my colleague from the Bloc. I appreciate his
remarks.
I think what he is getting at is essentially what I was trying to
say in my intervention. The government is trying to display to
Canadians that it is doing something but when you get beneath
the surface, it is not. It is really sad when Canadians not only are
expecting but are hoping against hope that the government
really is going to do something.
(1725)
They understand it is crunch time. They understand that it is
time to pay the piper. They are saying: ``Let us get on with it. Let
us face up to our problems in this nation and let us overcome
them''. The government is telegraphing false hope.
I think that is what the member is alluding to. We do not see
real systemic change. What we see is window dressing.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have heard
comments about surface scratching and burping and other
qualities.
Yesterday when we talked about the actual numbers I recall
the government had eliminated 589 positions. It has appointed
only 700. That strikes me as far more than scratching the
surface.
Moreover in the Globe and Mail article that was frequently
cited today and yesterday, 80 people were identified with ties to
the Liberal Party out of 700 appointments. One would find in the
public opinion polls that there are probably more Liberals than
that.
The Reform Party has difficulty with the kind of argument it is
making. What I have heard from members of the Reform Party
in the past is that the problem is Ottawa, the problem is
government, the problem is the civil servants.
These boards are made up of Canadians from across the
country. Many of them are regionally appointed. Many agencies
are regional. Certainly some of them are appointments of people
who reflect the views of the government. That is natural because
you do have to change things. The majority on the boards are not
now Liberal because they were appointed by the previous
government.
If you in the Reform Party are out to change-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary and
all members will please put their remarks to the Chair for the
reasons that have been explained many times in this House.
Mr. English: Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party
surely will recognize that there is an advantage for their party to
have people appointed from outside the House of Commons,
from outside Ottawa to supervise activities carried on by
Ottawa.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to
the comments of the hon. member by saying that he is trying to
insinuate that there are really not many political patronage
appointments being made.
9355
Yet we sit in the House week after week asking the Prime
Minister why he continues to make political appointments. He
keeps shrugging his shoulders and saying that there are only
Liberals in Canada, there is nowhere else to go.
I cannot believe the arrogance of that response. It will come
back to haunt this party and the Prime Minister. It is indicative
of the fact-everyone who sits in the House knows it-that
virtually all of the important political appointments that have
been made since the government was elected are patronage
appointments. They are going to friends of the government.
They are going to Liberal hacks and insiders. Canadians are
starting to get the message. The media is reporting it. It is going
to come back to haunt the government much as it came back to
haunt Mr. Mulroney and his Progressive Conservatives.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I listen to my friends from the Reform
Party and the way they talk today, I fully understand why they
will probably form the next government. They know how to
target the real problems.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. He was
talking about having an active imagination and looking at the
overall structure of the government. I would like to ask him if he
would agree to start with plucking the other place.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, it has long been the
position of this party and of myself personally that the Senate
can be an important place if we adopt the principles of triple E.
As long as it is a haven for patronage political appointments it
will never be regarded with any credibility by Canadians
anywhere.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.35 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9355
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support a policy
that Canada's fresh water, ice and snow will be protected so that at all times and
in all circumstances Canada's sovereignty over water is preserved and
protected.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
present and speak on this motion. The motion I am presenting to
the House today deals with the need for the government to
support a policy that protects and preserves Canada's
sovereignty or control over its own water.
Let me begin by emphasizing why we should pursue a policy
which protects and preserves Canada's sovereignty over water.
On the surface it appears that we already have control over our
water. However this is not the case.
The present terms of NAFTA-and I will go into them in more
detail later-directly affect Canada's sovereignty over her
water. We have sovereignty only until a sale has begun or a river
has been diverted. At that point the supply of water under
NAFTA cannot be stopped and we lose control of this very
precious resource. At this point in time Canada's control over
water is hanging on a thread and we need to take action to rectify
the situation.
I will go into detail later to explain exactly how the terms of
NAFTA affect our sovereignty over water and how this situation
can be fixed. However, first I wish to emphasize to the House
why we must protect our water because it appears that the
significance of this resource has been underestimated by many
Canadians and this perception is likely due to the fact that water
is so abundant in Canada.
Canada has more water per capita than the vast majority of
nations in the world but clearly its value should not be
underestimated. Water is our most valuable resource and our
sovereignty or control over this resource must be protected at all
times.
In the view of many experts water will be the most important
resource of the 21st century. Clearly Canadian control over this
political, economic and environmental commodity is
paramount. Many experts have suggested that what oil has been
in the past century water will be for the next.
Canadians have such an abundance of water that it is often
taken for granted. We often forget to look at the future and
conserve our supplies or to look at the larger picture, which may
only be as far as our neighbours to the south, to see where water
has become the commodity of the future.
Its value has been underestimated and overlooked in
international agreements and the consequences will be serious.
Water is a precious resource. It could also be a valuable
bargaining tool, a card that we should not be too quick to play.
Most of Canada's fresh water supply is concentrated in the
Great Lakes, which accounts for 20 per cent of the world's fresh
water supply and represents 95 per cent of North America's
surface water. The Great Lakes are the most important natural
resource shared by Canada and the United States. The Great
Lakes provide a reliable source of fresh water for one-fifth of
the U.S. and one-half of Canada, supplying 26 million people
with drinking water.
The 1985 international joint commission concluded that
consumptive use of water in the Great Lakes basin is likely to
double by the year 2000. Current estimates suggest that the total
global consumption is likely to rise tenfold during the 20th
9356
century and that water scarcity will be of increasing concern,
particularly for most arid and semi-arid countries to the south.
Of increasing importance to Canadians is that right next door
Americans are facing significant water shortages as their
resources are dwindling. The only natural source of water from
Colorado to California is the Colorado River and its tributaries
which provide water to seven states. It has been drastically
reduced as a result of overuse and mismanagement.
