CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 16, 1995
Bill C-326. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 12643
Motion for concurrence in second report 12643
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12646
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 165; Nays, 35 12648
(Motion agreed to.) 12649
Bill C-87. Motion for second reading 12649
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 12651
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12653
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 12660
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred tocommittee.) 12667
Bill C-86. Motion for second reading 12667
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12669
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12670
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 12671
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 12672
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 12673
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 12673
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 12673
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12674
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12675
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12675
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12676
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12678
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12678
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12679
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12679
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12679
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12679
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12680
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12681
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12681
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12682
Bill C-86. Consideration of motion resumed 12682
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12682
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12690
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12691
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12692
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12698
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12699
Bill C-319. Motion for second reading 12701
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12705
Division on motion deferred 12709
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12710
12643
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 16, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-326, an act to amend the
Canada Post Corporation Act (membership of board of
management).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is simply to
ensure that, in the future, Canada Post Corporation will consider
regional development in fulfilling its mandate. We realized that
this corporation was very focused on production and did not
necessarily take into account the development of each part of the
country.
Changing the membership of the board of management would
ensure representation from every province and territory in
Canada. This would also prevent the concentration that may
occur when the people sitting on Canada Post's board of
management look after their own interests instead of those of
people from the various provinces. That is the purpose of this
bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing
Committee on Industry presented to the House on Tuesday,
October 18, 1994 be concurred in.
It is with considerable pleasure that I rise to debate this
motion. The committee had a very successful time in debating
various parts of the access to capital for small business. Many of
the things we talked about had to do with the lending
institutions, in particular the chartered banks, trust companies,
credit unions and groups of that sort.
The committee came up with 22 distinct recommendations.
This is what we are talking about. The recommendations that the
committee came forth with are the ones that ought to be
concurred in. It is a pleasure for me to say that the banks have
already moved in some of those directions.
(1010)
Take for example recommendation No. 3. The committee
recommends that the joint Industry Canada committee in
consultation with the Canadian Bankers Association draft a code
of conduct. It would explain to customers in plain language the
information a loan applicant must disclose. There would be a
clear explanation of reasons for refusing a loan, a commitment
to guide customers to alternative sources of financing, and a
commitment to provide an internal complaints handling
mechanism.
The Canadian Bankers Association met with the committee in
the earlier part of this year. It indicated clearly to us that it had
established that kind of code of conduct. At first the association
said it would be very difficult if not impossible to bring about
some kind of standard of behaviour as far as treating the
customers and the banks were concerned.
A lot of information is available now. It has been exchanged
among the various branches of the banks. In addition to that,
what is called an ADR which is a dispute resolution mechanism
has been brought into being. It is an alternate dispute resolution
mechanism that has been brought into being.
The committee also suggested that perhaps this was not good
enough. It thought that probably there ought to be an
independent ombudsman established. Recommendation No. 5
reads as follows:
The committee recommends that the government establish an independent
office of the bank ombudsman to investigate complaints of breach of duty or
maladministration by the banks. As in the United Kingdom, the ombudsman
should have the power to require banks to pay compensation to complainants
for financial loss, inconvenience and stress.
The experience of the banks in Britain where this independent
ombudsman has been operating for a number of years has been
very salutary. It has helped small business people. It has helped
various other people in the business world to deal with their
12644
banks more successfully. It has also made the banks a little more
humane in the way they deal with their customers.
When we brought this to the attention of the Canadian
Bankers Association, it thought that perhaps there should not be
an independent ombudsman who is outside the banking
community but rather it should appoint its own ombudsman.
The Toronto-Dominion Bank has one of those people who
was the leader in the Canadian chartered banking industry to do
just that. It is apparently working very well.
It is interesting to note that the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce now has this kind of person on a full salary at the
senior vice-president level. This person deals with complaints
that various business people have with regard to their loans or
other operations with regard to the bank.
There are other recommendations from the committee as well.
We need to recognize that the committee proposes to continue
monitoring small business access to capital by calling one or
more banks as witnesses every quarter to review their
performance in lending to small businesses. That process has
begun.
The banks have indicated that indeed their performance with
regard to lending money to small businesses has improved. At
least they are prepared to tell the committee what exactly their
operation is with regard to these activities.
We go beyond that. We have asked the superintendent of
financial institutions together with Statistics Canada and the
Bank of Canada to develop a new format for the collection,
compilation and publication of statistics on bank lending to
small business. These statistics should be based not only on the
size and type of loan but also on the nature of the borrower,
including gender, employment, sales, major sector of operations
and municipality. These statistics should be reported quarterly.
It was very interesting to watch the reaction of the banks to
this recommendation. They first said: ``That is impossible. We
cannot give you those kinds of numbers. We do not have those
kinds of numbers. It would be a horrendous expenditure in order
to give you these kinds of numbers. It cannot be done''.
(1015)
It is a great pleasure for me to report that in the quarterly
review at the end of April the banks not only said they have the
information, they are prepared to give it to the office of the
superintendent of financial institutions and to the committee.
That is a great move forward. It shows the kind of concurrence
that we see in the industry which the committee had in mind in
the first place.
It is not so much what the government does, it is what industry
does which makes business run better. In the final analysis
business makes this country run. Government provides the
opportunity, the environment and the parameters within which
business can operate more easily, more fluidly, more efficiently,
more effectively and more successfully.
We need to recognize it is not government that creates
employment, it is not government that makes the economy grow,
it is business that makes the economy grow. In particular, it is
small business that makes the economy grow. In the last five
years 85 per cent of new jobs created in Canada were created by
small business. Let us recognize the significance that small
business has in the Canadian economy.
The committee goes on to suggest leasing should be
encouraged. It urges the government to ensure that tax measures
and other programs do not discriminate against this method of
financing. There are situations in which the government through
its income tax policy has discouraged this form of financing
small business.
Often small businesses do not have the capital resources to
expend huge amounts of money for the financing of capital
expenditures. Very often, if they can lease the equipment, it is
far more salutary and allows them to get on with their business.
The money would be available for the operation, rather than
having it tied up in capital expenditures or equity.
The committee goes on to recommend that the federal
government establish a limited working capital guarantee for
small and medium sized business exporters. Such a program
should be self-financing and priced in a manner that is
commensurate with the risk. Too often it seems to have been the
philosophy or the modus operandi of governments that in order
to help business they should give them something.
The committee does not agree that is what should happen. The
government should create the environment which we talked
about a moment ago and allow them to finance their businesses.
If businesses need seed capital, that should be returned at a rate
of interest which is commensurate with the risk involved in that
particular situation.
We also need to recognize that the reference is to exporters,
particularly small business exporters. Today most exports are by
a very small number of businesses. I believe that approximately
100 businesses control 85 per cent of the export market. In other
words, small business has not had as large a portion of the export
market as it should have. If it did it would help the Canadian
economy to grow. It would increase the global participation and
competition of Canadian business in the world marketplace.
12645
The report goes on to suggest that the government review the
Small Businesses Loans Act. To the credit of the government,
that is exactly what it has done. It ought to be commended for
that. It has begun to concur with the recommendations of the
report. If I remember correctly, the Small Businesses Loans Act
ceiling was moved from $3 billion to $12 billion. The only
difficulty is that in the past the government has had to write
off about $100 million in bad loans. Does that mean that with
a ceiling of $12 billion the bad loans will increase to four times
that amount?
(1020 )
There have been, from the small business associations and
also from the bankers, some concern that some of the provisions
of the new small loans act amendments create an additional
charge which may discourage some of the small businesses from
taking advantage of the provisions of the small loans act as it has
been amended.
Therefore we need to be very careful that when one moves to
concur in these kinds of recommendations that one not move in
such a way that the operation of implementing that
recommendation mitigates against the purpose, intent and spirit
of that recommendation.
The committee recommends further that the mandate of the
Federal Business Development Bank be confirmed and
refocused as a complementary lender to small and medium sized
businesses and that it be authorized to use new financial
instruments to fulfil its mandate.
I am sure members of the House noticed that yesterday the
Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-91. The effect of that bill
is to do precisely what this recommendation suggests be done.
That makes a committee feel its work is very significant and has
not been ignored. The government has recognized the hard work
of the committee.
We need to recognize in detail exactly how the business
development bank, under the new name of the business
development bank of Canada, will operate. Will the operations
of that bank become an extension of the Canadian federal
treasury or, as the minister implied yesterday, will the capital
used for loans come from private sources of one kind or another.
The new sources of capital that the Business Development
Bank of Canada needs to look at is that money that exists in the
private sector today and money that can be patient, particularly
for new, innovative ventures. It should also include the high tech
areas where the science and technology involved in those
businesses is very far reaching, very expensive and does not
create an immediate return. It requires a lot of seed capital for
the intellectual background, the experimentation, the building
of prototypes and things of that sort before it actually goes into
active and profitable production.
The Federal Business Development Bank, or under the new
name of the business development bank of Canada, could form
and fill a particular niche in our economy.
The difficulty we need to guard against is it not becoming
another crown corporation that is a drain on the taxpayer. It
should be a self-sufficient, self-financing organization. To
date, the operation of the Federal Business Development Bank
has been a profitable venture and that needs to be continued in
the future. I hope that the kinds of things that Bill C-91
envisages will indeed take place in that regard.
However, we are not done yet. This committee did a lot of
very hard work. It dealt not only with the chartered banks which
it said are doing a reasonably good job. It could do a lot better in
some places but is that not true of all of us? We can all improve.
We would like to get the banks to take their responsibilities and
carry out their mandates a little bit better.
I now want to move outside the banks and into the trust and
loan companies. The committee recommends that the trust and
loan companies act be amended to remove the arbitrary capital
requirements for the establishment of a trust company and the
acquisition of full commercial lending powers. The
superintendent of financial institutions should instead establish
guidelines setting out conditions for the establishment of new
federally chartered trust companies and for the acquisition of
full commercial lending powers. Institutions meeting these
guidelines would be able to operate in Canada and make
commercial loans using the prudent portfolio approach.
(1025)
It is precisely on the last phrase ``using the prudent portfolio
approach'' that I wish to spend a few moments. In the last
number of years we have seen the collapse of some very major
financial institutions, one of which was Confederation Life, that
probably everyone in the House remembers only too well.
I remember the appearance before the committee of the
superintendent of financial institutions and the questions the
committee members asked this individual. How was it possible
that a major financial institution like this could collapse in
Canada? It is very serious when such an institution collapses.
The superintendent of financial institutions has come under
the scrutiny of the auditor general. On Friday of this week he
was reported as saying in the Financial Post: ``The auditor
general and Ottawa's financial institutions watchdog are at
odds''. We have the auditor general on the one hand and the
superintendent of financial institutions on the other at odds over
when federal regulators should intervene to deal with troubled
Canadian trust and insurance companies.
The superintendent of financial institutions has been given
the responsibility by Parliament on behalf of the people of
12646
Canada to assure the financial soundness of banking
institutions, insurance companies, credit unions and various
other financial institutions.
The auditor general has been given the responsibility to
investigate how successfully the office of the superintendent is
doing its job. The superintendent specifically says: ``I and the
auditor general do not agree what my job is''. Who is going to do
the job, the auditor general or the superintendent of financial
institutions?
The article goes on to explain what some of the issues might
be. For example, the auditor general portrayed OSFI as
sometimes being too slow to intervene with financial companies
in trouble. The superintendent of financial institutions, John
Palmer, who assumed the post last September, disputed the
regulatory approach and said: ``Your officials appear to favour a
more mechanical system in which specific regulatory
intervention would be required when specific numerical
thresholds are violated. In our view it is essential to preserve the
role of judgment in determining how and when to intervene''.
If the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is to exercise
judgment without looking at the numbers, there is no question
that can put us into a lot of potential difficulty. This is a good
example of where an individual needs a very hard head to
understand the numbers and to make sure that the balance
statements, the equity position and the financial situation of
financial institutions are sound.
However, he needs to show a compassion that recognizes
when situations have developed, when conditions have changed.
He needs to be somewhat kind and give them some time to
balance the sheet again if there is an indication a change can take
place and the institution can become financially solvent if he
had a little patience. It should never be done without a very hard
headed look at the dollars and cents and to make sure the
institution is sound and that management is capable of turning
the institution around.
In the last little while we have seen financial institutions
which were on the brink of bankruptcy long before anything was
done to call them to account.
(1030 )
It is to the credit of some of the other people who are coming
back now and saying that the confederation life policy holders
are to get back 70 cents on the dollar and that perhaps in some
cases they will get back substantially more. It is absolutely
tremendous that this can happen in Canada. The critical
situation is that this should never have been be allowed to
happen in the first place. That is why we need to concur in the
recommendations this committee has brought forward.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask my colleague for a point of clarification
regarding his reference to FBDB.
Many times in the House we hear discussions with regard to
regional development grants from the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, FORD-Quebec, and western economic
diversification. What is his feeling about the role of these
regional economic development agencies and that of FBDB?
Could they be rolled into one or is there a role for each in this
country?
Mr. Schmidt: The whole concept behind regional
development has evolved to some degree. We need to recognize
that the implementation of the regional economic development
agencies has subsidized businesses that could not make it on
their own. It has created artificial competition between
businesses that were in existence and new ones created across
the street so that neither of them could succeed profitably. It has
given industries an artificial cushion, because it has not required
that the money that was given to them be paid back.
If we are to have regional development it should be done in a
fair and open marketplace with competition. It ought to be done
in manner such that all businesses know what is going on and
they are all on a level playing field and competing fairly with
one another and whatever money is given ought to be paid back
with a reasonable rate of return.
These are precisely the kinds of things the Federal Business
Development Bank was supposed to be doing in the past when it
was the lender of last resort. If that kind of thing continues, if
regional development agencies develop a flat playing field,
create competition, and require the money to be paid back, then
there is no reason they could not be rolled into one. The bankers'
criteria of lending money could be applied and the whole
business would run a lot better than it does at the present time. I
suppose the end result of that statement is they could be rolled
into one, but under certain conditions.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Okanagan Centre for his
concern about small business and for bringing this to the
attention of the House, despite the fact that we thought the
government would be bringing forward debate on Bill C-88, a
bill that would deal with internal trade barriers and hopefully
remove some of those.
I wonder if the member would expound on whether the report
deals with the harm caused to small business because of the
trade barriers we have in Canada between provinces. It has been
12647
determined that these trade barriers cost our country $6 billion
to $8 billion every year, and I suspect the brunt of that cost is
borne by small business.
I would like the hon. member to relate to the House what the
harm of these trade barriers is to small business and whether the
report does make any recommendations, and also whether Bill
C-88 does go far enough in bringing an end to these trade
barriers, which are so harmful to Canadians.
(1035 )
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly knows
how to ask complicated questions, but they are very significant
questions.
The important thing is that one of the greatest hindrances to
small businesses developing is the existence of trade barriers
across Canada. They are a multitude in number. I believe at the
last count there were somewhere between 500 and 750 of these
trade barriers.
Estimates vary as to how much they actually cost. In some
cases people argue that it is about $5 billion a year to the
Canadian economy, in other cases they will say that it is $7
billion, depending on which set of figures is used. That means
the average family in Canada spends $1,000 or $3,500 per year
more than it would pay for the same goods and services if the
trade barriers did not exist.
One of the embarrassing things for us as Canadians and
parliamentarians is that it is often easier to trade with other
countries, in particular our neighbour to the south, than it is to
trade across Canada. How do we bring these kinds of things
together? It seems so stupid to tell someone it is easier to trade,
for example, between Vancouver and Spokane. It is wide open.
There is an organization called Cascadia, which promotes this
kind of economic development. It is so easy to do, because the
trade barriers between Canada and the United States have
virtually been eliminated. And now with NAFTA that goes all
over the place.
There was a principle announced in the red book that states
that Canada should be unified. By not dealing with the internal
trade barriers we are in fact disunifying Canada and creating a
situation where trade is now north and south but not east and
west.
That is one of the great barriers for small business. We would
like to be strong at home first before we go abroad, but that is not
an opportunity today. We have to become strong internationally
and then we can perhaps afford to go over these trade barriers
within Canada. It is a reverse, backwards kind of thing. It hurts
our feelings of patriotism. It frustrates our feelings of economic
unity as well as political unity. It is those kinds of things that we
have to tear down so that we can help each other and feel
important as Canadians-as important in Nova Scotia as we are
in British Columbia, as we are in Ontario, as we are in Quebec,
as we are in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and so on across
Canada.
The hon. member asked a very good question with regard to
those things. Does the federal trade agreement that is now before
the House and is supposed to be implemented through Bill C-88
do that? It does not.
We will hear from various members on this side of the House
who will say clearly where this trade agreement falls short. It
does not deal with the very basic issues.
The idea is a very good one. Let us recognize this right off the
top. Recognizing that internal trade barriers in Canada are a
significant problem is very important. All our premiers have
now recognized that is a problem. The issue, however, is that
although they have recognized there is a problem they have not
solved the problem. When we get to the dispute resolution
mechanism, what do we get? We get the opportunity that if they
cannot resolve the conflict then they can retaliate. That is
exactly where we are today. What have we achieved?
The agreement has to have some teeth in it. I submit that it
does not have those teeth.
In answer to my hon. colleague's question of whether the
trade agreement does those things, it moves in the right
direction but it does not go anywhere near far enough. Does it
help build the unity of Canada? No, it does not. Does it hurt
small business? Yes, it does. It is an embarrassment to many of
us because we can trade more easily north and south than we can
east and west.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very sorry that the Reform Party has decided to
waste the time of this House with a debate on a motion for
concurrence in a committee report.
It is a real waste of time, since a bill to continue the Federal
Business Development Bank under the name of Business
Development Bank of Canada is already listed in the Order
Paper. We may pass this bill this afternoon without wasting the
time of the House, as was the case this morning.
(1040)
[English]
I am sorry the Reform Party feels it has to take up time
debating a report that was tabled in this House last October when
there are bills waiting to be passed that could deal with the issue.
12648
To avoid any further waste of the House's time and cost to
the Canadian taxpayers, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 222)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Mitchell
Murray
Ménard
Nault
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-165
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
de Jong
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Morrison
Riis
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Stinson
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-35
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Cauchon
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Gaffney
Jacob
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Wells
12649
(1120)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I apologize to
the Chair for being late but had I been here I would have voted
with the government.
_____________________________________________
12649
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for Minister of Foreign
Affairs), Lib.) moved that Bill C-87, an act to implement the
convention on the prohibition of the development, production,
stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their
destruction, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister
of Foreign Affairs I am pleased to initiate the debate on Bill
C-87, an act to implement the convention on the prohibition of
the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical
weapons and on their destruction.
This draft legislation represents the achievement of what has
been for successive Canadian governments one of our most
important priorities in the arms control and disarmament field, a
multilateral agreement on a global and comprehensive ban on
chemical weapons.
Such an agreement is of special importance for Canadians. It
was almost 80 years ago that Canadian soldiers were among the
victims of the first gas attack in Ypres Salient in April 1915.
There are still alive today Canadians who remember with horror
the effect of such weapons on their friends and comrades, their
husbands, brothers and fathers.
Having let this horrendous genie out of the bottle, the
international community has ever since sought ways to control
and suppress it. The Geneva protocol of 1925 was the first such
attempt but its scope was effectively limited to a ban on the first
use of chemical weapons and many states, Canada included, felt
obliged to develop and stockpile such weapons against the
possibility that they might be necessary to retaliate against
future attacks with chemical weapons.
(1125 )
The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, who will be
speaking after me, has done a lot of research in that area. Hon.
members may wish to consult with him for more information.
While our troops in subsequent wars were spared the horrors
of further chemical attacks, neither the Geneva protocol nor
mounting international condemnation of these weapons
prevented other states from using them in other wars, most
recently in the Iran-Iraq war. Even more monstrous, some have
gone so far as to use chemical weapons against defenceless
civilians. Who can ever forget the shocking pictures of the
Iranian and Kurdish victims of Iraqi chemical weapons or the
terror inflicted on Israeli citizens by Saddam Hussein's threats
during the gulf war to rain chemical weapons down on Israel.
Spurred on by such barbarities, negotiators at the conference
on disarmament in Geneva redoubled their efforts to conclude a
multilateral agreement on chemical weapons which would
forever remove this scourge. Canada is proud to have made a
major contribution to these efforts, from the days in 1983 when a
Canadian, Ambassador Donald McPhail, chaired the committee
that developed the first outline of such a treaty to the successful
conclusion of negotiations in 1992 when Canada was in the first
rank of those pressing most strongly for a truly effective ban.
The chemical weapons convention resulting from these
negotiations which opened for signature in January 1993
represents a major multilateral success. For the first time a
whole category of what are known as weapons of mass
destruction is to be eliminated. All stock piles of chemical
weapons are to be destroyed under international supervision,
along with the facilities which produced them. A verification
regime which is global, comprehensive and effective is to be set
up to ensure such weapons will never be developed again.
The convention is unique in a number of respects. Not only
does it oblige states parties to destroy all existing stocks of
chemical weapons and the facilities which produced them
within a set time frame and under close international
supervision, it also establishes a system of verification and
inspection which is by far the most rigorous ever developed in a
multilateral agreement.
Moreover, it does not just ban any future development of
chemical weapons but seeks to safeguard against clandestine
chemical weapon production through international monitoring
and inspection of all facilities which might be used for such
activity. Again uniquely, it extends this regime into the global
civilian chemical industry. The basis of this verification regime
of civilian industry is set out in three schedules or lists of toxic
chemicals which either have been used as chemical weapons or
are chemical weapon precursors.
12650
Facilities working with such chemicals will annually report
on their activities to their governments and through them to the
international monitoring and inspection organization being set
up in The Hague, the organization for the prohibition of
chemical weapons, or OPCW. If their activities exceed certain
thresholds they will be liable to inspection by international
inspectors.
The convention's overview of industry extends even further
because certain facilities which produce what are called
unscheduled discrete organic chemicals, particularly those
which contain phosphorus, sulphur or fluorine, can be adapted
to produce chemical weapons.
The convention also requires these facilities to report on their
production activities and provides for the future development of
a system of random inspections of such facilities. Thus the
scope of the convention extends beyond chemical and
pharmaceutical industries and covers facilities producing
pesticides, fertilizers, paints and coatings, textiles and
lubricants.
Given the confidential nature of some of the information
being reported by industry, the convention has its own
provisions for protecting such information and requires states
parties to abide by those provisions. The convention also
requires states parties to institute restrictions on the export and
import of schedule chemicals with states not party to the
convention.
(1130)
Perhaps the most novel element of the convention is the
provision allowing for states parties to have the right to demand
short notice or no right of refusal inspections called challenge
inspections of any place, whether government or civilian, where
they believe activities are being carried out incompatible with
the obligations and goals of the convention.
In another departure from general practice the convention
obligates states parties to pass penal legislation that not only
encompasses activities on their own territory but also prohibits
their citizens from undertaking forbidden activities outside their
territory.
The convention has its own sanctions regime, although it also
recognizes the pre-eminent authority of the United Nations
security council regarding mandatory sanctions in the case of
serious violations of the convention.
In view of the breadth and complexity of the convention, the
Canadian government, like many other signatories, has given
very close consideration to how its obligations shall be
implemented in Canada.
Fortunately whereas the convention is 160-odd pages long,
the draft legislation resulting from that consideration now
before us is barely more than one-tenth that length and yet
encompasses all the obligations that arise out of the convention
relevant for Canada.
As Canada does not possess chemical weapons or chemical
weapon production facilities, the related provisions of the
convention do not pertain to Canada. Instead, the main impact
on Canada arises from those provisions concerned with industry
activities. The act's central provision is to ban completely
anyone's activity relating to anything with chemical weapons in
exactly the same terms as are used in the convention.
Also, as provided in the convention, these provisions ban the
use of riot control agents as a method of warfare. Operationally
speaking, as required by the convention, the draft legislation
authorizes the Minister of Foreign Affairs to designate officials
to act as Canada's national authority which will serve as the
national focal point for liaison with the organization for the
prohibition of chemical weapons, OPCW, and other states
parties, collect the required information for the affected
industries and transmit it to the OPCW and facilitate
international inspections of Canadian facilities.
The draft legislation then spells out clearly the conditions
under which the required information will be obtained; the right
of the international inspection teams to conduct inspections in
Canada in accordance with the provisions of the convention, and
the roles and responsibilities of the national authority in
facilitating such inspections. Because of the need to protect
confidential information, it contains appropriate provisions to
do so. It extends existing controls on chemicals by specifying all
the chemicals on the convention's three schedules will be
subject to the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act.
It institutes penal provisions and applies those to both
activities on Canadian territory and activities by Canadian
citizens outside of Canada. It further makes clear the
enforcement of the proposed act will be conducted under the
Criminal Code.
It provides for appropriate regulations to be prepared
concerning inter alia the collection of the required data and the
procedures under which the national authority will carry out its
assigned responsibilities.
In considering this draft legislation, the government's first
concern has been to ensure all of its obligations under the
convention have been fully met. At the same time, however, the
government has also paid very close attention to the
convention's impact on the affected Canadian industries and has
sought to achieve maximum effectiveness with the minimum
amount of interference in the legitimate activities of those
industries.
(1135 )
Fortunately in this regard the government has benefited from
several years of close consultations with the most affected
industries both during the course of the negotiation of the
convention and in the preparations for the convention's
implementation in Canada.
12651
Throughout, the response from industry has always been
positive and constructive. It was the Canadian Chemical
Producers' Association which produced one of the first papers
submitted to the conference on disarmament concerning the
issue of confidentiality.
In 1990, thanks to the co-operation of the Canadian
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association and Merck Frosst,
government officials were able to conduct a trial inspection of
the Merck Frosst facility near Montreal to test the verification
provisions of the convention. Both associations provided
representatives to participate in annual industry consultations
with negotiators in Geneva.
In our preparations to implement the convention in Canada,
we have continued to consult closely with industry on the impact
of the convention by distributing information brochures,
briefing industry associations and contributing articles for
industry publications, conveying information seminars and
sending questionnaires and information material to some 2,100
companies across Canada to help determine which companies
will be affected by the convention.
Almost without exception the response from industry has
continued to be very constructive and encouraging. We
confidently expect that as we proceed with this draft legislation
and its associated regulations, this high level of co-operation
with industry will continue.
The government believes the draft legislation before us is not
only appropriate and necessary but represents the most balanced
and cost effective means of implementing the convention
obligations in Canada.
We all recoiled with horror some two months ago when in an
unprecedented act of senseless barbarity, madmen unleashed
chemical weapons on unsuspecting Tokyo commuters one early
spring morning. We may not be able to prevent individuals from
committing such unspeakable acts, but with the successful
passage of the proposed legislation we can at least hope to
control and deny them access to the materials for such weapons.
This morning I was very pleased to read in the news that the
police in Japan arrested those responsible for the nerve gas
attack on Tokyo's subway.
With all party co-operation, which we will be getting in
consulting with the official opposition and the third party, all
three parties would like to get this legislation through as quickly
as possible. When we do, hopefully the convention and the
legislation will prevent the production, stockpiling and use of
the kind of substance used on the Tokyo subways.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in this House today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to
speak on Bill C-87, an act to implement the convention on the
prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use
of chemical weapons and on their destruction.
We appreciate that the convention is the result of a long and
complex negotiation process that took nearly 20 years.
For more than 100 years, the international community has
been seeking to outlaw these weapons, or at least their use,
because they are inhumane and of rather limited military value.
We should also rejoice over the fact that the convention is the
first multilateral disarmament agreement prohibiting an entire
class of mass destruction weapons. Under this convention, it is
illegal not only to produce, but also to acquire, stockpile,
transfer, use or engage in military preparations to use chemical
weapons or assist anyone in any activity prohibited under the
convention.
(1140)
The prohibition applies not only to chemical agents but also to
their vectors and any equipment intended for use in relation to
chemical weapons.
We are pretty happy with the wording of the convention,
which strikes a balance in a mix of areas, such as the protection
of sensitive activities and ready access for inspection teams.
The convention provides for a challenge inspection
mechanism while at the same time protecting sensitive and
legitimate activities by putting time limits on the inspections,
and by providing for restricted access and measures to deter
abuse.
A balance was also struck between the need to maintain
control over exports to suspect states and the will to liberalize
the chemical products trade. Members of the Australian group,
which includes Canada, and which monitors the proliferation of
chemical weapons and defines the guidelines for controlling
exports to countries deemed to have chemical weapons, pledged
to review their policy and eliminate controls in the case of those
states which fully comply with the convention.
Another balance was struck between the requirement to
destroy chemical weapons within prescribed time frames and
the need to take economic implications into account. All those
states which own chemical weapons will have ten years to
destroy both the weapons and the production facilities.
However, the convention allows for an extension of up to ten
years, under more stringent controls which are tantamount to
turning over the weapons and facilities to the international
community.
The destruction of a chemical weapons production facility
costs ten times more than its construction. Consequently, we are
concerned about the financial implications, for some states, of
this requirement. The problem is very real, even though the
convention provides for the temporary conversion of some
production facilities into destruction facilities, where this is
12652
feasible and cost effective, thus making it possible to declare
such production facilities as having been converted.
Indeed, one of the problems related to the implementation of
the convention will be the destruction of arsenals, which is a
complex and extremely costly operation. The cost of destroying
the American arsenal of these weapons is estimated at $8
billion. Russia, which does not have the funds, has 40,000 to
60,000 tonnes of substances to destroy, which is quite the task
and will undoubtedly take over 10 years and then again, only if
western countries lend a hand.
By the way, we are not entirely satisfied with the verification
system. However, we realize that they are the fruit of several
years of negotiation and that they strike a balance between the
need to have an efficient means of checking whether countries
are respecting the convention and the legitimate need to
maintain secrecy in defence and industrial matters which are not
related to the prohibited chemical weapons.
We would have nevertheless preferred much stricter controls.
The current convention is perhaps the best agreement possible
under the circumstances. Regardless, we must admit that the
Convention does contain the most rigorous controls ever
included in a multilateral agreement. They permit the
organization to confirm that substances and chemical weapons
factories have actually been destroyed, to monitor very closely
all operations authorized to produce certain toxic chemical
products, to keep a database on the world chemical industry and,
at the request of the signing states, to make inspections.
(1145)
In addition, the on-site challenge inspection will in fact
permit any signing state to request a universal inspection of a
suspicious operation in another country by the secretariat of the
organization and a multilateral inspection team.
We have concluded that the text of the convention is to be
criticized for lacking coherence and logic in certain areas. In
some cases, for example facilities used to stockpile or to
manufacture chemical weapons, it goes into the greatest
descriptive detail, and in others, for example the clauses
prohibiting the development of chemical weapons, it fails to go
into enough detail.
Furthermore, the verification system for declared facilities
seems unnecessarily cumbersome and costly, while the
so-called challenge inspection system has far less clout.