The most important source of underground water in the U.S. is
the Ogallala aquifer. Six states from Nebraska to Texas are
completely reliant on this aquifer, yet it is currently being
drained at a rate 50 times faster than it is naturally refilling. To
paint an even bleaker picture, we must consider the fact that
U.S. land west of the Rockies to the Pacific coast is arid and
agriculture in these areas depends almost exclusively on
irrigation. A significant portion of North America's fresh
produce is grown in this region.
Clearly the American water crisis is serious and under
increasing domestic pressure. With our abundance of water we
are the closest and most logical source of water for our
American neighbours. The Americans do and have looked to us
for water.
There have been at least 13 proposals for large scale
diversions of water to the U.S. from the Great Lakes. In B.C.
there are 19 Canadian companies that hold surface water
licences to bottle four million litres of water every day for the
American market. More than 30 companies have planned to
export fresh Canadian coastal water by supertanker.
One B.C. company was on the verge of negotiating a deal to
ship 12.4 billion litres of water to Santa Barbara, California, in
1990 at an estimated price of $34 million U.S. However the deal
was never finalized because of local contentious issues.
Last month Alberta announced its proposed water
conservation and management act which would make Alberta
the first province in Canada where water rights could be bought
and sold. This has been viewed by many as opening the door for
eventual exports of water to the U.S.
This motion is not about whether we should or should not
export water to the United States. However it is about our ability
to make decisions without losing sovereignty or control over our
water, ice and snow.
There are many arguments for or against water exports on
political, economic and environmental grounds. This motion is
about Canada's ability to maintain the right to choose how or if
we wish to market our water and Canada's right to maintain its
sovereignty over water in any given circumstance.
We must retain our ability to choose what we want to do with
our water, whether we want to sell it and, if so, we must retain
the ability to choose whether we wish to continue such
activities, particularly in times of shortage of our own domestic
water supply.
Economically it may make sense to market water to the
Americans or elsewhere some time down the road. However,
before these exports take place there must be an agreement with
the Americans that allows Canadians to proceed with water
exports without the threat of loss of control over that resource.
As it now stands Canada is vulnerable in the event of any
water exports or diversions. Despite our abundance of water it
would not be to our advantage to begin or enter into any major
water exports because our ability to control the use and planning
of that resource is undermined by the North American Free
Trade Agreement.
There has been a great deal of confusion regarding NAFTA
and water, particularly during the last election when the
agreement had not yet been signed. There are still many
problems with NAFTA and water rights and these concerns must
be addressed.
The main area of concern is that water is not one of the items
specifically exempted under the terms of NAFTA. Article 309
prohibits controls by Canada covering the sale or export of any
good destined for either the United States or Mexico. Water in
Canadian rivers and lakes is not mentioned in the export
prohibition that NAFTA directly sanctions, which means that
water will be freely exportable. Under NAFTA we cannot place
restrictions on our ability to sell water.
In addition, water is also subject to the same rules as tradable
goods under NAFTA and includes the right of national
treatment. This means Canada cannot give Canadians better
access to Canadian water than it gives to the Americans or the
Mexicans. The concern is that under NAFTA once water is
diverted to the U.S. it cannot be stopped even in times of our
own domestic shortage. Once we begin to sell our water to the
Americans our control over that resource is lost.
(1740)
Article 2101 of NAFTA requires that any trade restrictive
measure taken relating to the conservation of any exhaustible
natural resource, including water, be made effective in
conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or
consumption. In other words, any trade restrictive measures on
water must be applied on a national basis. If we are to cut back
on our water supplies to the Americans, we must take the same
cuts ourselves no matter what kind of domestic shortage we have
at home.
Under the present deal we cannot give ourselves any better
treatment regarding water than we do to our NAFTA partners.
9357
Whatever we charge ourselves for water must be in line with the
price we charge other NAFTA partners.
These restrictions place a heavy burden on Canada. Under the
present agreement it would be extremely unwise for Canadians
to enter into any large scale water exports with the Americans.
Personally I find it incredible that Canada actually agreed to
such restrictive terms in the first place.
Whether or not water was included in NAFTA negotiations is
unclear. Previous and current governments have argued and
continue to argue that we have not sold our rights to water in the
NAFTA. The argument or justification for the deal is that
Canada is not obliged to sell water to the U.S. under NAFTA.
This is just political banter because once we begin to sell we
cannot turn the tap off. Our sovereignty over water has clearly
been sold out in the present NAFTA.
No matter how we look at it, the truth is that we no longer have
the control to do as we choose with our water. It is a Pandora's
box, for once it is opened sovereignty is lost. The deal has placed
Canadians in a precarious position that must be addressed before
control of this resource is clearly lost.
Government legislation such as Bill C-156 sought to ban
large scale exports in 1988. However it died on the Order Paper
before being implemented.
The Prime Minister's pledge to prevent any large scale water
exports from taking place as long as he is Prime Minister made
in early November 1993 is meaningless without corresponding
backup legislation and a NAFTA subagreement. I challenge the
Prime Minister to back up his resolve to control Canadian water
with strong legislation ensuring sovereignty and control over
this precious resource, followed up with NAFTA negotiations to
ensure the same.
An additional point I wish to make is that these laws and any
future restrictions are completely redundant because NAFTA
states that no party may restrict the export of any good destined
for the territory of another party. Any domestic water policies
could also be shot down by a trade dispute panel as unacceptable
interference in the free market.
Clearly the only possible solution, if Canada is to maintain
sovereignty over water, is to negotiate a side agreement to
NAFTA that specifically exempts water from the terms of the
agreement.
Negotiations of the agreement regarding water were promised
by the Liberal government before the agreement was signed. Are
we about to see the Liberals fail to deliver on yet another
promise? I surely hope not.
Immediately after the last election, early in November of
1993, the Prime Minister publicly stated: ``It is time to talk
about Canada's desire to renegotiate aspects of the deal''. The
Prime Minister promised that he would not sign any
international or bilateral trade agreement that would oblige
Canada to export water.