A major drawback is that paradoxically, enforcement
mechanisms will not be in place when the convention comes into
force. The director general will still have to be appointed,
inspectors confirmed and the list of inspection equipment
approved. In other words, each state party to the convention will
have the right to request and obtain a challenge inspection, but
there will be no one to carry it out. This is only one of the
problems the preliminary commission will have to consider very
carefully.
Surely it would have been more reasonable to wait until the
organization is in a position to fully exercise its mandate before
the main obligations set forth in the convention come into force?
It is also unfortunate that the sanctions provided under the
convention are not more specific. Article XII authorizes the
organization to ask a state party to the convention that does not
fully comply with it to take corrective action. If the incriminated
country refuses, the organization can then apply a certain
number of sanctions and recommend to states parties a number
of corrective measures in accordance with international law.
However, the convention remains silent on the kind of
sanctions that can be applied. Furthermore, in recognition of the
ultimate responsibility of the UN Security Council for
international peace and security, very serious cases may be
referred to this body for possible further action, in accordance
with the UN Charter.
I would like to take a few moments to consider the
consequences for the chemical industry in Quebec and Canada.
The convention would not appear to have a major impact. Since
the second world war, Canada has not produced chemical
weapons and has even destroyed its stockpiles. Under the
convention, the chemical industry in Quebec and Canada will,
however, be subject to regular monitoring. The national
authority, an agency to be designated in each state party to the
convention, will provide the link with the organization.
The signatory states are required to submit statements to the
organization concerning specifically the possession of chemical
weapons or the manufacture or export of designated chemicals.
These statements will subsequently be used in on-site
inspections.
As Canada has neither chemical weapons nor facilities for
their manufacture, it would appear that the effect of the
convention will be limited in its case to trade.
(1150)
We believe that Canada should assume some leadership with
respect to this convention. There is good reason to ask, in fact,
what role Canada intends to play in encouraging its partners to
ratify the convention as quickly as possible. Canada should
assume some leadership in this regard.
Until now, nothing has indicated this to be the government's
intention. If it intends to be consistent, it should announce a
series of initiatives in this regard in the coming weeks. After all,
only 28 countries have ratified the convention up to now, and
there should be 65. Need I mention that neither the United States
12653
nor Russia has signed yet? Furthermore, other important states
that have yet to sign include Iraq, Libya and North Korea.
In the case of Russia, we realize that the costs of complying
with this convention will be significant. However, without
Russia and the United States, the convention will not entirely
fulfill its role, since Russia and the United States have the
biggest stockpiles of chemical weapons. Whatever the case, we
believe that, if we support this bill, Canada will soon carve out a
prime niche for itself within the various institutions of this new
international organization.
In our opinion, the convention on chemical weapons
constitutes a fine opportunity to eliminate the threat of chemical
weapons. The other option would be to continue to take
measures in isolation, an approach that would have neither the
generality nor the global legitimacy of the convention. The
convention gives traditional arms control a universal scope,
with the added possibility of responding vigorously to
non-compliance. It also calls for widespread support to
determine who complies and who does not as well as what
political action is appropriate.
We are therefore happy to support this bill, making Canada
one of the first to sign the convention. In our view, this is far
from an ideal document. The Bloc Quebecois appreciates
however that it is the result of complex and comprehensive
negotiations, during which several countries had to make
concessions on issues they considered extremely important
because they could not get the support of other countries.
Canada is probably one of the countries which had to make the
most concessions in order to come up with this document,
because it was strongly in favour of an efficient, comprehensive
and global inspection scheme that would help build confidence.
The Bloc Quebecois fully agrees with the position taken by
Canada in the past. In fact, we still consider being able to request
an inspection anywhere, anytime, and seeing this inspection
carried out immediately without restrictions being imposed on
inspectors as the best way of ensuring safety.
While, at present, few countries recognize possessing
chemical weapons, notably the United States, Russia and Iraq,
we know that many more have the means to use such weapons.
We were all distressed by the pictures of Iranians and Kurds
killed by Iraqi chemical weapons in the Gulf War. We also
feared that chemical weapons could be used against not only
troops, but civilian populations. We hope that the
implementation of the convention will speed up the peace
process.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to speak today on Bill
C-87.
It is a very poignant moment to do so, given the fact that a
little more than a week ago we celebrated the 50th anniversary
of Victory in Europe Day all across the world.
(1155)
Today we are moving toward enacting a bill to implement the
convention on the prohibition of the development, production,
stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. The saying goes that
all is fair in love and war, but there are conventions which
dictate to us as human beings a minimum level of behaviour
even in the horrors of war.
This basic level of human behaviour is an obligation of those
who engage in war. The use of chemical weapons contravenes
that in a most heinous fashion. Terrible acts have been
committed on fellow human beings. Chemical weapons are one
example of what has happened.
Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction. The
chemical weapons convention was signed by over 130 countries
in January 1993. It is the first multilateral agreement that abhors
an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. The act enables
an organization to look at chemical weapons production
facilities to ensure that they will be destroyed and that the
chemical weapons stockpiled by countries will also be
destroyed.
All government and industrial facilities will be monitored and
the act will be implemented by the countries. It is a powerful act
but it is necessary. It is important to realize that it does not
impinge on industries to engage in legitimate industrial
production of chemicals. It comes down on industries and
countries manufacturing chemical weapons for aggressive and
warlike purposes.
I reassure industry in Canada that the purpose of the act is not
to come down on it but to form a broad framework to be applied
not only in this country but in other countries for the collective
security of all. I also reassure the industry that its stocks will not
be destroyed in any way, shape or form.
There are three categories of schedules in the act. Schedule 1
includes such chemicals we are aware of such as sarin, tabun,
soman, and the mustards that were used with widespread and
tragic effectiveness in World War I. There are some legitimate
uses for these chemicals in pharmaceuticals and in cancer
research. Some of the precursors are used. Therefore one would
have to obtain permission or a licence in order to use them, and
that applies to all 130 signatories.
Schedule 2 includes such chemicals as amiton, which are key
precursors for schedule 1 chemical weapons. The individuals
and companies that make them will be subjected to scrutiny if
they make over a certain amount.
Schedule 3 is the least powerful, the least destructive of all, as
they are often used in industry but can in large enough quantities
12654
be used as chemical weapons. We have such chemical weapons
as hydrogen cyanide and phosgene that have been used before.
Companies that manufacture these chemicals will be eligible for
occasional checks and balances as time goes on.
In the act is the establishment of national authorities
responsible for collecting information that they will give to an
organization that has been set up called the Organization for the
Prohibition of Conventional Weapons or the OPCW.
All signatories are essentially responsible for checking within
their countries all the industries that will be manufacturing any
of the chemicals in the three schedules I mentioned.
The information will then be given to the OPCW which will
then decide if it is necessary to take further action. The national
authorities in conjunction with the OPCW will facilitate the
inspection. They will also control the export and import of
chemicals where necessary. The country of origin is responsible
for enacting Criminal Code legislation that will provide
penalties, fines and imprisonment if individuals or companies
are engaging in the production of chemicals for aggressive
warlike use in the future. Again, we must make the distinction
that the convention is not to be used against companies engaging
in the production of chemicals for medicinal or industrial
purposes.
(1200)
I caution the government that the cost should not be
excessive. We must do this within our fiscal constraints. We
want to ensure that the agency that will be set up will not be
onerous or develop a morass of bureaucracy in the future. We do
not have the money to do that, as we all know.
Some may argue why this convention is necessary; did
chemical weapons not go out with the first world war? The
reality is unfortunately they did not. We have seen more recently
in Japan the release of chemical weapons that had tragic effects.
Sarin was released on a civilian population, killing hundreds of
individuals. Stockpiles have been found in Japan. More recently
the Iraqis have used chemical weapons for aggressive purposes
to commit genocide within their own country against Kurdish
individuals. That is a hot spot which will affect us in the future.
The convention was designed to keep good countries in check
and to come down hard on those countries that would seek to use
these weapons from Hades in a fashion that is aggressive and
would cause destabilizing effects.
The UN will be the ultimate body that will receive
information from the OPCW. That brings a larger question,
which we ought to examine, which is the ability of the United
Nations to act quickly and effectively in the face of threats to
regional and international security. We have seen Rwanda,
Burundi, the former Yugoslavia, Angola, Sierra Leone, and the
list goes on. In fact there were over 40 major conflicts in the
world last year. That number is not decreasing; rather, it is
increasing. In the future we will see countries such as Nigeria,
the Sudan, possibly Kenya, Kashmir, and a host of other
countries blowing up-not to belittle those already on the front
pages of newspapers, showing on a daily basis the tragedies
civilians are enduring in places like Bosnia, Croatia, Burundi,
Rwanda, East Timor. The list goes on and on. We have learned
nothing in over 50 years. We ought to remember that.
The OPCW is an example of what is considered to be conflict
prevention. Even though this is a small but very important act,
there are many lessons that can be learned as conflicts loom
ahead. In fact there are many things we can do to prevent future
conflicts. The United Nations must set in place a list of
transgressions that are completely unacceptable to the
international community. It must set a list of transgressions
down that are threats to regional and international security,
behaviours that are considered to be patently unacceptable such
as genocide and gross human rights abuses.
I also mention countries engaging in self-destructive
behaviours. I bring to the attention of the House the
expenditures occurring in military hardware. Many people
believe that in the post-cold war era we live in a safer place. We
are far from it. The world as we know it now is a much more
dangerous place.
While there was a decrease in global arms spending from
1987 to 1990 of some $240 billion, military spending in many
parts of the world has actually increased. It is interesting to note
which countries are increasing their expenditures. Curiously
enough, it is particularly in the poorest areas of the world.
Sub-Saharan Africa and east Asia did not have a decline in their
military expenditures; rather, they were increased.
In general when we see violent conflicts occurring the
military expenditures are increasing also, which means that they
are taking away from the expenditures necessary in providing
basic human needs.
(1205 )
According to the UNDP, in 1990-91 all developing countries
spent the equivalent of 60 per cent of their combined
expenditures for education and health on military expenditure,
compared with 33 per cent in industrialized countries.
Let us take a look at who spends the most on military
hardware. It is very telling. In 1990-91: Somalia, 200 per cent
military spending compared with health and education
spending; Ethiopia, 190 per cent; Angola, 208 per cent; Yemen,
197 per cent; Pakistan, 125 per cent; India, 138 per cent;
Myanmar, 222 per cent; Iraq, 271 per cent; Sri Lanka, 107 per
cent; Syria, 373 per cent of its spending for education and health
was spent
12655
on military expenditures. Clearly these countries are not among
the richest of the world; rather, they are among the poorest.
Along with this list of transgressions we also need to draw up
a list of responses from the international community. For
example, early diplomatic initiatives can be employed, along
with positive propaganda. The former Yugoslavia and Rwanda
are interesting examples. When the conflicts were first
beginning, the people who started to stir up and fan the flames of
ethnic discontent were in part using negative, hateful
propaganda. The people who were on the ground, NGOs and
representatives from other countries, saw this and were helpless
to do anything about it.
A lot could be done if a system were set in place by the United
Nations to immediately put positive propaganda into the theatre
when negative and hateful propaganda is being spewed forth by
individuals who are trying to fuel the flames of ethnic discontent
and trying to stimulate conflict. I think it would do a lot to
dampen down the hatred and ethnic conflict as it starts. It is an
interesting area for us to try to convince the United Nations to
engage in.
Another aspect, which is particularly appropriate given the
fact that the G-7 summit is occurring in Halifax in June, is the
use of the international financial institutions as non-military
and inexpensive levers on countries that are engaging in these
transgressions I mentioned before. It has not really been looked
at very carefully.
We were in Washington not too long ago and I spoke to Mr.
Fauver, Mr. Clinton's sherpa for the G-7 summit. I asked him if
we could use the international financial institutions to exert
pressure on countries or groups who were trying to stimulate a
conflict by trying to pit one person against the other. He said it
could be done but that it was difficult. I think this might be an
inexpensive but effective and eloquent way of trying to defuse
conflicts before they occur.
Something that could be done is not renegotiating the loans of
countries. They need money to fight a war; if they do not have
the money then they cannot fight a war. We can decrease
non-humanitarian aid to countries that are engaging in this
behaviour. The removal of preferential trade status is another
example of what can be done. These countries should be
penalized and brought to task. The international community
should let these countries or groups know that their behaviour is
completely unacceptable for this to occur.
We can then go ahead and do the traditional form of
diplomatic initiatives. Something the government has put forth,
which I think is a very good move, is the construction of a rapid
deployment force. We are not talking about a standing army but
rather a force that would be comprised of individual countries
that would contribute arms, equipment, or people to go in on
short notice to areas of conflict in order to dampen down a
conflict or prevent a conflict from happening. This might be
another issue that could be brought up at the G-7 summit in
Halifax. We are not talking about an army that would stay at one
place at one time; they would stay in their countries of origin.
Another useful aspect is that these groups could come
together on a periodic basis and train. One of the problems the
United Nations has always found is that when they get soldiers
and put them into a conflict the left hand does not know what the
right hand is doing. They do not know the equipment, they do
not know the commanders, and they do now know how things
work. This would obviate that, by bringing them together every
year or so to go through manoeuvres and the motions so that they
will understand how to engage in a conflict such as this.
(1210)
We also have to combine the increased monitoring capability
of the United Nations. In the UN there exists a crisis monitoring
group, but to date it has been very ineffective in actually
informing the United Nations in a timely fashion about conflicts
that are occurring. Much can be done in this area also. We need
to incorporate NGOs and groups on the ground to form a
network of military intelligence that could feed information in
an expeditious fashion to the UN crisis group, who could then
process it and give it to the United Nations.
What is the rationale for all of this? People will ask why we
are getting involved in the affairs of other countries. The
rationale is very clear. Contrary to what has happened in the past
when armies were killing each other, most casualties that occur
in conflicts these days are not army personnel but are innocent
civilians. We saw this in Bosnia and in Rwanda time and time
again.
In 1993 there were over 40 million displaced people in the
world. The United Nations high commission for refugees
recognized this as a great tragedy. Where do these refugees go?
They move within their own countries but they also emigrate to
other parts of the world. No border is completely intact; borders
are in fact porous. What happens half a world away will come
back to affect us. The United Nations also estimates that while
there are presently 40 million refugees, the number is likely to
increase to over 100 million by the year 2000.
When conflicts do occur, we see the massive and widespread
destruction of a country. All the aid, development, and hard
work of decades are washed away in the course of a month or two
of conflict. It will take decades to rebuild that. Furthermore, the
seeds of hatred are planted, not only in the people subjected to
the war but also in the unborn children, because they will be
subjected to the same hatred and prejudices their families were
12656
subjected to. This is a cancer that starts very early and grows. It
takes generations to go away, if at all.
Also, within our own country when conflicts erupt we are
forced to engage in peacekeeping, peacemaking, defence
initiatives, aid and development at a cost of hundreds of
millions of dollars a year. Is it not better to put in a few dollars
now and save hundreds of millions in the future, rather than wait
until everything blows up?
There is no need to discuss the humanitarian aspects of those
who are involved in the conflicts because they are evident. For
those of you who have seen war situations, as I have, it is not a
pretty sight. These individuals want nothing more than to live in
peace and harmony but are forced to engage in activities or have
heinous crimes meted out to them, which they are powerless to
deal with.
One mistake made in foreign policy is in the global
community we do not have the backbone to deal with individuals
who for their own self-interests are stimulating ethnic hatred.
When we negotiate with these people it is important to realize
they are not necessarily speaking for their entire populace. They
may be only be speaking for a very small number of people.
Their motivations should be questioned at every turn.