Shortly after the election the Prime Minister guaranteed to
Canadians that ``water remains under the control of the
Canadian government''. He guaranteed that this was a fact and
promised to ``make sure it is like that''.
The Prime Minister went on to say that he had a message for
President Bill Clinton: ``Do not even dream that NAFTA gives
the United States unlimited access to Canadian water. That is
because water and the North American Free Trade Agreement do
not mix''. These are simply empty promises as the Prime
Minister has so far failed to follow through.
(1745 )
Canadians are still waiting for the government to live up to its
commitment. If water and NAFTA do not mix, why did the
Prime Minister sign the deal? And why has he made no effort to
negotiate these other aspects? The only justification the Prime
Minister and his trade minister had for signing the deal was that
nothing in NAFTA forces Canadians to sell a good that we do not
wish to sell.
It is true that NAFTA does not force us to sell our water.
However, NAFTA forces us to continue sales once we have
begun, and places severe restrictions on our ability to regulate
and control the marketing of our own resource. It is not enough
to have the power to make the decision to sell water. Canadians
must have the power to shut off the tap when it is felt necessary.
Once a decision is made to export water, future exports should
not be mandatory. It is simply not good enough for this
government to merely pledge to prevent the export of bulk water
to the U.S. as was done immediately after the NAFTA agreement
was signed in November 1993.
Canada caved in on an opportunity to provide special
protection for water in the original free trade pact with the U.S.
and should have taken the opportunity to make the necessary
amendments before signing the deal. It is still not too late to act.
I would like to point out that earlier this month Mexico
received a $20 billion aid package from the Americans to help
stabilize the Mexican peso, on the condition that credit lines be
guaranteed with Mexican oil export revenues. What does this
have to do with water, you ask.
Canada is in a similar situation to Mexico with the current
load Canada and Canadians are presently carrying. There are
predictions that Canada may require a bailout from the
Americans, and similar to American conditions on Mexican oil
exports, loans will undoubtedly put conditions on Canadian
resources, such as water.
9358
In conclusion, we desperately require a clear written
understanding that Canada has sole control over its water
resources. Canada must protect its sovereignty over water and
negotiate a side agreement to exclude water from NAFTA. This
issue is far too important to ignore.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very appreciative of the intervention by the
member for Comox-Alberni. I share his concern and the
government shares his concern for the maintenance of Canada's
riches, Canada's natural resources.
I also have some particular interest in this subject because it
touches an area in which professionally I have given it some
attention. It is of course true that sovereignty is the basic
constituent element of a state and sovereignty extends to its
territory, its land, the resources of that land both under and
above it, fixtures, to the air space above, and to the territorial
sea. It is elementary that sovereignty cannot be derogated from
except by the sovereign personality himself.
So to this extent Canada retains full sovereign rights unless
we ourselves choose freely to contract out of those and that
would be an obligation entered into under international law. It is
a fact that we have led in the international law related to
protection of natural resources, our own and also those of other
countries. We have been interested in clean air. We have
pioneered the treaties and the protection of the atmosphere. We
have led the way in the proper utilization of the law of the sea,
and its protection from pollution.
Also, I may say in pursuance of this, because not all states
have accepted our high standards, we have not merely
negotiated and led the way to international treaties and
multilateral treaties extending protection of the law of the sea,
but we have negotiated bilateral treaties with numbers of other
countries when the international or multilateral action was slow
in coming. For example, we have extended zones of 200 miles
from our coast, the better to exercise these international law
norms.
(1750 )
I mention this simply to say that Canadians have led in this
area. It was something very much in our minds when we
negotiated specific agreements with the United States in
relation to the Great Lakes, in relation to international waters,
international rivers. It was also very much in our minds when we
negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, the
trilateral agreement with Mexico and the United States.
It happens that during the election campaign in October 1993
this issue was raised in the public debates: Is there any
derogation from Canada's control over its natural resources,
over its water in particular by virtue of the NAFTA agreement.
This was something to which all candidates, certainly in my part
of the country, addressed themselves. The answer is very clear:
There is nothing in the NAFTA agreement itself derogating in
any way from our sovereign powers over our water resources.
However there is a point in international diplomacy and
international law in which for greater security one acts inaccord
with the Latin phrase, Mr. Speaker, and you and I both deplore,
as Lord Justice Denning called the attempt to fetter law by
recourse to Latinisms. I will quote the Latin phrase ex abundanti
cautela but I will repeat it in its essential, for greater assurance. I
said to those who asked me then: I will seek a clarifying
statement that makes assurance doubly sure. Immediately after
the election and in fact during the campaign, I asked the Prime
Minister if we could address ourselves to this and this is what
has been done.
A trilateral agreement was signed by the Prime Minister of
Canada, the President of the United States and the President of
Mexico. It is what is called a joint declaration. Annexed to the
NAFTA agreement is the joint declaration of December 2, 1993.
It says it very clearly and recites what is in any case I think as a
matter of interpretation clear in the NAFTA agreement itself.
The statement annexed to NAFTA establishes that NAFTA
creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party to
the agreement. Unless water in any form is entered into
commerce and becomes a good or a product it is not covered by
the provisions of any trade agreement including the NAFTA. I
could read the balance of this but I think therein is the essential.
What is the legal status of a joint declaration of this sort, a
statement annexed to the NAFTA agreement? I do not want to
bore you with technicalities but the fact is that what are called by
various names, joint declarations, agreed interpretations, joint
statements, provided they are signed by the parties to the
agreement become part of the agreement.
The best known example of this is of course the SALT I treaty,
the strategic arms limitation treaty of 1972 between the United
States and the Soviet Union. It has many, perhaps 30 such
declarations and agreed interpretations annexed to it, and they
are binding in terms of interpretation of the treaty.
I would simply say this to the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni. We are sensitive to his concern, which we
share, for the preservation of our great natural resources, for the
preservation of our water. There is nothing in NAFTA, nothing
in any international agreement to which Canada is party
derogating from our retention of full sovereign rights over water
within Canada, whether it be in lakes or whether it be in the
water supplies on mountain slopes unless and until it enters into
a commercial form, which means in this context, bottled. In this
situation it will not be subject to NAFTA arrangements. There is
no recourse to any one of the NAFTA arbitral or dispute
settlement procedures.
9359
I do not see any reason to go beyond this at this stage.
However, the government may at some future stage wish to
make declarations for purposes of Canadian internal needs of
this sort. However in international law we are fully protected.
Our sovereign rights are fully preserved.
(1755)
On that basis I would simply say again that I welcome the
expression of sentiment by the member for Comox-Alberni. I
share his views. I believe all members of the government do. I
do not believe though that there is any need for any further
action to be taken at this stage. I thank him again for his
thoughtful intervention.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni as he presented his motion. I also listened to the
remarks made by his colleague opposite, the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra.
Let me read the motion over, for the benefit of those who are
watching the debate:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should support a policy
that Canada's fresh water, ice and snow will be protected so that at all times and
in all circumstances Canada's sovereignty over water is preserved and
protected.
It is not the first time that this issue is raised in the House of
Commons. We will recall that in May 1991, Mr. Fulton, who was
a member then, presented a notice of motion asking for a
national water council to be established to control, among other
things, all freshwater export proposals. He was not the only
member involved in this debate.
In another notice of motion, the current Liberal member for
Davenport suggested that, in the opinion of the House, the
government should strengthen the federal water policy by
tabling a bill prohibiting the export of water by tanker, through a
channel, a new pipeline or by interbasin transfer.
(1800)
Clearly, this debate is not new. In fact, it goes back such a long
way that I would like to quote what the current Minister of
Human Resources Development, the hon. member for Winnipeg
South Centre, said in this House on Friday, May 28, 1993.
At the time, the minister was a member of the opposition. He
said: ``-we must afford national treatment to all goods and
services. Goods are defined as having the definition given under
the GATT. Article 2201 of the GATT defines natural water,
including ice and snow, as a good''.
He also said: ``If the United States sometime in the future,
next year or the year after, decides it wants to exercise its legal
right as contained in the agreements to require Canada to export
up to the proportion then it would supersede any policy that is
now on the books''.
Further on, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre
added: ``I think the very first item would be that the federal
goverment make it very explicit that the present moratorium on
water exports that the British Columbia government has
introduced is the policy of Canada. The federal government
should very clearly take an immediate position on that
question''.
We are now in a new Parliament. Last year, the governement,
with Mexico and the United States, issued a declaration on the
interpretation to be given to the terms of NAFTA. In essence,
that interpretation is as follows: NAFTA does not establish any
rights to the natural water resources of one of the parties. Water,
as found naturally in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers,
hydrographic basins, is not a good or a product, is not for sale,
and consequently is not and has never been covered by the terms
of any agreement. International rights and obligations
concerning natural water are set forth in separate treaties and
agreements, negotiated for that very purpose, such as the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the 1944 treaty signed by
the United States and Mexico.
However, this joint declaration by the three countries does not
mean that Canada has an overall policy regarding sovereignty
over water resources.
[English]
In short, Canada does not possess any policy on water
resource as a commodity.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, you know, as we all do, that Canada is the
country with the largest fresh water resources in the world. In
November 1987, the hon. Tom MacMillan, the then Minister of
the Environment, announced a federal policy on water
resources, clearly stating that the federal government was
opposed to large-scale exports of Canadian water. The minister
then introduced Bill C-156 to enact this commitment into law.
But since that bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was
dissolved on October 1, 1988, we do not have a policy at this
time.
According to the Constitution, jurisdiction over water
resources is shared between the federal and provincial
governments; in general, the provinces have jurisdiction over
natural resources, including water, within their borders.
However, the provinces' very wide jurisdiction over water
resources within their territory is limited by the specific powers
granted exclusively to the federal government, including
fisheries, shipping, relations with foreign governments, federal
lands, Indians, projects likely to benefit Canada in general, as
well as peace, order and good government for the country.
I might add for the benefit of my constituents that,
unfortunately, the federal government does not always live up to
its responsibilities regarding outboard motors on certain lakes,
as in the case of the unfortunate lakeside residents in Lac aux
Sables. Some problems are also emerging with respect to
9360
seaplane bases; I am, of course, talking about the people who
live along the shores of Lac Saint-Augustin.
But let us get back to water as a commodity. Canada currently
exports water to the U.S.; a network of canals carries the water
to population centres at the Canada-U.S. border and then on to
nearby communities in the U.S.
For instance, the water supply system in Coutts, Alberta
crosses the border to meet local needs in Sweetgrass, Montana.
Under another agreement, Gretna, Manitoba supplies Neche,
North Dakota with water. Similar arrangements exist between
St. Stephen, New Brunswick and Calais, Maine.
These cross-border water transportation systems are small in
scale and do not require inter-basin transfers. They offer a
practical way to rationalize local supply, so we are not talking
about exports as such. As for exports by water tankers, the
volumes contemplated at this time are insignificant.
The North American Water and Power Alliance project,
developed by a Californian engineering firm, was among the
major projects that attracted a great deal of attention. It would
have necessitated the diversion of water from the Mackenzie
and Yukon river systems, going south, through a passage in the
Rockies, down to the United States, to supply southwestern
states with irrigation water and produce hydro-electric power,
perhaps also create waterways. But this project, fortunately, was
never considered viable by the Canadian government or the
American government.
Another project, namely GRAND Canal, was first submitted
in 1959 and has been a focus of attention ever since. This project
calls for the impounding of James Bay to collect the waters
flowing from Ontario and Quebec rivers as well as the reversal
of 17 per cent of their flow towards the south. Water from the
Great Lakes would then be diverted to the southwestern part of
the U.S. and the arid zones of Western Canada.