Few countries in the world have the international recognition
and capability to form a system to address the pressures and
conflict we will have in the coming new world order.
Fortunately, Canada is one of the few that can do this. We must
persuade our colleagues in the international community to set up
a framework and a system of responses from the international
community and identify early on the precursors to conflict. In
short, we must do what we can, where we can, and when we can,
given the fiscal constraints that are put upon us.
(1215)
The action we have taken with the conventional weapons ban
is truly admirable and is a shining example of what Canada can
do. People may not understand that Canada is one of the leaders
in putting forth this ban. It is something we as a country ought to
be very proud of.
While we have managed to put forth a convention on the ban
of mines, I suggest Canada take a leadership role in putting forth
a convention on banning the production, stockpiling and sale of
land mines and anti-personnel devices because their primary
target again is civilian.
Once a conflict is over these land mines and anti-personnel
devices stay for decades and I will give some examples. It is also
important to realize that these weapons are not meant to kill;
many of them are meant purely to maim and they maim children.
Many of the anti-personnel devices are showered from
helicopters or planes. They are made of plastic and look like
little toys. Children pick them up and get their arms or their legs
blown off. I have seen this in Mozambique. Teenagers found
these things and had body parts blown off. Believe me, it is not
fun to spend four hours in a hospital operating room debriding
somebody's leg after taking off the other leg.
Worldwide there are over 100 million land mines that have
been set. It not only affects what we know about Cambodia but
in Afghanistan 400,000 people have been wounded. The UN is
now engaging in activities to remove land mines. About 85
hectares a year are done. It will take 4,300 years to clear
Afghanistan of mines.
In Croatia over 330,000 hectares are completely
uninhabitable and totally useless for industry. It costs Croatia
over $230 million a year purely because the area is seeded with
land mines.
Chechnya is another example where hundreds of thousands of
land mines were sown in a very short period of time. Many areas
of Chechnya will not be able to become economically
self-sufficient for a long time because of that. When the civilian
population tries to plant their fields or go to work, they will
continue to be subjected to periodic incidents of having their
limbs blown off or of being maimed.
Many of the land mines are plastic, some are metal and many
are invisible. They cost between $3 and $30 to manufacture and
up to $1000 to get rid of. Every year there are two million land
mines seeded and about 85,000 being removed.
There is a land mine called the black widow or the PMW, a 10
centimetre plastic mine with 240 grams of TNT that can rip off a
leg at the hip. There are about 20 million of these land mines
deployed all over the world. China and the former Soviet Union
make them.
There is the Valmara 69, also known as the bouncing betty.
This one leaps up one metre and explodes, showering metal
fragments for 20 metres. It is made in Italy. It is shocking to see
the countries that actually make these, from the United States to
many countries in Europe to China and the former Soviet Union.
This is something we need to address and Canada can take a
leadership role in this. There is no military use whatsoever for
this weapon which again is primarily used to maim civilians.
Usually those who are maimed the most are the children and the
men and women who work in the fields. We must take a
leadership role on this as we have done on chemical weapons.
While we have had the convention on chemical weapons, we
also need to consider the aspect of conventional non-nuclear
weapons. The proliferation of non-nuclear conventional
weapons, particularly small arms, is something that is having a
huge destabilizing effect on the world stage.
12657
When I worked on the Mozambique border there were
hundreds of thousands of AK-47 assault rifles pouring into
South Africa from Mozambique. An AK-47 can be bought for
$5 to $20. When you have an AK-47, you have a lot of power.
These people are desperately poor. They have no food and are
starving and all they can do is sell these weapons. These
weapons are ubiquitous in the developing world and there is a
huge destabilizing force in that. It also enables people to engage
in violent criminal acts which also impedes a country's ability to
get on its feet economically.
(1220)
Whether we are looking at west Africa, southern Africa or
east Asia, crime is one of the largest problems confronting the
developing world. It is something we need to address.
The G-7 summit is coming up. Over 90 per cent of
conventional weapons are made by G-7 nations. It is
hypocritical for us to say we are helping countries on the one
hand with our aid and development, but on the other hand we are
selling them the arms either through private dealers or by
government to government sale. We are cutting off our nose to
spite our face because in the long run conflicts brew. These are
not things to be taken in isolation. They are to be taken
collectively in the name of collective security.
Bill C-87 shows that Canada can, as it has in the past, show
leadership in foreign policy. One person not so long ago in the
celebrations of V-E Day said a poignant and kind thing about
the people of this country: ``If the Canadian people could look at
Canadians the way the people in Holland look at Canadians, then
indeed they would learn a lot and indeed they would be proud''.
I ask the government to remember that. I ask the Canadian
people to remember that in the hope that we can use that esteem
and respect we have on the international stage to become more
aggressive in addressing these threats to international security,
not only for the people who are involved, but also for the people
in this country.
Although we may be far away from areas of conflict and think
we are immune to it, we are not. People will leave areas of
conflict, the have not areas to areas that have. Canada is a have
country. It will put stresses on this country that we are not
prepared to deal with. It will cost us money that we do not have.
Above all else, we should do it for humanitarian reasons.
Although we may be different peoples, we are in fact one people
on one earth.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-87, an act to
implement the chemical weapons convention. It is appropriate
at this time to remind the House and all Canadians that Canada
has much at stake in this piece of legislation. It touches the very
heart of our military history.
I remind the House that on August 15, 1915 Canadian soldiers
were the first soldiers to be subjected to a systematic gas attack.
Inexperienced Canadian troops occupied the trenches at Ypres
in Belgium. At that point in the war there had been a stalemate
on the western front. It was very difficult for either side to move
forward using conventional weapons.
On that day the Germans released chlorine gas from their
trenches. The Canadians held the line immediately in front and
on their right were French colonial troops. What the Canadians
saw first on that early morning was a white cloud advancing
slowly toward them. They were filled with curiosity, wondering
what it was. It was like a low lying mist. As it approached and
reached their trenches they were suddenly seized at the throat.
When they breathed they breathed fire and they fell gasping to
the ground and into the trenches, writhing and suffering.
The Canadian troops very quickly realized it was poison gas.
The French colonial troops on their right broke and ran in a
panic, but the Canadian troops, those who survived, climbed out
of the trenches and lay on the parapets while the gas passed.
Actually, it is a great moment in the annals of Canadian military
history. Even though many of those young Canadian troops died,
they held the line and resisted the gas attack.
(1225)
After that first attack, gas became very popular on the western
front. The French discovered it was chlorine and responded with
their own gas. Then there was an arms race of various types of
noxious substances. They went to phosgene gas, hydrogen
cyanide and other variations.
One of the most effective gases that was discovered during the
first world war came to be known as mustard gas. This gas has
been used in very recent times such as on the Kurds in the
Iran-Iraq war. When the vapour touches the skin it immediately
causes huge blisters. It also causes blindness. When it is
breathed in, it blisters the lung and causes death.
As the war progressed it became very common to hear the
sound of artillery firing gas shells. Instead of the explosion
afterward, there was a popping and hissing noise. Along the
western front because both the German troops and our allies
were using gas, troops on all sides had rattles. When they heard
the gas attack, they spun the rattles.
12658
I would like to read a few lines from a famous poem by British
poet Wilfred Owen called ``Dulce et Decorum Est''. He captures
what it was like during these gas attacks in the first world war.
He begins:
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime-.
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
It was that kind of horrific experience which captured the
imaginations of all nations during the war and after its
conclusion.
One of the results was the 1925 Geneva protocol which
outlawed the use of gas. It was a recognition by states worldwide
that the use of this weapon actually took the very minimum
essence of humanity out of warfare. It reduced warfare to a
matter of exterminating the enemy like vermin. This was felt to
be, and we still feel it today, unacceptable behaviour on the part
of people who would be regarded as human beings.
Therefore the Geneva protocol in 1925 was passed. Like the
current chemical warfares convention, it was not ratified by all
nations. In fact the United States did not ratify it until 1970. It
had an impact. That impact was to give all nations of the world
the sense that chemical weapons were an illegal weapon, a
weapon that was wrong to use.
Nevertheless by the time we got into the late 1930s, it became
very clear that chemical weapons were going to be used again.
When the Italians occupied Abyssinia, the former Ethiopia, they
attempted to colonize it by conquest. They used poison gas on
the helpless civilians as a way of experimenting with chemical
weapons in the event of another world war. That had an
immediate impact in Canada.
It was at about that time a former chief of staff, General
Andrew McNaughton, became the head of the National
Research Council, that lovely stone building at 100 Sussex
Drive. He felt that as a result of what the Italians were doing
there was a good chance that gas would be used again in any
outbreak of hostilities.
He initiated research in Canada on protection against the use
of gas. We started with the development of gas masks and
charcoal containers. That work went forward at the National
Research Council.
(1230)
Then when the war broke out in 1939 we stepped up our
activities and research on poison gas, particularly defensive
research which is a very Canadian thing to do.
In 1940 with the fall of France, Britain was suddenly
desperate. When France collapsed Canadian troops were the
only troops who still had their equipment. The British
immediately mobilized all their available gas weapons with the
expectation of soaking the Germans with gas should they
invade. The weapon the British had at the time was principally
mustard gas contained in collapsible drums. It was very
primitive. They expected to fly over the beaches if the Germans
invaded and dump this out of the aircraft and hope it would
injure enough troops to deter the attack. The attack did not
come, however.
The initiative to develop gas weapons went forward very
rapidly. The British were very concerned the Germans were
developing the weapons and felt they should as well. Britain is a
small country and so the United Kingdom turned to Canada for
assistance in the development of poison gas weapons. This led to
the opening of the proving grounds at Suffield, very large
proving grounds near Medicine Hat, where Canada undertook
experiments with various types of poison gas. Canada expanded
from mustard gas into research developing out toxins such as
ricin. During World War II thousands and thousands of animals
were killed at Suffield during tests on various types of poison
gas.
One direction of the research was to find a poison gas that was
heavy. During the second world war many of the poison gasses
were too light and consequently would rise and dissipate. The
direction of the research was to find a gas that was very heavy
and would flow along the ground and flow into the trenches and
would be very deadly.
The United States also accelerated its production of poison
gas. Even before the war with Japan, before the end of World
War II, the Americans were conscious that gas could be a factor.
In typical American style they concentrated on mass production.
By about 1942 the Americans had tens of thousands of tonnes of
liquid mustard gas and other types of gas and had developed
bomb casings to deliver these.
The Canadians tended to specialize in actual research. We did
experiments on humans. It was felt that one had to be sure the
gas was effective. Many Canadian soldiers volunteered to be
subjects for tests of poison gas. Sometimes these tests were very
elaborate and I am sorry to say there were injuries to Canadian
troops from the poison gas tests at Suffield.
At McGill University Canadians made the biggest
breakthrough among the allies in developing poison gas. A team
at McGill discovered a nerve gas. It had been doing research on
pesticides and made a connection with between pesticides which
had caused accidental deaths and developed a nerve gas.
The scientists in Britain and the United States rejected the
Canadian development and it never proceeded to production. It
is ironic because the Germans were developing gas weapons of
their own. They had made a major breakthrough by developing
several types of nerve gas, sarin and tabun, which were many
times more toxic than the traditional gasses used in the first
world war, the mustard gasses. Hitler had an enormous stockpile
of these weapons.
12659
(1235)
Hitler was influenced by the 1925 Geneva protocol. Although
he was essentially a mad man in charge of a country who led to
hundreds of millions of injuries and deaths across the continent,
for some reason he was affected by the 1925 Geneva protocol
and did not order the use of gas. Research in German archives
discloses that Hitler was very much opposed to the use of gas.
That probably has racial overtones. He probably thought it was
improper to use it on the British and that kind of thing. We
cannot get into Hitler's mind but the Geneva protocol did
prevent this dictator from resorting to this ghastly weapon.
The irony is that on the Allied side there was a desire to use
the weapons; Winston Churchill wanted to use poison gas on the
Germans. Even as we approached Normandy Churchill was very
conscious of the fact there would be casualties and he pressed
his chiefs of staff to do a study to determine whether it would be
effective to use poison gas during the invasion of Normandy.
I will quote from a document of the time. It was written by
Churchill to his chiefs of staff on July 6, 1944:
I want you to think very seriously over this question of using poison gas. I
would not use it unless it be shown that (a) it was life or death for us, or (b) that it
would shorten the war by a year. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic
when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the
moralists or the church. On the other hand, the bombing of open cities was
regarded as forbidden. Now everyone does that as a matter of course. This is
simply a question of fashion, changing as she does between long and short skirts
for women. I want a cold blooded calculation made as to how it would pay us to
use poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard.
The chiefs of staff circumvented Churchill and made sure no
order was ever put forward. Churchill's desire was never
implemented. They deliberately out foxed the old fox himself.
At that time the Germans had enormous stockpiles of nerve gas
and if the British had used mustard gas there would have been an
incredible retaliation on London and the British would have lost
more civilians than the Germans.
Again we return to the 1925 Geneva protocol by which the
British chiefs of staff recognized how inappropriate, how wrong
and how against civilization it would have been to use poison
gas even when the head of state was pressing for its use.
The Americans had an enormous stockpile of mustard gas.
They had tens of thousands of tonnes of mustard gas. In 1943
when they attacked the Island of Tarawa in the Pacific, the
Japanese resisted so fiercely the Americans marines lost 3,000
and 1,000 were wounded, as against about 4,000 Japanese
killed. The lesson the Americans took from that was it was to be
very costly to fight the Japanese in an island hopping war.
Therefore the American chemical warfare service proposed to
secretly use poison gas to suppress the islands in Japan.
However, the Americans felt they needed the concurrence of
their allies. They approached Canada, which by that time was in
a state of co-operation with the Americans in the development
of these terrible weapons. They approached Canadian scientists
at the National Research Council and in the military and asked
them to do a report confirming that poison gas would be an
effective way to suppress the Japanese islands.
What happened is very interesting. There was no doubt
mustard gas, at no cost in American casualties, would have
suppressed the garrisons on any island in the Pacific. Mustard
gas is more effective in the tropics than in temperate climates.
(1240)
The Canadian scientists, when they were asked for this report,
fudged the figures. They put out a false report which actually
claimed chemical weapons used in the Pacific theatre would not
be any more effective than high explosive weapons. A chemical
warfare service was knocked back a step in that it was trying to
get the approval of the chiefs of staff and President Roosevelt to
use gas. It lost the argument when the Canadians refused to get
onside. That is another reason Canadians have a special place in
the debate about chemical weapons. During the second world
war we very positively prevented the use of those weapons by
the Americans.
What is driving this sense of morality is the 1925 Geneva
protocol. This brings me to the current chemical weapons
convention. This convention is an enormous improvement over
the 1925 protocol. It contains various sanctions and rules. No
law passed by the United Nations can actually prevent the use of
this terrible technology.
The chemical weapons convention is symbolic. It tells
countries that if they use these weapons they are renegades and
no longer part of civilized humanity. It causes nations to pause
when they might be contemplating this action. It gives moral
limitations to how nations will react to one another.
This type of moral sanction is vital in this age, when we move
into the next century and when we do have wars in which terrible
phrases like ethnic cleansing are used. The chemical warfare
convention will not prevent terrorists like those in Japan from
mixing their own chemical weapons and using them, but it will
forever outlaw that type of behaviour and make sure at the very
least the use of chemical weapons is not something resorted to
by civilized states.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Hamilton-Wentworth for his contribution. I know he gave
up part of his life to do in depth research into this whole field.
12660
How did he obtain such detailed information from the U.S.,
Great Britain and Canada? Is that information wide open now or
is some of this information still under wraps? Do we need to do
further research?