Simon Reisman, at the time the chief negotiator for Canada in
the free trade talks with the United States, and former Quebec
Premier Robert Bourassa championed this water diversion
project. But opponents of the project argued that its benefits
were purely theoretical and that even its economic impact could
be negative.
(1805)
In the 1985 report, the authors of the study on federal water
policy pointed out that transfers between basins, like any other
major water development project, cause major changes in the
environment by interrupting the flow of waterways, flooding
regions, transferring forms of life and even modifying
conditions in the atmosphere and the oceans. The ultimate
consequences of these changes are unpredictable.
We believe that federal criteria should emphasize the federal
and national interests to be considered in a framework policy on
the water resource. Factors to be considered would include:
first, the consequences for the fisheries and navigation in
federal waters, international waters and waters under more than
one jurisdiction; second, international considerations of an
economic, political and strategic nature; third, the possible
impact on the capability of our water reserves to meet the
long-term needs of Canadians and Quebecers, bearing in mind
the lack of certainty about those needs and the cumulative effect
of exports at the regional and national level; fourth, the impact
on the environment and the economy at the regional level; fifth,
the consequences for aboriginal people and other social groups
and the size of compensation payments in the event of adverse
effects; and finally, the general economic benefits for Canada.
How we should manage our water resources is a very timely
question. It was raised this evening, and now we must decide
what the answer will be.
[English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about Canadian
sovereignty over water.
More than any other country Canada is blessed with an
abundance of fresh water. Water is a fundamental part of our
heritage. It provides the basis for much of our industrial
activities. Our lakes and rivers along with the snow and ice of
winter provide recreational opportunities for Canadians and
support a thriving tourism industry.
The preservation and protection of our water resources is a
matter of vital concern to all Canadians. The issue of large scale
exports of fresh water has been the subject of public debate at
various times over the last three decades within Canada.
Concern has focused on proposals such as the grand canal and
proposals to divert water from British Columbia to California.
However, no scheme for the large scale diversion of Canadian
fresh water across the border has won the support of any level of
government within Canada.
More recently concern has been expressed that first the free
trade agreement and then NAFTA diminish Canada's
sovereignty over its water by obliging us to sell water to the
United States.
I would like to make it clear that the Government of Canada
considers sovereignty over our valuable water resources a
fundamental principle that must and will continue to be upheld.
The Canadian government will not support any plans for the
export of water through independent transfer or diversion from
the Great Lakes or from any other water body.
9361
Small scale exports such as bottled water must meet the
environmental requirements of both the federal and provincial
governments. Steps have been taken to ensure that Canada
retains full control over the use of water in all its forms.
For example, the federal water policy approved by cabinet in
1987 provides a strong expression of Canada's intention to
maintain sovereignty over its water. The federal water policy
states that the government will permit no large scale water
exports. It also provides for the federal and provincial
governments to work together to develop a licensing return for
small scale water exports.
(1810)
To ensure federal responsibilities for environmental
protection and international trade are taken into account,
regarding the NAFTA it is the position of the Government of
Canada that Canada's sovereignty over its water resources is in
no way diminished.
Under the NAFTA Canada maintains complete discretion over
the exploitation and use of its water. The NAFTA does not oblige
any partners to exploit its water for commercial use, sell it to
other countries or export water from its lakes or rivers. Thus
Canada has no obligation to export water under the NAFTA
agreement.
The NAFTA applies only to water that has entered into
commerce and has become a good or a product such as bottled
water or water in tanker trucks. Water packaged as beverage or
in tanks is the reference in section 7 of the Canadian
implementing legislation for the NAFTA.
On December 2, 1993 the governments of Canada, Mexico
and the United States as parties to the NAFTA issued a statement
confirming that NAFTA does not oblige any of the parties to
export water. Here is what the trilateral statement has to say
about water:
The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party to
the agreement.
Unless water, in any form, has entered in the commerce and become a good or
product, it is not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement, including
the NAFTA. And nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA party to
either exploit its water for commercial use or begin exporting water in any form.
Water in its natural state in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, waterbasins and
the like is not a good or product, is not traded, and therefore is not and never has
been subject to the terms of any trade agreement.
Clearly the Government of Canada has been vigilant in
protecting our precious supply of water in all its forms. I can
assure the House that Canada will continue to preserve and
protect its sovereignty over water resources.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at least I will
get the last word this way.
I want to basically develop a case for the importance of water.
Many of the speakers who have gone before agree this is
certainly an important commodity in this country. We have to
really address the question of protecting Canada's sovereignty
over this water. Again it is an example of where Canada has
shown leadership but needs to continue its vigilance and its
leadership.
The member for Vancouver Quadra introduced some of our
leadership in the law of the sea, the Great Lakes clean-up and all
of those examples. However, he then closed by saying that we do
not need any action. I really disagree with that comment. Action
is essential to ensure this valuable resource maintains its
position and that we retain our sovereignty over it.
We should not take this commodity for granted. In the future
demand is going to do nothing but increase. Anybody who has
gone to California might know, as the member who introduced
this bill mentioned, the aquifer being drained at 50 times its
replacement in California and the central U.S. is a major
problem. Anyone can look at the Colorado River and see what
has happened there to realize that California is short of water.
California has a population of 32 million and because of that the
demand for water is only going to increase. I think it is
reasonable to say that the price of water will be greater than the
price of oil or gas down the road some time.
Since Canada has a major supply of fresh water, it is essential
for humans, for agriculture, for industry, for our future
well-being that we preserve this water.
(1815 )
I would like to talk a little bit about the preservation and then
what I see as being threats to the sovereignty and control of this
water. It is a renewable resource but it is only renewable if it is
managed properly. Groundwater is renewed by rainfall and by
snow melt. It can, however, be very quickly overused and the
aquifers can disappear. There are many examples where aquifers
that were once very productive have gone down dramatically. I
mention the central U.S. as the biggest example.
Certainly agricultural and industrial uses put a severe drain on
aquifers. In many cases, permits are given without looking at the
big picture. One more project is approved and then one more
project and then another. No management is involved until a
disaster occurs.
One of the contaminators of our water supplies is industry. It
has improved a lot, but we can see what happens when we do not
manage it simply by looking at the Great Lakes and what we did
there.
Of particular interest to me are landfill sites. All across
Canada we are implementing more and more landfills. We have
the time bombs from the past that are leaching into our
groundwater. We are installing new landfills but we say they are
okay because we are putting liners in them. The only problem is
the liners are only good for 25 years. The leachate collection
system plugs up and we do not know what will happen after 25
years. Experts are now telling us that contaminants could leach
from those landfill sites into our groundwater for 800 years.
Cana-
9362
dians had better take note of this and had better start managing
this resource much better.
I foresee a federal umbrella organization to provide the
information, the technology, the collection of that technology.
The provinces would then be involved in the actual distribution
of this information, with the municipalities delivering the
service. We must have this organization or this resource will be
lost.
We need to look at our rivers and our streams. We need to look
at the protection of our watershed areas. Logging, recreation and
development are having a great impact on our watersheds.
Above all, I again emphasize the government's involvement in
this.
We are not moving very far in this direction and I would
encourage the Minister of the Environment to get involved now.
I am glad the member put this forward so we can talk about water
again. The last member who spoke indicated how significant he
felt it was. Certainly the member from the Bloc who spoke
indicated a real understanding of this as a resource.
Let us manage it then and let us not let things like pollution,
sewage problems, industrial waste problems, landfill problems
and the lack of planning that destroyed the Great Lakes literally
and will take who knows how long to revive, happen in the
future.
What are the two major problems facing Canada in 1995?
They can be related to the sovereignty of water. Two things
should be thought about here. Number one is the Quebec
situation. One might ask how that relates to water and its
sovereignty.
One thing I have heard very little talk about is the St.
Lawrence Seaway and the St. Lawrence River. Who controls this
waterway? Who has sovereignty over it? Is it Canada? Could it
be Quebec? Could it be the U.S.? This is something that the
Quebec people should be asking Mr. Parizeau and the
federalists. Let us talk about this issue. Let us talk about the
potential threat that the negotiations over this major seaway
could have in relation to the whole issue of Quebec. I see that as
being a threat.
(1820 )
Hydroelectric power could relate to water. The member from
the Bloc mentioned there have been proposals for draining water
from Quebec and Ontario into the United States.
The second major issue relating to this is the debt and deficit.
That has already been touched on. How does that affect water
sovereignty? Let me put this scenario to you.
If the Minister of Finance fails to make the necessary cuts or
raises taxes causing a financial crisis, and there will be a
financial crisis if he fails to deal with the problems we have right
now, what might be the reaction? A great deal of our debt is held
by U.S. creditors. The IMF literally becomes a receiver if
Canada becomes insolvent. We have seen what happened to
Mexico. That has been mentioned as well. The Americans are
tough to deal with, they are hard dealers. They put on conditions
and say: ``You will perform this way''. Mexico has lost its
sovereignty because of the $50 billion bailout that Mr. Clinton
arranged.
These are concerns we should be thinking about. It is fairly
obvious that if our creditors decide to call their loans the one
thing that 32 million people in one state in the United States
need is water. It seems kind of far fetched and does not seem
possible.
We have heard about inter-basin transfers but that is not
possible. Fifty years ago there was a project in Alberta called
Prime that I was a bit involved with. It was a plan to drain water
from Alberta down to California. The idea is there, it is on the
table. If we in fact do become insolvent water will be one thing
that will be called for as a way to repay some of our debt. When
you are in debt you really do not have much choice. I see that as a
threat to our sovereignty.
In conclusion, Canada must deal with its debt and deficit. It
must deal with the Quebec situation and ask about the St.
Lawrence Seaway. We must not sign long term deals.
The British Columbia power situation where long term deals
were signed is a good example of what happens if you sell the
farm too soon. A side deal must be negotiated in NAFTA so that
we will never start shipping water to the U.S. As has been
pointed out although there is no obligation to start, once started
there is no cutting back. It cannot be reversed. The Prime
Minister promised but he did not keep that promise.
I believe we must control this resource. We are going to leave
future generations a debt. Let us not leave them the loss of a
valuable resource like water.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at a recent town hall
meeting this issue was raised along with the deficit and the debt.
I asked the audience that if we closed the borders to the U.S. and
closed the borders to Canada so that there were no exports or
imports, no exchange of goods and services, which country
would last longer? Some constituents said naturally the U.S.
because of its wealth, et cetera, that it is an influential
superpower.
After a bit of discussion everyone in the audience agreed that
Canada would last much longer. Why? Because of our resources.
What is the most important resource? Water. In a way I am
pleased that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has raised
this issue. It has given us a forum to debate.
I wish that the Reform Party would not use fear tactics on the
Canadian people. The issue of the export of water was raised
during the free trade debate. It was calmed down. Then it
resurfaced during the NAFTA debate. People got an answer and
9363
they were satisfied. Now the Reform has raised this fear tactic
again.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the secretary of
state quoted a statement from NAFTA that the three countries
signed. I will repeat it for the Reform Party so they can pass it on
to their constituents. ``The NAFTA creates no rights to the
natural water resources of any party to the agreement''. It cannot
be more clear than that. ``Unless water, in any form, has entered
into commerce and become a good or product'' and the
Secretary of State quoted the whole statement signed by Canada,
Mexico and the United States. I do not know what further
guarantee we want.
(1825)
The follow-up speaker for the Reform Party compared
Canada with Mexico. Again another fear tactic. Surely to
goodness we do not in this House get up and compare Canada
with Mexico. We have a strong Canadian dollar. It fluctuates,
yes, but please do not compare the Canadian dollar with the
peso.