I am very concerned about the stockpiles of mustard gas in
1943 which the hon. member mentioned. What happened to
those stockpiles? How did countries get rid of these stockpiles?
There may be a lot of work to be done yet but at least this bill
will go a long way in preventing horror stories in the future.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
Most of the documentation I used for my studies on the
subject came from the archives here in Canada but only by
chance. The majority of the original documents had been
deliberately destroyed around 1970 or thereabouts by persons
unknown. I was fortunate, however, to find microfilm taken of
these documents and hidden away in a dusty corner of the
archives by a civil servant we will never know. That led me to do
the study.
Unfortunately even the documents I had were incomplete and
consequently I could not determine for sure whether in the
post-war period Canada did dispose of its considerable
stockpiles of chemical weapons. We had a mustard gas plant at
Cornwall, Ontario, which at the end of the war had 2,800 tonnes
of mustard gas. Most of it was dumped at sea, which raises some
very serious environmental questions.
(1245)
A few years ago the Department of National Defence made a
concerted effort to get rid of any stockpiles we had. I am
confident we no longer have them in Canada.
One of the problems is verifying what countries have in terms
of their compliance with legislation. With a chemical warfare
convention such as this one we rely very heavily on the sincerity
and the good motivation of countries. There are ways of hiding
these things. That was why I was saying in my remarks that the
symbolic part of the chemical warfare convention is just as
important as its actual practical measures.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am eager
to participate in today's debate on Bill C-87, an act to
implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the
Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical
Weapons and on their Destruction.
Today, when they look at the world around them, people in
Quebec and Canada are concerned. We are concerned because
we do not know what awaits us in the future. We are worried
about the nuclear weapons that are still around, about the
biological and chemical weapons scattered throughout the
world.
By passing this bill, the Canadian government will be among
the first 65 countries to ratify the convention on chemical
weapons out of the roughly 135-there are perhaps 132 at this
time-nations that have signed it. The convention will take
effect 180 days after the 65th state to ratify this agreement tables
it. Along with my party, the Bloc Quebecois, I wholeheartedly
support this convention on chemical weapons, which follows the
debate on arms control and disarmament.
The convention on chemical weapons is the result of more
than 20 years of negotiations at the conference on disarmament
and the forums that preceded it.
For the first time, we have an instrument that really resulted
from an actual multilateral negotiation process. The signing
parties undertake to refrain from various activities in relation to
chemical weapons, to co-operate in a number of ways so as to
facilitate the implementation of the convention and to ensure
that persons also refrain from those activities and provide the
necessary co-operation.
Since the Second World War, the issue of the arms race has
come up every time the prospects for enduring peace or the
possibility of war is discussed. Most observers felt that the arms
race was intrinsically dangerous and ultimately destabilizing.
Western countries thus found themselves facing a paradox: on
the one hand, they believed that force deters aggression; on the
other hand, they were convinced that the arms race alone could
provoke a global war.
The latter shook up our certainty that deterrence is the best
form of insurance against potential aggression. We could not
avoid the disturbing realization that the very measures taken to
ensure our security could bring about our downfall and lead to a
global conflict.
(1250)
The debate on arms control is largely based on the
preconceived notion that any arms race is, by definition, a chain
reaction which tends to trigger an escalation of the conflict. The
responses of warring states to the stockpiling of conventional,
nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons, as well as the
attempts made by each side to gain the upper hand lead to
destabilization and greater international tension.
It is claimed that, if there is another world war, it will be by
accident, in the sense that it will result from a climate of
suspicion and crucial errors of judgment made regarding a
regional conflict. This is why it is essential, for international
stability, to control the arms race.
However, military experts contend that arms control merely
regulates the arms race, instead of limiting it. Many issues
remain very timely, even though the cold war is over and these
issues are no longer related to an east versus west situation.
There is a new phenomenon on the international scene: regional
12661
armed conflicts resulting from the emergence of new nations
and the fact that others are trying to increase their influence.
Since most of the objectives of the superpowers' traditional
arms control program have now been reached, the international
community is turning its attention to measures designed to
prevent a wider proliferation of nuclear, bacteriological and
chemical weapons. That goal is now part of an effort to face
today's geopolitical realities. Indeed, the time has come to
carefully reassess existing monitoring mechanisms.
Following a resolution passed by the UN general assembly in
December 1993, it was announced, in March of this year, that the
delegates at the conference on disarmament had reached a
consensus on a proposal to set up a special committee to
negotiate a reduction of fissionable material production for
nuclear arms. Conference delegates also discussed, among
numerous other issues, chemical weapons, in the hope of
developing a convention on such weapons.
That was not an easy task, since the participants did not agree
on the monitoring procedures. The 1990 U.S.-Soviet bilateral
agreements on the sharing of information and the destruction of
weapon stockpiles helped further multilateral talks on this issue.
In June 1992, the conference on disarmament submitted a draft
treaty to prohibit the development, production and stockpiling
of chemical weapons. Monitoring activities were delegated to
an international organization responsible for the prohibition of
chemical weapons, based in the Netherlands.
The long-awaited treaty on chemical weapons was finally
signed in Paris, on January 13, 1993. The signature and the
coming into effect of that agreement is undoubtedly an
historical event. As I see it, this instrument is important for
three major reasons. First of all, it represents a real step forward
for international security. Second, it is truly universal in scope,
since it reflects a number of fundamental balances. Finally, we
should also consider what the situation would be like if it did not
exist. The convention is the first multinational disarmament
agreement that prohibits an entire class of weapons of mass
destruction.
(1255)
It prohibits producing and also acquiring, stockpiling,
transferring, using or engaging in military preparations to use a
chemical weapon or assisting anyone to engage in any activities
prohibited by the convention. The prohibition on chemicals
covers chemical products as such, their vectors and any
equipment designed for the use of chemical weapons.
Furthermore, any state party to this convention would be
obliged to destroy all chemical weapons within its territory,
those it abandoned outside that territory and facilities for the
production of chemical weapons. This is very important. It
means this is a truly comprehensive prohibition that affects all
chemical weapons in the world.
The convention constitutes an effective deterrent to
developing clandestine chemical weapons production systems
because of its unique inspection system. By setting a common
standard and giving the international community the means to
enforce its application, the convention provides the impetus for
joint action to eradicate weapons of massive destruction.
Furthermore, all countries that have chemical weapons will
have to destroy these, with their facilities for the production of
chemical weapons, within ten years. Consideration was also
given to the technical and financial problems that may arise
when a country must destroy its arsenal of chemical weapons.
The convention provides for certain adjustments, including
an extension of the ten-year deadline, which would, however,
involve stricter monitoring procedures, tantamount to being
under the supervision of the international community. The same
applies to exceptional cases where facilities for the manufacture
of chemical weapons are converted to civilian use.
In the case of chemical weapons abandoned by one state
within the territory of another state, the convention obliges each
state to destroy the chemical weapons within its territory while
at the same time assigning responsibility for destruction to the
state that abandoned weapons within the territory of another
state.
State parties to this agreement are responsible for meeting
their commitments at the national level, but how they meet those
commitments is monitored by the international organization.
This applies to the destruction of weapons and the facilities to
manufacture them.
If the convention had not been adopted, this would have been
a signal to those responsible for the proliferation of these
weapons to continue the production. The security of all
countries would have been at risk, especially countries in the
southern hemisphere. The result would have been to reinforce
unilateral non-proliferation policies which would have
increased barriers to trade and technology transfers while in
addition penalizing developing countries that respect their
commitments.
The chemical weapons convention serves the interests of all
signatory countries and all countries that will sign in the future.
Contrary to what was said in some quarters, it is not designed to
serve the sole interests of industrialized countries. On the
contrary, it is developing countries that will benefit from the
convention. Indeed, in the past few years, unfortunately, it has
been the developing countries which have used chemical
weapons in their conflicts, while industrialized countries have
found them of no interest strategically or as a deterrent.
And understandably, come whatever may, industrialized
countries will always be better equipped to detect and to protect
12662
against chemical weapons than most developing countries,
which do not have ready access to such equipment. We have only
to think of what went on in Japan.
(1300)
Japan is, nonetheless, better equipped to deal with such
situations while the same would be more difficult for third world
countries, where there would probably be more deaths. In fact, it
is the industrialized countries which will take on the better part
of the task of industry monitoring by virtue of the fact that their
chemical industries are more highly developed.
However because of the extension of the definition of
industries considered capable of producing chemical weapons,
all countries will be affected by monitoring in one way or
another.
Likewise, it is only natural that countries which are willing to
be monitored and which respect the commitments made under
the convention will feel that the current restrictions imposed
under the current non-proliferation agreements are eased up.
It is worth noting that the cost of destroying a chemical
weapons factory is ten times that of building it.
Having said this, you will understand our concern with the
financial burden that the obligation to destroy chemical
weapons will place on certain states lacking the necessary
financial means to do so.
The convention's provision that some factories may be
temporarily converted into disposal facilities when this is
possible and cost-effective, so that they can be considered
converted, will not relieve such countries of this problem.
I would like to add in closing that the convention is an
historical first, which the conference on disarmament can add to
its list of accomplishments.
This convention proves that, when the conditions are
favourable, the conference does have the required competence
and skill to draft agreements which are as politically sensitive as
they are technically complex, and which contribute to the
well-being of our respective populations.
The question arises as to the role the Government of Canada
intends to play in encouraging its partners to ratify the chemical
weapons convention as quickly as possible.
To my mind, Canada must play a strong leadership role in this
regard. To date, we have seen no hint of such an intention. If the
government wants to act consistently, it should announce a
series of initiatives in this regard in the coming weeks. After all,
only 28 countries have ratified the convention up to now.
I should perhaps point out that neither the United States nor
Russia has signed yet. We realize that it will cost Russia
significantly to comply with the convention.
What will the federal government do to help Russia get rid of
its chemical weapons stockpiles? In my opinion, Canada should
take a creative approach. For example, should the federal
government not consider providing technical assistance to
Russia, as it has in the past? It could, for example, set up a task
force of technical experts.
We know very well that there are competent people in Quebec
and in the rest of Canada to do this type of work, whose main
thrust would be the evaluation of how Russia, for example,
could destroy its manufacturing facilities and its chemical
weapons at minimal cost.
Clearly, signatures and ratification mean little. Accordingly,
in addition to de facto intentions, the federal government must
ensure the organization has the intention and the resources to
make the monitoring system a reality.
As you know, both Russia and the United States must
participate in this convention, if it is to fulfil its role, since they
have the biggest stockpiles of chemical weapons. As I said
earlier, neither has yet signed.
We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that our support for this bill
will mean that Quebec and Canada will be able to quickly carve
a choice niche within the various institutions of this new
international organization.
(1305)
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to speak
today to Bill C-87, an act to implement the convention on the
prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use
of chemical weapons and on their destruction.
Questions on chemical and biological weapons were first
placed on the United Nations agenda in 1969. On September 3,
1992 the conference on disarmament reached a significant
milestone in its negotiations with the completion of the draft
text of the convention on the prohibition of the development,
production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons for
presentation to the United Nations.
After more than 20 years of long, often difficult discussions
on negotiations at the conference on disarmament and its
predecessors in Geneva, the triumph was an agreement finally
arrived at as a result of genuine, multilateral negotiations.
Approval by the United Nations general assembly paved the
way to the signing ceremony in Paris in January 1993. Canada, a
strong advocate of multilateral efforts, can take pride in being
12663
one of the 160 signatories of the chemical weapons convention.
The convention completely outlaws an entire category of
existing weapons of mass and indiscriminate effect and provides
for a system of multilateral verification, thus setting a new
precedent at the global level.
As one of the 65 nations that has promised to ratify the treaty
and bring it into force, Bill C-87 is our commitment to
implement this convention. Impetus causing responsible nations
to move toward this agreement was provided by the gulf war
which provided a heightened awareness of the dangers of
proliferation.
The international community learned important lessons in the
disarmament of Iraq involving the destruction, removal or
rendering harmless of chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons. This poignant lesson played an important part in
convincing the international community that it was imperative
for nations to put aside differences and to work together to
outlaw these terrible weapons of human destruction.
When I was a military officer in Germany, I was required for
several days every month to live and operate in a chemical suit
with a gas mask close by hand. This was a very traumatic and
very deeply held experience because while we, the military
people on the base, had our chemical suits and our gas masks, we
were fully aware that our dependants did not. Should there be an
attack, and we were aware that the former Soviet Union
regularly used this type of weapon in their exercises, our
dependants would be very vulnerable.
There was an evacuation plan but this was a tremendous
undertaking and would take a tremendous amount of time. Thus,
we were very much aware of the risk that they were under. As a
result, I feel as strongly as anyone can feel that we must do our
utmost to rid the world of chemical weapons.
Since they have the greatest number of chemical industries,
the willingness of the United States and Germany to co-operate
was vital. Germany ratified the agreement in August last year.
The United States, with the second largest chemical stockpile in
the world, is expected to ratify the treaty this year. This will
hopefully send out a hurry up message to other countries that
have pledged their support.
We too must move without delay to implement Bill C-87, thus
signifying our commitment to ratify the treaty. In this spirit, I
support this legislation.
During the January 1994 joint summit meeting in Moscow,
Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton declared their intention to
promote ratification of the treaty as rapidly as possible, thus
enabling the convention's entry into force this year.
However, the real work lies ahead. Costs of implementation
will be high. As a rule of thumb, it costs 10 times as much to
destroy chemical weapon production facilities as it does to build
them in the first place. With each country bearing individual
responsibility for the destruction of their chemical weapons,
undoubtedly there will be financial problems for some
members, particularly emerging countries and Russia. Both
financial and technical assistance to those countries seeking to
destroy their chemical weapons must be provided by member
states and this will include Canada.
(1310)
A universal system of verification to monitor and ensure the
destruction of stockpiles will be carried out by the Organization
for the prohibition of chemical weapons, OPCW. The scope of
its activities is complex and its mandate is to verify: first, the
destruction of chemical weapons; second, the destruction of
chemical weapons production facilities; third, to verify
non-compliance, ensuring that activities prohibited under the
convention are detected and traced; fourth, to verify permitted
production in the chemical industry, to ensure that only
activities not prohibited under the convention are carried out;
and fifth, to perform investigations concerning
non-compliance, that is, challenge inspections, to ensure that
the cost of cheating will outweigh its benefits.
Estimates indicate that the organization for the prohibition of
chemical weapons will have up to 1,000 staff and will operate
with an annual budget of $150 million to $180 million. Who will
pay for this? International inspection expenses will be met by
Canada and other members, according to a United Nations scale
of assessment, in addition to the cost of eliminating our own
chemical weapons and facilities.
For emerging member countries, the price of compliance will
have to be added to the chemicals they export. That will make
them less competitive.
There are other problems, as noted in the book An End to
Chemical and Biological Weapons? by Richard Latter. It states:
It is unclear whether major countries, for example the United States and
Russia, will be prepared to fund the CWC sufficiently, given their other
commitments-The U.S., which calculates that incinerating its 30,000 ton
stockpile would cost $6 to 7 billion, have also agreed to foot part of the bill for
destroying the 40,000 tons of Russian weapons stock. Even so, the problems of
getting a destruction program under way means Russia will almost certainly
have to invoke treaty provisions allowing an extra five years to complete the
task.
No doubt Canada will be asked to shoulder some of this
burden but the overall costs are still largely unclear.
In Canada, information from a 1988 survey indicates our
chemical industry does not use prohibited chemicals listed in
schedule 1, which includes the toxins sarin and soman, used in
the war between Iran and Iraq, and the various mustard gases
used during the first and second world wars. Some of the
chemicals on the list are used by a few research organizations.