Again, fear tactics are being used. I can assure the hon.
member and I can assure Canadians that the policies we have in
place do allow for the export of bottled water. What is wrong
with that? We import water from Italy. We import water from
France. We import water from Poland and from the U.S. They
buy our water. I see nothing wrong with that.
We also have protection against re-routing rivers, et cetera.
There is protection there. I do not know what further protection
there could be.
The hon. member complained that the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra finished off his debate by saying that we do
not need any action. He said that no action is needed at the
moment because of the legislation and the agreements that are in
place now. He did not say that we do not need any action. Canada
is continually vigilant and it has an excellent track record in
initiating and pushing multilateral treatments such as the law of
the sea.
Being born and raised in Saskatchewan I appreciate the value
of water. We had plenty of well water in Saskatchewan, all we
wanted, but we did not have any soft water. The only soft water
we could get was what we caught from rainwater and spring
snow to put into the cistern. One day the children, my brothers
and I, were playing with the rainwater and we wasted almost a
whole barrel. When Dad came home from town you know what
we got. It was the belt he sharpened his razor on and we got it
across the buttocks. That is how precious soft water was in
Saskatchewan at the time.
That reminds me to this day how vigilant we have to be, and
the government is. Even in the Arctic. The ice caps are water.
Look at what happened when the U.S. dumped its submarines in
the Arctic. We know how easily the Arctic can affect the
environment of the whole hemisphere.
The hon. member knows we addressed that issue when we
were reviewing our foreign policy. Hopefully the committee in
planning its future work will address the whole issue of water,
not only water in H2O form but also water in ice form, in ice
caps on the mountains, in the air, et cetera.
If all three parties in this House co-operate I do not think we
need any change in our present guarantees. That does not mean
we should not be vigilant. From that standpoint I thank the hon.
member for raising this in the form of a private member's
motion so that we could have this debate in this House.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, shall we call it 6.30
p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: As no other member wishes to speak
and since this was not chosen as a votable motion, the hour
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business
has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, this item is
dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9363
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on December 14, 1994, I questioned the Minister
of Justice on four orders in council concerning prohibited
weapons. January 1, 1995 was the infamous date that those
orders were to become effective, much to the dismay of many
honest gun owners in Canada.
It is common knowledge that many Canadians are upset with
the minister's gun control package. The minister is feeling the
heat from his own colleagues in the Liberal caucus who are
against the intrusive gun control that he promised in his
announcement.
In my question I referred to two court decisions, Repa and the
Queen, 1982, and Theodore Pierce Simmermon and the Queen,
1993. In both cases the presiding judge made a ruling that the
weapons order was invalid because it was not subjected to
parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with section 116(2) of the
Criminal Code:
The Minister of Justice shall lay or cause to be laid before each House of
Parliament, at least thirty sitting days before its effective date, every regulation
that is proposed to be made under subsection (1); and every appropriate
committee as determined by the rules of each House of Parliament may conduct
inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report
its findings to the appropriate House.
9364
Recently a third case has been heard in the courts, this time in
British Columbia, Regina v. Martinoff. Vancouver provincial
court judge H.J. McGivern followed the decision of the Alberta
case.
In December I clearly asked the minister to explain to this
House why he had not complied with this section of the code.
Instead of answering my question, the minister went on to tell
me that the orders in council were made under section 84 of the
Criminal Code which does not require the sort of procedure
outlined in section 116(2).
I understand the Criminal Code very well and I know that
under section 84 the minister can initiate orders in council
without the inclusion of a reference to Parliament as is set out in
section 116(2).
However, I do not understand how the minister can cast a
blind eye to three court cases in Canada that have overruled
orders in council under section 84. What is the minister scared
of by bringing such orders before the House and before an
appropriate committee?
The minister stated in his response to me with respect to the
case in Alberta that judgment was wrong in that respect and that
he will succeed in the appeal. Clearly the minister should not be
making a public evaluation on a specific case if the case is in the
appellate division of the court. Rather, it should be the duty of
the minister to look at the various courts and make decisions and
comments based on the momentum of rulings.
The Liberal government prides itself on consultation
processes and discussion papers. It has produced so many of
them it is running out of colours to name these papers.
The Reform Party has always promoted consultation but only
if there is a conclusion to the discussion. Why is it that a
government supposed to be keen on openness did not discuss the
topic of prohibited weapons?
Before the parliamentary secretary scribbles down an answer
to tell me that there was an emergency for the overall safety of
Canada, I want to fill him in on a few of the statistics taken from
a survey of causes of death in Canada.
Statistics Canada in 1992, and it is about the same now, said
that 155,746 people died of diseases, 90 per cent of all deaths in
Canada. For example 3,437 died in car accidents, 2 per cent of
all deaths. Thirteen hundred and fifty-eight died of AIDS, .7 per
cent of all deaths. Two hundred and forty-seven died of
homicides caused by firearms, that is, .14 per cent of all deaths.
Sixty-three died of gun accidents, .03 of all deaths.
In addition, let me point out that based on these statistics it is
336 per cent more likely that a male will die as result of a gun
than will a female.
The minister needs to put his priorities in the right place. He
needs to let Parliament and therefore the people who elected us
as members of Parliament to evaluate if certain firearms should
be banned or prohibited.
I do not have a great amount of time but I want to ask the
minister several specific questions and would greatly appreciate
clear and precise answers. With three court cases before him,
will the minister acknowledge that these are not isolated cases
but rather cases of significance and bearing and that his decision
to proceed with orders under section 84 was wrong and ill fated?
When a clear procedure is outlined, why would the minister
make every effort to avoid it, thus causing further complications
in the courts? Why would he not even live up to the spirit and the
intent of Parliament? Given that in the end broad public support
and co-operation is required for gun regulations to work, why
would the minister risk his whole package in the public spirit of
co-operation just to prove an obscure procedural point?