12664
Once Bill C-87 becomes law, such users will be required to
obtain a licence and be subject to two inspections per year to
ensure they are following the rules.
Chemicals listed in schedule 2A and 2B may not be used to
any great extent in Canada, but this has yet to be determined.
Schedule 2 chemicals are used for commercial purposes and if
production exceeds the listed thresholds, two yearly inspections
will be required.
All substances noted on these lists will be banned for export to
countries that do not participate in the chemical weapons
convention.
The more commonly used industrial chemicals noted in
schedule 3 can be produced without inspection under the 30 ton
threshold. However, amounts exceeding 230 tons will be subject
to random inspections.
Without complete data, the number of companies affected and
the precise cost for implementation of the new law remains
unknown. Unquestionably the disposal of chemical weapons,
facilities and international verification costs to be paid by
individual member countries will be expensive.
In this time of financial constraints the government must
avoid creating a cumbersome bureaucracy and rather should
establish a slim, trim and effective agency to inspect and
monitor the chemical industry. Assumptions are that five full
time staff will be required for Canada's national authority, plus
one staff within the foreign affairs department.
Using Australia as an example, the bureau of statistics
gathered data on chemical production relevant to the chemical
weapons convention which assisted in the determination of
resources required for its national authority.
(1315 )
The Australian chemical weapons convention office, the
chemical weapons control organization, as it is called, will be
closely associated with its safeguards office, also responsible
for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The director of the
Australian safeguards office, who is directly responsible to the
foreign minister, will also be the director of the new chemical
weapons convention office. This allows for effective use of
available senior executive and administrative support resources.
There will be a director, two full time staff with part time
support drawn as required from experts in other areas of
government or at times from the private sector. Hopefully our
government will examine the Australian model for its efficiency
and application in Canada.
Although there is no binding legislation giving government
authority to demand information, the Department of Foreign
Affairs has attempted to collect data by initiating a survey of
2,100 Canadian businesses. About 500 companies have
responded to the voluntary questionnaire. There is still no clear
indication as to how many companies will be affected by the
legislation. Until government has these data it will be difficult
to establish projected costs for our clean-up, verification and
inspection.
Bill C-87 closely adheres to the requirements of the chemical
weapons convention and has the support of the Canadian
Chemical Producers Association as well as the Canadian
Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers Association. Officials of the
Department of Foreign Affairs deserve credit for taking industry
concerns into consideration during consultations over the past
eight years.
Without Canada's participation in the treaty and industry
support we would have difficulty competing in the international
marketplace. Canadian industry imports chemicals for the
production of many commercial applications and under the
convention chemicals identified for control will be banned or
restricted for non-participating countries. Care must be taken to
ensure regulatory costs do not become so prohibitive that they
force smaller industries out of business.
Additionally we should not impede industry by increasing red
tape and creating a complex decision making hierarchy.
Undoubtedly industry will be required to make detailed
declarations of production and be subject to stringent
inspections within Canada. These extra costs will have to be
borne by industry as well as the Canadian taxpayer.
The international secretariat based in The Hague will police
international compliance. This area was the most controversial
in achieving a consensus. The general guidelines state the
inspection teams are to be granted unimpeded access rights.
They will verify destruction programs, inspect all military
facilities and civilian plants producing chemicals which could
be used for armaments in addition to carrying out routine
monitoring and random checks on other civilian chemical
installations.
Bill C-87, section 13(1)(c) dealing with international
inspection states: ``Where appropriate, install, use and maintain
in respect of any place monitoring instruments, systems and
seals in a manner consistent with the provisions of the
convention and any facility agreement applicable to the place''.
It would seem appropriate or necessary to institute some
protection to ensure this authority for international inspections
is not abused.
Section 14(1)(b) states: ``Permit the international inspector to
examine anything in the place being inspected''. Section
14(1)(c) states: ``Permit the international inspector to make
copies of any information contained in the records, files, papers
or electronic information systems kept or used in relation to the
place being inspected and to remove copies from the place''.
12665
Further clarification and expansion would seem to be in order.
Commercial espionage is a recognized reality and industry
understandably fears the disclosure of valuable commercial
information to competitors. Every effort must be made to ensure
our national security is not put at risk. Some form of checks and
balances should be put in place as under the current legislation it
appears Canada would not have the right to restrict inspection
teams. Reasonable management procedures should be identified
and implemented so that national security is not jeopardized.
Effective implementation of the treaty's provisions will pay
off in long term world security dividends. It is important these
national protection issues be addressed now.
We stand at a pivotal juncture on the world stage. We can
succeed or we can fail in this effort to lower the risk of
inadvertent or impulsive use of chemical weapons.
(1320 )
Our success in this instance will reap great benefits and assist
by setting the example in the larger task of implementing
co-operative approaches to problems in other areas, regionally
or globally.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to speak at second reading on Bill C-87
concerning the prohibition of chemical weapons.
The Reform Party supports the chemical weapons convention
which Canada signed in 1993. We will also support this
legislation allowing us to be among the first groups of countries
to implement the convention's terms of agreement.
As all members of the House are well aware, Canada has been
a world leader when it comes to the promotion of peace. We have
given steadfast support to the UN, provided peacekeepers in
times of need and promoted international agreements and
regimes to limit the dangers of war.
In the case of the chemical weapons convention we are
dealing with a particularly important issue. Not only is the use
of chemical weapons highly illegitimate against combatants
who at least have some protection against them, but the threat of
their use against civilian populations is an intolerable breach of
civilized conduct by any nation.
Most of us will remember with horror the terrible scenes of
the Kurdish villages gassed by the Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein in the late 1980s. This is the kind of tragedy that must
be avoided at all costs in the future. By ratifying Bill C-87
Canada will be doing its part toward this end.
In the news today we see the arrest of the person in Japan
allegedly responsible for the gas attack in the subway station in
Japan. I hope Bill C-87 would go a long way to ensure that type
of terrorist activity is never allowed on any part of the planet.
Bill C-87 prohibits the production or use of chemical
weapons and provides for the regulation of certain chemicals
that can readily be turned into chemical weapons. As we speak,
similar pieces of legislation are being prepared throughout the
world. Hopefully by this fall the convention will come into
force. As things now stand, a large majority of countries have
signed on, which is quite promising. The fewer countries outside
of this convention, the more pressure there will be to adhere
strictly to its goals and provisions.
Unfortunately several middle eastern countries are refusing to
join the convention. They argue that because Israel is not willing
to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, they cannot sign on.
While I hope they will reconsider, I also hope the Government of
Israel will bring its nuclear program out of the closet and join
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The chemical weapons
convention and the NNPT are agreements in the best interest of
the people and governments of the world. Therefore they should
not be used for tactical advantage by any government.
Moving on to the substance of the bill, while the Reform Party
supports the bill, we are looking at it closely to see if there are
constructive amendments that should be made to it during
debate and in committee. High on the list for Reform are the
costs to the taxpayer and to Canadian industry. While we
acknowledge the bill has some legitimate costs, according to our
preliminary investigation the government does not yet know the
price tag on Bill C-87.
As Bill C-87 works its way through the legislative process,
we should try to determine how best to improve it so
implementation will be as cost effective as possible. For
example, we must avoid the creation of a huge new bureaucracy
to monitor and regulate the Canadian chemical industry.
Officials at foreign affairs have advised us that a full time
staff of five as a national authority plus one additional staffer at
foreign affairs might be needed. We should make sure it does not
go beyond this. At any rate, during committee the question
should be carefully addressed.
(1325)
Another key question for the committee will be the inspection
powers used to monitor the industry. As we have seen in another
government bill, Bill C-68 on gun control, the government can
be very heavy handed and intrusive if it is left to its own devices.
Reform wants to make sure this case is not repeated on Bill
C-87.
More important, Reform has some serious concerns about the
privacy of businesses which will fall under the auspices of Bill
12666
C-87. Industries subject to inspection must fully comply with
inspectors or be subject to summary conviction or conviction on
indictment. Under the more serious category persons will be
subject up to five years in prison and a $500,000 fine.
Considering these serious penalties, business people will be
forced to comply even if they feel their legitimate rights to
privacy are being violated. Under sections 14(1)(b) and (c) the
inspectors can examine anything in the place being inspected
and make copies of any information contained in the records,
files, papers or electronic information systems kept or used in
relation to the place being inspected and to remove the copies
from that place.
Although I know the intent of the legislation aims to fulfil the
obligations of the convention, I am slightly worried these
investigations could be used as a fishing expedition by the
government to sift companies through a fine tooth comb.
Parliament should be sure such inspections are required to
directly investigate whether companies are breaching the
chemical weapons convention. Fishing expeditions should be
specifically prohibited.
Under section 15(3) the bill says search warrants would not be
required even if an inspector were refused entry to a premises if
there are exigent circumstances. Although the justice
department likes the wording and argues it is necessary so
inspectors can have a freer hand, I am not convinced. As we all
know, there are no industries in Canada that currently make
chemical weapons or use them. What circumstances would be so
pressing that a warrant could not be obtained? If this provision is
only to be used in extreme emergencies where inspectors must
take immediate action it should state so explicitly. If on the
other hand it is intended to be used for the convenience of
inspectors it should be removed from the bill.
Section 20 reminds me of the government's gun control bill. It
states every person who contravenes any provisions of this act is
guilty of an offence and is liable to either an indictable or
summary conviction. Once again I realize the government is
casting a wide net in order to avoid loopholes. However, this
means to me that a business which incorrectly reports its
activities or fills out a form incorrectly would be guilty of an
offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. If a clerk makes the
mistake would that employee be convicted? Would the owner?
What about the board of directors? Would it be the clerk's
supervisor? Surely this must be cleared up.
While I do not have anything against seriously punishing a
company secretly making or selling chemical weapons, I think
the bill may be going too far. Just like Bill C-68, we have to
target the criminals and those who are willfully breaking the
chemical weapons convention, not ordinary Canadians or
business people who get caught up in the government's web.
Another section which caught my attention is 23(1), which
talks about how the government can at the discretion of the
minister in charge dispose of items seized under this act.
(1330 )
As I looked through the act, however, I did not see exactly
where the government was given authority to seize property or
what the limits were on that seizure. I would certainly want this
point clarified in debate and during committee.
As I read through the details of the bill, I eventually came to
the three schedules of chemicals that are being regulated. All
prohibited chemical weapons are listed in schedule 1. According
to my understanding, these chemicals are not used by any
industry in Canada. However, there are a few research
organizations that do require them. If Bill C-87 passes, these
researchers will be required to obtain a licence from the
government to continue with their activities. They will also be
subject to two inspections per year to ensure that they are
following the rules. A fee will be charged for this licence.
I do not have a problem with any of this, subject to the
following two conditions. First, my concerns about privacy and
the targeting of this legislation should be addressed to ensure
that we are not whittling away at legitimate freedoms and
liberties of Canadians. Second, the fee charged for this licence
should be reasonable. Perhaps a maximum fee could be decided
on during the committee stage or it should be made explicit that
the fees would be on a cost recovery basis only.
Moving on to the chemicals in schedule 2, these are known as
precursors and are one step removed from being chemical
weapons. They are used for some commercial processes but not
too extensively.
Companies producing or using schedule 2 chemicals in
amounts beyond a certain threshold will be required to report
this to the government. Beyond a second threshold, those
companies will also be subject to an inspection of up to two per
year maximum. While there is no licensing for schedule 2
chemicals, certain new chemicals will be added to the Export
Permits Act.
In addition, three years after Bill C-87 passes, the export of
schedule 2 chemicals will be banned to countries that are not
signatories to the convention. Until then, importers in
non-signatory countries will be required to produce end use
certificates for schedule 2 chemicals.
As for the schedule 3 chemicals, these are more commonly
used industrial chemicals. Companies producing schedule 3
chemicals in amounts beyond a certain threshold will be
required to report this to the government. Beyond a second
threshold those producers may be subject to infrequent random
12667
inspections to ensure compliance with the convention. In
addition, facilities that work with discrete organic chemicals
must report this to the government.
Export of schedule 3 chemicals to non-signatory countries
will require end use certificates, and after five years further
measures may be imposed.
Looking at Bill C-87 as a whole, I believe Canadians will
support this bill strongly. Canadians have always been strong
supporters of multilateral efforts to promote peace and restrict
arms proliferation. This is especially true with respect to the
prohibition of the use of chemical weapons. By asserting
leadership in this area, Canada is standing up for the extension
of a rules based multilateral system to defend our interests and
promote common norms and values with like minded countries.
In conclusion, Reform will support this bill, and throughout
the legislative process we will seek to improve it. These
improvements will make its implementation as pain free as
possible for industry while still upholding Canada's
commitments under the chemical weapons convention.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1335 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
committee.)
* * *
Hon. Raymond Chan (for Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that Bill C-86, an act to amend the
Canadian Dairy Commission Act, be read the second time and
referred to committee.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak
today in support of Bill C-86, an act to amend the Canadian
Dairy Commission Act, and to urge speedy passage of this
important bill and the amendments it brings forward to this act.
This government is strongly committed to building our vision
of a growing, competitive, market oriented agriculture and
agri-food sector. Canada's dairy industry is a key component of
that sector. Trade and market development, both here at home
and abroad, are crucial to achieving the sustainable growth
necessary to allow this vision to materialize for dairy producers,
processors, and further processors in the industry.
In recent years value added exports have grown steadily in
importance for the dairy sector. I would like to add as well at this
time that I commend those in the dairy industry for the approach
and the actions they are taking in meeting the challenges that are
coming forward, the competition that is there, and the way in
which they are able to meet that competition and
competitiveness in the export markets with the use of these
amendments.
Market realities call for changes in the way dairy stakeholders
do their business. It is essential to facilitate industry driven
marketing approaches in the new GATT environment. With the
passage of the amendments before us in this bill, we will enable
the Canadian dairy sector to meet some of these new challenges.
These amendments will allow for the maintenance of a
successful, effective, and equitable framework for the orderly
marketing of milk and other dairy products in Canada and
beyond our borders, a framework developed and supported by
the industry. I repeat that it has been developed and supported by
the industry itself.
Bill C-86, along with this amendment, to the Canadian Dairy
Commission Act was given first reading here in this place on
April 28. It will provide the necessary federal legislative
authority to permit the Canadian Dairy Commission, in close
co-operation with the provinces, to implement a national milk
pricing system with the pooling of market returns from different
classes of milk and use. No cost to government is involved in
these amendments.
This new strategy conforms with Canada's trade
commitments under NAFTA and the WTO agreements. It will
provide a mechanism for the Canadian dairy industry to
continue to supply important export and domestic markets for
dairy products and products containing dairy ingredients, while
at the same time maintaining the equity that is inherent in the
current supply management regime.
Under the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, which has been
incorporated into the North American free trade agreement, or
NAFTA, as we know it, export subsidies are not permitted on
bilateral trade in agricultural products. Also, under the World
Trade Organization agreement, which was implemented on
January 1, 1995, the definition of export subsidies includes
producer-financed export assistance. Therefore, as of August 1,
1995, the current system of using producer levies to finance
dairy product exports to the United States will be prohibited.
The ability to use levies to finance dairy product exports to other
destinations is also gradually being reduced in volume and
dollar terms under the WTO agreement.
Currently, through levies, milk producers across Canada
share the costs associated with the export of dairy products not
required for domestic consumption.
(1340 )
These levies also currently provide the funds that are needed
to facilitate the payment of rebates to further processors of
products containing dairy ingredients. Such rebates have been
12668
necessary to assist further processors using dairy ingredients to
successfully compete in domestic and export markets and to
assist exporters of primary dairy products to be competitive on
the export market.
The Canadian Dairy Commission administers these export
and rebate initiatives on behalf of the dairy industry. These costs
have always been considered to be a necessary part of managing
the milk marketing system in Canada as a whole. The issue of
equity between producers is central to the current milk
marketing system in Canada and is preserved in the new pricing
and pooling approach that will be enabled by this bill.
Equity is currently maintained through the payment of levies
on every hectolitre of milk produced in Canada. Each province's
current levy obligation is calculated by the commission on the
basis of total fluid and industrial milk production. Levies are
collected by provincial marketing boards and agencies through
the deductions from producer milk payments and are remitted to
the commission.
If Bill C-86 is not implemented by August 1, important dairy
exports to the United States using producer financed levies will
be in jeopardy. Furthermore, while export subsidies by levies to
other destinations could continue for now, these subsidized
shipments will also have to be reduced over time.
Canadian further processors, such as Hershey Limited in the
nearby city of Smith Falls, De Tomasso Limited in Montreal, or
McCains in New Brunswick, which use dairy inputs and
products such as condensed milk, butter, and mozzarella in their
chocolate and pizza products, for example, rely on U.S. exports
to maintain the competitiveness of their Canadian production
facilities. These companies, which employ thousands of
Canadians, must continue to be able to obtain dairy ingredients
at world price levels if they are to continue to successfully
compete on the export market and to be competitive with the
imports on the domestic market.
Pricing these dairy inputs at the producer level at U.S.
competitive prices would eliminate the need for charging levies
to producers and paying rebates to processors and would thus be
a GATT-WTO acceptable method of maintaining this U.S.
export activity. However, without the approach of pooling
producer returns, which is enabled by this bill, Bill C-86, there
would be no way of maintaining the producer equity that is
achieved through the current levy system.
Without being able to pool returns on a national basis, milk
producers in provinces where more Canadian processing and
further processing activity takes place would be particularly
impacted by the reduced market returns involved.
Under the amendments proposed in this bill, the levy system
as it applies to milk marketed in interprovincial and export trade
would be replicated through the creation of special milk classes
where prices would be set at competitive market of destination
levels and through pooling of the returns from those markets.
To maintain equity among producers across the country, milk
revenues will be pooled and redistributed to producers through
the Canadian Dairy Commission and provincial authorities
according to terms agreed upon by the industry and the
provincial authorities and set out in federal-provincial
agreements.
In order to enable the Canadian Dairy Commission to
administer such a pooling system for producers, certain federal
and provincial administrative powers must be dovetailed
legislatively. Most provinces currently have legislation
authorizing pricing and pooling of returns on milk sold within
their boundaries. The Canadian Dairy Commission requires
similar pricing and pooling powers for milk sold across
provincial boundaries and for exports. The commission must
also be provided with the authority to both delegate and receive
these new pricing and pooling powers from the provincial
authorities. Such dovetailing of federal and provincial
authorities does not involve any encroachment on current
provincial powers.
The principal amendments to the Canadian Dairy
Commission Act contained in this bill provide the commission
with the legal administrative authority to calculate the average
national price level for the milk classes whose returns will be
pooled. Also it allows them to obtain the returns from sales to
processors through the provinces and redistribute the returns to
producers through provincial authorities on an equitable basis as
per the terms of the formal federal-provincial agreements.
(1345)
As I indicated earlier, the same effect is now being achieved
through the producer levy system which finances such
initiatives as the Canadian Dairy Commission's dairy product
export assistance program; the rebate program for further
processors and the butterfat utilization program.
Other amendments contained in Bill C-86 enable the dairy
commission to recover pooling administration costs from funds
generated by the pool itself; to establish a special bank account
to deal solely with the producer moneys entering and leaving the
pool; allow the commission to return any excess fees or levy
funds to producers; permit the commission to establish a line of
credit to ensure continuity of producer payments and strengthen
the enforcement provisions of the act.
The price discrimination and pooling system approach that it
will enable by Bill C-86 was developed through extensive dairy
12669
stakeholder consultation and negotiations and is supported by
provincial agriculture and agri-food ministers.
I have a number of letters of support from provincial
governments, milk producers, organizations and provincial
boards from across the country, from Newfoundland, Prince
Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., the Dairy Farmers of
Canada, the UPA and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
They all support this bill and ask us to move it through this place
and the other place as quickly as possible.
For the past two years stakeholders have dedicated extensive
time and effort to develop a means of keeping in step with and
responding successfully to all of the changes taking place in the
domestic and international marketplace. Several working
groups and committees, including the diary industry strategic
planning committee, the negotiating subcommittee and the
policy and all milk pooling committees, have all been
established under the auspices of the Canadian milk supply
management committee.
The committee oversees the application of a national milk
marketing plan, the federal-provincial agreement which
governs milk supply management in Canada. Chaired by the
Canadian Dairy Commission, the Canadian milk supply
management committee has representation from producers and
governments from all provinces except Newfoundland, which is
not a signatory to the national plan because it does not produce
significant amounts of milk used in the industrial product sector.
National processor and consumer groups also participate in the
nationwide forum.
The federal-provincial task force on orderly marketing also
reviewed the progress made by the dairy sector in defining a new
framework for sustainable, orderly marketing. Last December
ministers of agriculture and agri-food were advised of the
industry's recommendation that national price discrimination
be endorsed as the only viable option to continue current
programs designed to export to the United States and maintain
domestic markets facing import competition, and that the
preferable method of sharing returns from price discrimination
at the national level. The method that is equitable and GATT
acceptable is the pooling of returns from all milk classes.
Ministers subsequently supported this approach and directed
that amendments to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act be
developed to provide for a national pooling of milk returns to
delegated administrative functions.
The bill before us today is the culmination of this
comprehensive, consultative process. Through the system
enabled under Bill C-86, the dairy sector is adapting to a
changing business environment. I congratulate it for doing that.
Dairy stakeholders have developed a flexible and more
market oriented approach that will set the industry on a viable
course for the long term. The approach will also encourage
greater co-operation among provincial milk marketing boards,
agencies and processors in developing new markets for
Canadian dairy ingredients and products.
I urge all members and all parties in the House to give these
amendments speedy consideration and passage so that we can
continue to have a growing and strong dairy industry in this
country.
(1350)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before giving the floor to
our colleague from Frontenac, I wish to advise him that the
Chair will have to interrupt him to allow oral question period to
proceed but that he will get to complete his speech afterwards.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for the clarification. I will of course comply.
I would like mention right away that five of my colleagues
will join me in debate on Bill C-86, a bill of major importance
for Quebecers in our view. I will be supported by the hon.
members for Champlain, Lotbinière, Québec-Est,
Matapédia-Matane and Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead
throughout the day and tomorrow, if need be, as I put across our
views on Bill C-86, which, I must tell you right away, we will be
supporting. We do not have any amendment to put forth at this
time. I can therefore assure the hon. member for Prince
Edward-Hastings of our full support.
The GATT negotiations in Geneva led dairy producers a merry
dance. Negotiations concerning article XI in particular, as well
as discussions about maintaining a supply management system
did not give much comfort to dairy producers.
I remember attending, in December 1993, a few weeks after
this government took office, a large meeting with some dairy
producers from my riding. The meeting was held in
Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, in the riding of the independent
member for Beauce. There were between 500 and 600 farm
producers in attendance, and they sounded quite worried. This
meeting was chaired by the chief economist of the UPA in
Quebec, Yvon Proulx, assisted by two other persons.
I must say that three questions were asked over and over by
our dairy producers. The first question of particular interest to
them was this: Will supply management with respect to milk be
maintained?
I clearly remember the answer chief economist Proulx gave
them at the time, as it left me wondering. He said something like
this: ``My friends, if you want supply management, you can
12670
have it. If you exercise self-discipline, we can have a
well-disciplined dairy policy in Quebec and Canada''.
He managed to give some reassurances to the producers, who
feared among other things that producers could decide overnight
to increase their dairy herd, or that those running a cow-calf
operation could suddenly decide to start dairy production to
supplement their income.
Another matter of concern to producers was quota value. I
remember one producer saying: ``I could have sold my farm for
$1.5 million last fall. Will I be able to sell it for the same price
with these declining quota values?'' Of course, the question
remains unanswered. It was not answered in October 1993. Just
this week, I read in La terre de chez nous an article by none other
than the president of the union representing agricultural
producers in the Châteauguay valley, Peter Bienz, who figured
out that his dairy quota was worth hundreds of thousands of
dollars and who is most interested in what will happen to the
value of his quota.
(1355)
A milk quota is only a work permit, a piece of paper, a
certificate which says, for example, that so-and-so has the right
to produce 12,000 kilos of milk fat per year. Our agricultural
producers are extremely concerned about the monetary value of
this piece of paper, which is now so valuable in Quebec, because
many of them see it as their pension fund. They are not like MPs
who, after sitting in the House of Commons for six years and
reaching the age of 55, as provided in the new bill under
consideration, can receive a pension for life, which, all in all, is
quite reasonable after spending six years in this House.
Unfortunately for them, farmers do not enjoy the same perks.
They equate their pension fund with the value of their quotas, so
I hope that this value will not be slashed.
Finally, another question of concern to farm producers was
the following: Will the proposed import tariffs ranging from 181
to 350 per cent remain the same?
Mr. Speaker, I see that the time is passing very quickly and,
with your permission, I would like to stop now and resume my
speech after Question Period.
The Speaker: Yes, my dear colleague, you may resume your
speech after Question Period. You will be first.
It being 2 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the
House will now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
12670
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I met
recently with four high school students from my riding
representing Street Kids International, an organization which
raises awareness about human rights abuses perpetrated against
the most defenceless segment of society, our children.
[Translation]
During our meeting, these young students pointed out
Guatemala's, Brazil's and Colombia's flagrant violations of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child. For a government to
order that homeless children be killed because they are seen as
harmful to society is totally unacceptable to Canadians.
As a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
the Canadian government must make every effort to ensure
respect for the rights of children whatever their nationality and
wherever they live. It is a matter of justice and human dignity.
* * *
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now
we know what cynicism really is. After relentlessly condemning
the federal government's interference in the health sector, and
after strongly criticizing the national standards imposed by that
same government, the Minister of Labour is now making an
about face and claiming that Quebecers want national standards.
She says that the government must make sure that everyone
can benefit from the social programs which give Canada its
distinct character.
What irony. After defending the idea of Quebec as a distinct
society, which implied the rejection of Canada-wide standards,
the minister now claims to want to protect Canada's distinct
society with these same standards.
This is mind boggling.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
more Ontarians learn about the Liberal gun control bill the more
they oppose it. They oppose the bill because gun registration has
never proven to decrease crime. It failed in New Zealand and
Australia. They oppose the bill because it contains draconian
search and seizure measures like those of a totalitarian state.
They oppose the bill because the consultation process was
non-existent at worst and haphazard at best. They oppose the
bill because it will cost between $100 million and $500 million
of scarce taxpayers' money. They oppose the bill because they
want real reduction in crime and not a made in Ottawa solution
that will not work.
If Ontario MPs fail to represent their constituents and oppose
Bill C-68, the old saying about safety in numbers will fail to
apply to Ontario's voice in Ottawa.
12671
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the business
and professional organizations of my riding that assembled
recently in an attempt to explore opportunities to enhance
democracy through the use of new technologies.
I have made a personal commitment to consultation in my
riding and this initiative is another step in refining the process.
The brainstorming session that took place covered all areas of
technology with representatives from cable, computer,
software, hardware, communications and telecommunications
industries.
I anticipate great things as a result of the gathering with more
access available to the public policy development process and a
real economic development benefit to the high tech centre of
Atlantic Canada, Fredericton, New Brunswick.
I thank everyone who came out and look forward to future
developments as we continue to explore technological
opportunities to our mutual advantage.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is difficult to understand why rBST is needed in
Canada, a country that produces dairy products of the highest
international quality.
The National Dairy Council of Canada is strongly opposed to
rBST. It refers to it as being an unneeded and unwanted intrusion
into its business that offers no benefits whatsoever to consumers
and processors.
Dairy cows injected with rBST are at greater risk of
developing mastitis, a condition requiring the use of antibiotics.
This will increase the dumping and waste of milk and potentially
can lead to increased levels of antibiotic residues in milk for
antibiotics that escape current detection methods.
Some researchers are concerned with the possible link
between rBST and human health risks. I urge Health Canada to
extend the moratorium on rBST. By waiting until conclusive
independent studies have been completed Health Canada will
have protected the health of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House of the Canadian Advanced
Technology Association 1995 Award of Distinction being
awarded to Research in Motion of Waterloo.
The CATA award for outstanding product achievement was
presented to RIM in recognition of its exceptional contribution
to the growth and competitiveness of Canada's advanced
technology industry. The award was presented to RIM at the
Global Connections Conference on May 3 to May 5, 1995 in
Calgary.
Research in Motion represents the best that Canada has to
offer in the new economy. RIM is a 100 per cent Canadian
owned, export oriented, high technology company operating in
the wireless data communications sector.
RIM's CATA award is the second award given to a Waterloo
company in as many years. Mortice Kerns Systems won the
1994 award for its Internet anywhere software which eases
access to the Internet.
The federal riding of Waterloo is in the heart of Canada's
technology triangle and is a critical mass for technological
innovation. Research in Motion is to be congratulated for its
achievements as a leading edge Canadian company competing
in a global stadium and bringing home the gold.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
while Ottawa keeps procrastinating regarding the Program for
Older Worker Adjustment, the Quebec government is taking
concrete action. Yesterday, Quebec labour minister, Louise
Harel, announced that her department would help older workers
who are victims of mass layoffs but are not eligible to POWA.
For five years now, the Quebec government has been asking
that the program be amended, since many older workers are not
eligible because of criteria which are too restrictive. When they
were in opposition, the federal Liberals strongly supported
Quebec's claims. However, now that they are in office, they are
not following up on their stance.
Once again, to ensure fair treatment to all Quebecers, the
provincial government is forced to go ahead without federal
financial support, in spite of the fact that Quebecers pay close to
$30 billion in taxes every year.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the prairie provinces
113 kilometres of Trans-Canada Highway from Gull Lake,
Saskatchewan, to the Alberta border is still two lanes. In the last
15 years that
12672
stretch of winding hilly goat paths has claimed 23 lives and 320
people have been injured.
Twinning would cost $35 million. Last fall Saskatchewan had
its money on the table but Transport Canada would not pony up
its share.
(1405)
Each year the federal government collects $5 billion in road
fuel taxes and puts only 10 per cent of it back into the national
highway system. There seems to be no limit to funds for hockey
rinks, swimming pools and silly bureaucratic projects like
universal firearms registration but nothing for this long overdue
investment in essential infrastructure, an investment that would
save lives.
Priorities, boys and girls, priorities.
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again
Henri Daviault, the man charged with sexual assault of an
elderly disabled woman, was acquitted by using drunkenness as
a defence.
After consuming an enormous amount of alcohol this man
dragged the victim out of her wheelchair and sexually assaulted
her. Despite the fact that the crime was committed, the courts
determined that Mr. Daviault was too drunk to know what he was
doing.
His acquittal has rightfully angered many Canadians. I have
received a petition of several hundred names from the Sexual
assault crisis centre of Chatham-Kent. Every signature
demonstrates the frustration with the justice system and proves
that Bill C-72 is needed and applauded by many.
Each time Mr. Daviault was acquitted of this hideous crime
the dissenting judges commented that Parliament was free to
deal with the matter of intoxication and criminal fault. That is
exactly what the government is doing.