Will the minister call back the orders in council and resubmit
them under section 116(2) enabling wider consultation and an
honest democratic process?
(1835 )
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the issue appears to stem from an interpretation of
section 116 of the Criminal Code.
Through orders in council adopted pursuant to section 84 of
the code, firearms may become prohibited or restricted.
It seems that in one case with which I am familiar, the case of
Simmermon decided by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, it
was ruled that these orders in council must be subjected to the
procedure provided by section 116(2) of the code.
According to the section regulations made pursuant to section
116(1) must be laid before each House of Parliament at least 30
sitting days before they are to become effective so that public
hearings may be conducted. It appears that the court felt that
orders in council made under the authority of section 84 of the
Criminal Code are also regulations adopted pursuant to section
116(1).
I understand that it is the view of the Attorney General of
Alberta that this is not the appropriate interpretation and that an
appeal of that Alberta Queen's Bench decision has been
launched.
I was pleased to note that the Minister of Justice in his reply to
the hon. member observed quite correctly in my view that orders
in council made under the provisions of section 84(1) of the
Criminal Code do not fall within the ambit of section 116 of the
code.
9365
The minister made his position quite clear: ``Although there
is a judicial decision of the trial court which holds that it is
necessary even under section 84 to lay the regulations before
the House, that decision is under appeal to the appellate
division of the court in Alberta. We have every confidence the
judgment was wrong in that respect and that we will succeed
in the appeal''.
Given the case is before the courts it would obviously be
inappropriate to comment further other than to reaffirm our
confidence that the court of appeal will rule that the making of
orders in council pursuant to section 84 of the Criminal Code is
not governed by the regulation making power of section 116 of
the code.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
December I asked the President of the Treasury Board for his
assurance that Bill C-62, the Regulatory Efficiency Act, would
not apply to the Fisheries Act or any other legislation which
protects the environment. The minister replied that it is not the
purpose of the bill to compromise environmental protection.
Although the proposed legislation is not intended to harm the
environment, health or safety, the adoption of Bill C-62 would
fundamentally alter the very structure through which
regulations are both created and enforced. In other words, Bill
C-62 poses a threat to what we have developed over decades in
the form of national regulatory standards.
If regulation has become outdated or irrelevant, then let us
change it. Apparently over the next two years 250 regulations
are to be repealed and another 400 will undergo major revisions
as a result of the findings in the 1992-93 regulatory review.
Review of existing regulations will make the regulatory system
more efficient but it will not threaten the fundamental premise
of regulation making namely that regulations apply to everyone,
rich and poor, regardless of influence or power.
Under Bill C-62, however, any minister would negotiate
separate compliance agreements with any business or individual
and replace designated regulations. It will be between the
respective minister and individual applicant, not between
Parliament and the Canadian public that individual agreements
will be approved.
In addition, in certain cases where trade secrets are involved
or if the agreements contain information which could threaten a
company's competitive position, then secrecy would be
invoked. Gradually then we can see how the regulatory system
would change and we would face a situation over time in which
there would be a standard for those who can afford law firms and
consultants and another for those who cannot.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has stated that
made to measure regulations as proposed in this bill would save,
mostly to big business, over $3 billion a year. Treasury Board
has pointed to these projected benefits but seems to have
overlooked the cost side of the equation.
The proposed bill if enacted would lead to thousands of
agreements. What will then be the cost to the public for
approving, monitoring and enforcing such agreements?
In times of fiscal restraint does the government really want to
establish a two-tier system of regulations based on separate
negotiated agreements? Would that be in the public interest?
Will approving, monitoring and enforcing thousands of
individual compliance agreements further our quest for better
levels of enforcement and standards?
Canadians by far prefer one regulatory system, one that
applies equally to all, a regulatory system that leads to better
results in the public interest. For this reason I ask whether the
minister would withdraw the legislation and instead produce a
white paper for public discussion.
In the meantime the Minister of Justice plans to introduce
amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act very soon. The
amendments are to simplify and accelerate the regulatory
process and offer a better channel for achieving regulatory
efficiency in an equitable and comprehensive manner.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill is
but one part of the government's overall approach to regulatory
reform.
Over the past year we have been actively reviewing some
40,000 pages of regulations and moving to change hundreds of
the most obsolete and problematic regulations in the next year.
No longer will trains have to have spittoons, for example.
As well, we will be bringing in changes shortly to the
Statutory Instruments Act that will create a more efficient and
less time consuming way of developing and changing
regulations. That is the second part of our plan for regulatory
reform.
Bill C-62 is a third part of our program. What we are trying to
do here is to create a tool for use in special circumstances only,
where an individual or a company feels it can achieve the goals
of regulation but wants to do so in a manner that is not exactly as
laid out in a particular set of technical regulations.
We have carefully and painstakingly crafted these tools to
make sure they do their job without reducing the protection that
environmental or other regulations give the Canadian public. I
would like to point out that the bill is one of the first pieces of
process legislation ever tabled in the House of Commons that
enshrines as an inviolate and absolute principle the goal of
sustainable development.
9366
It is the environmental movement, I point out, that has been
at the forefront in recent years in urging governments to include
sustainable development as a legislative principle. The act we
are talking about explicitly does this. It says that no agreements
can be approved under the act in any area whatsoever, unless
it is considered with the goals of sustainable development,
period.
[Translation]
The measures proposed in this bill are optional.
[English]
If the Minister of the Environment does not want to use them
with respect to any set of regulations, she does not have to do
anything, thereby effectively exempting those regulations from
the application of the bill.
The bill is truly a democratic innovation. It will allow
individuals, whether farmers, union members, taxpayers or even
politicians, to force the government to examine its own
regulations. From a common sense point of view it will force
departments to look closely at possibly rigid, inflexible and
often outdated rules to see if there is a better, cheaper and more
sensible way to do things.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), a
motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.43 p.m.)