I rise in support of the bill and hope its passage will help in
strengthening our justice system.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in Etobicoke-Lakeshore many women from diverse
business backgrounds have come together to establish a network
to help women in business.
The Professional Women's Network will provide a much
needed forum for local business development and for the needs
of professional and business women. These women representing
a broad representation of professions will meet regularly to
exchange ideas, share information, and work together to create
opportunities for each other and for our community.
The growing prominence of women in professions and other
sectors has proven to be a major factor in Canada's future
growth, and the Professional Women's Network in
Etobicoke-Lakeshore is testament to that fact.
The Liberal government recognizes the women of Canada
have the imagination and determination to participate fully in
the growing world economy. I support, commend and encourage
the ingenuity of these and all women across Canada.
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we all
know, Ontario voters will soon elect a new provincial
government. By most accounts it will be a Lyn McLeod led
Liberal government. I say it is about time.
Soon after the campaign started the Lyn McLeod Liberals
released their plan to get Ontario back on track. York University
economist Fred Lazar said:
I have had a chance to review the assumptions and the numbers in the Liberal
balanced budget plan. This plan to balance Ontario's budget in four years while
providing stable multi-year funding to the transfer partners in health, education
and the municipalities is a realistic doable approach to re-establishing fiscal
responsibility in Ontario. A balanced budget is key to creating a healthy
economic climate that will in turn stimulate investment and bring jobs to Ontario.
Only a plan that aims to balance a budget within the term of a government can
be considered to be a balanced budget plan.
Ontario needs a new provincial government; it needs a Liberal
government led by Lyn McLeod.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs has announced that Canada is preparing to
start trading with certain countries regardless of their human
rights violations. According to the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, the liberalization of trade is the best
means of promoting the respect of human rights.
These words will be of no comfort to those on death row in
Indonesia, China, Saudi Arabia, Burma and Iraq. The most
ironic thing about the whole situation is that the Liberal
government, with the Prime Minister showing the way, is so
happy with this development that it is actually bragging about it.
Money has no smell. As for the Liberal government, it has no
scruples. It has traded them in for several million greenbacks.
12673
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development cannot
even get a piece of legislation past his own cabinet colleagues.
(1410 )
Every day another article appears stating that the grand
schemes proposed by the minister last year have been scrapped.
His own discussion papers on unemployment insurance state
that 26 per cent of UI claimants have filed four or more claims in
the last five years. First he says this is a serious problem that
needs to be addressed, and now he is saying it is not a problem
and does not need to be addressed. The minister just cannot seem
to make up his mind.
Today the minister is reported to have said that the social
reform proposals have had to take a backseat to cutting the
federal deficit. Reducing the number of repeat users of
unemployment insurance would help cut the federal deficit, and
still he will not implement the needed reforms.
If the minister cannot make the tough decisions, he should
turn the administration of UI over to the workers and the
employers who pay the premiums. The minister flails and fails
again.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I think of kites, I think of the sheets of newspaper
which children used to glue to slats of wood and then try to send
up into the sky. Recently, my eyes, and those of hundreds of
thousands of other people, were opened.
In 1993, the municipality of Verdun inaugurated the world
kite festival. Since then, some 20 countries have begun coming
to the event in Verdun to compete and to show off their talent.
Each year during the festival, the sky is filled with kites of all
colours and of all imaginable forms. Last year, the festival won
Quebec's award for tourism-the Meritas prize.
I invite all of you, and your families, to come to the world kite
festival which will be held in my beautiful riding of
Verdun-Saint-Paul from June 1 to June 4. We promise you a
good time and a show that you will not easily forget.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with or without sovereignty, taxes will go up next year,
said Jean Campeau, according to today's headline in La Presse.
Quebecers do not want taxes to go up, no matter who collects
them. They want a responsible finance minister, someone who,
like his federal counterpart and those in several provinces across
Canada, works hard to reduce spending and the deficit without
raising taxes.
The Canadian government has reviewed all government
programs and proposed measures to reduce spending and the
deficit. Its approach was logical, involving a great deal of
consultation and skill and none of this rushing around to close
down hospitals, for instance.
Quebec's budget is important to all Quebecers. The
Government of Quebec should be less independent and listen to
Quebecers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two
weeks ago the member of Parliament for Niagara Falls and I
attended a ceremony initiating the transfer of the Niagara
District Airport from the federal government to local
authorities.
Local authorities in St. Catharines, Thorold, Niagara Falls
and Niagara-on-the-Lake have been working together toward
the transfer for quite some time. The national airports policy
announced by the transport minister last summer provided a
perfect opportunity to make the transfer a reality.
Local control of the airport will provide a more hands on
approach where local stakeholders can be directly involved in
airport responsibilities. The transfer will enable the airport to
run in a cost effective and competitive manner and be better
equipped to respond quickly to local commercial opportunities.
We thank the Minister of Transport and his officials for a
smooth transition.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs will soon table a policy on
inherent right to self-government. This is a significant
departure from past government policies.
Despite red book promises to consult with aboriginal peoples
on the inherent rights policy, we now see Indian and Metis
12674
leaders demanding that the minister go public with his
document. I agree. All Canadians have a right to know what the
minister is contemplating. This will affect future political
relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians
forever.
The Minister of Justice has shown he does not understand
what consultation means with his gun bill. Now we hear that the
minister of Indian affairs is imitating his colleague and has a
secret draft policy that may also have considerable
constitutional ramifications. Native leaders do not think they
have been adequately consulted, let alone the rest of the
Canadian people.
While meeting the needs of aboriginal communities I believe
any inherent rights policy must respect the principle of equality
for all Canadians.
_____________________________________________
12674
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, at a meeting with his Quebec counterpart who
came to Ottawa with three bills for a total amount of $333
million, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs once again
refused to meet his financial commitments. The minister even
told Quebec, in no uncertain terms, to take the matter to court.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Are we to
understand from the arrogant reply of his intergovernmental
affairs minister that this is the new flexible federalism: asking
Quebec to sue for payment of accounts in arrears?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the reply the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs gave yesterday was quite satisfactory. One aspect of the
problem is being checked by the auditor general. Another aspect
is being checked again. If there were any mistakes, we can
correct them, but for the time being, we have no information to
that effect.
As for the third matter, when determining payments to the
provinces, the Minister of Finance does this according to
formulas that are in the legislation. There is no flexibility, and if
someone thinks the law was not interpreted as it should be, then
that person should, and there are precedents for this, ask the
courts to intervene.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this is the same kind of answer we got for months to
requests for reimbursement of referendum costs.
Mr. Loubier: Exactly the same.
Mr. Bouchard: Ottawa has been particularly stubborn in the
case of the cost of educating young aboriginal people, which
amounted to $119 million, payment of which has been
outstanding for eight years. As you know, this amount is payable
under the James Bay Agreement signed by Ottawa in 1968.
I want to ask the Prime Minister to explain why, considering
these delays and dilatory measures, the only offer he will let his
minister make to his Quebec counterpart is to appoint a new
committee of officials that will conduct more meetings.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the James Bay Agreement contains a section
indicating the province and the federal government must agree
on budgets and their content.
In this case, the Province of Quebec refused to fulfil its part of
the agreement. It did not give the federal government a chance to
check assets and the number of non-natives among the student
population. Consequently, we had no way of knowing what the
federal government's share actually was.
During that time we paid $464 million for aboriginal
education. During that time, and in fact quite recently, we
offered to review the matter with the Quebec government in an
attempt to clear up this problem, and the ball is now in the court
of the Parti Quebecois.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, if the minister wanted to know more about the case,
he could talk to his colleague, the Minister of Labour, who used
to be the Minister of Education responsible for this matter in
Quebec City and as such filed claims that have gone unpaid for
years.
Mr. Loubier: Times have changed. She sold out.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is not true that the
Government of Quebec refused to provide the information. The
fact is, more young aboriginal people are getting an education as
a result of social measures introduced by the Quebec
government, and the federal government, which finds this
surprising, refuses to acknowledge this development.
Mr. Loubier: Yes, tell it like it is.
Mr. Bouchard: My question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Since the Quebec minister suggested to her federal counterpart
that they leave their officials at home and sit down like two
reasonable people and deal with the issue face to face, could the
Prime Minister instruct his minister to sit down and negotiate
and settle this immediately?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that both the Province of Quebec and the
federal government will have to review the case and again
12675
establish what the facts are. It is clear the Province of Quebec
must co-operate and give us the information.
In this particular case, the federal government made it clear
that it was ready to negotiate, but the Quebec government has
yet to provide the necessary information.
* * *
(1420)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Bill C-76, which implements provisions of the budget,
contains no provision on the human resources investment fund
announced in the budget. The latest ministerial overview, an
official document of the Department of Human Resources
Development, indicates this fund will have a budget of more
than $4 billion, at least $2 billion of which come from the
unemployment insurance fund.
Would the Prime Minister confirm that the human resources
investment fund will have a budget of $4 billion, financed in
large part by the unemployment insurance fund, to enable it to
interfere further with new manpower training, income
supplement and day care service initiatives?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is becoming more and
more frequent for the hon. member to confuse numbers. I would
not suggest she is doing it deliberately.
The hon. member knows quite well it has been explained that
the human resource investment fund has a way of consolidating
a number of existing expenditures so we can begin to provide a
much more effective delivery in a decentralized community
way. It gives our employment centres much more discretion,
much more accountability to make decisions at the local level,
working in partnership with their counterparts at the provincial,
municipal and community levels.
To again try to elevate it into another wild attack about
interventionism misses the whole point. It is really designed to
give a lot more control in the local and regional community to
make decisions about how to get back to work.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
central government does not have jurisdiction in these areas.
Are we to understand that, with this human resources
investment fund, the minister is attempting to carry out the
reform of social programs he has been unable to finalize up to
now because of nationwide condemnation, and that, far from
responding to the demands of Quebec, he intends to intervene
further, thus adding to existing waste and muddle in the area of
manpower training?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago I made a
specific set of offers to all the provinces to share a number of our
manpower programs. We would turn over institutional training
and invite the provinces to join with us in the planning of
programs we have in common and that we would transfer
existing programs.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, to date the Government of Quebec has not given
an answer.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on April 24, the director general of public affairs for
national defence, Ruth Cardinal, addressed a meeting of the
Media Club of Canada. She emphasized that she would tell them
what is really happening in the military.
Ms. Cardinal went on to imply that the suicide rate in the
armed forces was acceptable because we get our recruits from
the most susceptible portion of the population and that the
airborne videos came from ex-soldiers who needed cash
because they had blown their pay cheques on Camaros. These
are remarkable statements to be made by the defence
department's senior mouthpiece.
Does the Minister of National Defence agree that these
comments are completely inappropriate, and does he still have
full confidence in his director general of public affairs?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
certainly the comments that have been publicized on television
and have come to my attention are disturbing. It is a matter that
the deputy minister of national defence is looking into at the
moment.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Ms. Cardinal was hired for her present position by Bob
Fowler, the former deputy minister of defence, who has been
under investigation by the Somalia inquiry.
In her speech to the Media Club she went out of her way to
discredit one of the principal critics of what went on in Somalia,
Dr. Barry Armstrong, saying that his story did not have credence
and that he had been proven wrong by an independent group of
investigators. The validity of Dr. Armstrong's testimony is to be
independently judged by the Somalia inquiry, not prejudged by a
DND spin doctor hired by Bob Fowler.
12676
(1425)
Why does the Minister of National Defence allow his director
general of public affairs to make any public statements on the
Somalia inquiry when she has a potential conflict of interest
with respect to the issues and the individuals to be judged by that
inquiry?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agreed
with that very point when it was raised last Friday. Any
employee of the Department of National Defence should be very
cautious in what he or she says, publicly or privately, with
respect to matters which are now before the commission. We do
not want anything to be said by anyone in a position of authority
to give the impression that there would be some kind of
prejudicing of the inquiry.
I also note that the individual in question, the director general
of public affairs, won a public service competition for the post.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is really at issue is the minister's ability or
inability to manage his department. The minister was the last to
know about the airborne videos. He was the last to know about
the high suicide rate at Valcartier. Now we have the
department's senior mouthpiece attempting to bias media
coverage of the Somalia inquiry in direct disregard of the
minister's gag order concerning that inquiry.
When will the Minister of National Defence start to exercise
the leadership of his department which Canadians deserve and
expect?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there
was ever a rhetorical question that was it. Considering the
amount of controversy we have had in the last year and a half, I
feel quite comfortable in the leadership I have given to the
department.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Collenette: However, I will let other Canadians be the
judge of that.
I would like to repeat that the comments which have been
brought to my attention are disturbing. They are being looked at
by the deputy minister. As to any action that may be taken, I will
have to inform the House at a later date.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. The government is
preparing to compensate the firm Agusta. After cancelling the
contract to purchase nearly $6 billion worth of EH-101
helicopters, the Prime Minister stated, a few days after his
election, and I quote:
[English]
``The program is cancelled and there isn't any compensation for
anybody''.
[Translation]
His Minister of Public Works reaffirmed yesterday the
government's intention to conclude an agreement with Agusta.
How can the Prime Minister allow his government to pay
compensation to Agusta from public funds, without any
investigation into this $6 billion contract to purchase EH-101
helicopters, when Agusta is currently facing charges of
corruption and influence peddling in Italy and Belgium?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the third or
fourth time that members of the opposition have raised this
issue. Unfortunately I am going to have to give the same answer
to the hon. member.
The hon. member is making reference to ``no compensation
for anybody'', a phrase which was used by the Prime Minister.
However the Prime Minister went on to promise that his
ministers involved in those talks would ensure that we ``pay not
a cent more than we are absolutely required to pay''.
What we are doing under the contract which we signed with
that company is paying termination costs, which every
government must pay. That is not pay for future work, that is
payment for work which has been completed or which was being
completed upon termination.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government is clearly going to compensate Agusta.
Therefore, if he will not refuse to compensate Agusta without an
investigation first, will the Prime Minister at least guarantee,
unlike his Minister of Public Works yesterday, that no new
contracts for the purchase of helicopters are awarded to Agusta
as a form of compensation for the cancellation of the first
contract?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the minister has just said is correct. I have said it
and I repeat it: the government has a contractual obligation for
expenses incurred up to that point, which we must fulfil. There
will, however, be no compensation for loss of profit or for future
work.
12677
If we eventually have to buy new helicopters, no preference
will be given to anybody. We will follow the usual procedures in
order to obtain the best product at the best price.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National
Defence.
The director general of public affairs, Ms. Cardinal, has left
the perception that her comments to the Media Club represent
the views of the Department of National Defence senior
management team. The problem is greater than one person's
irresponsible comments and points to the leadership culture at
the Department of National Defence which shows ignorance of
Canada's frontline soldiers. There is no respect for the
minister's authority at the senior management level at DND.
What does the minister intend to do to gain control over his
department?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the
specific allegation the hon. member raised, I answered that
question Friday. I answered it yesterday and I answered it again
today.
Some disturbing comments have come to light as a result of a
speech given by the director general of public affairs. The
deputy minister is looking into it. If I have any further
announcement on any action that may be taken, it will be made
to the House in due course.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, surely the minister must understand it is all well
and good that the deputy minister is looking into it but the
Minister of National Defence is responsible for this.
The problem is deeper than Ms. Cardinal's speech. These are
the views of senior management at DND. The director general of
public affairs does not speak off the record. She is responsible
for disseminating national defence positions and policies.
What action will the minister take with respect to his
supervision with his entire senior management team at DND?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact
that the deputy minister will be looking into this shows that
there will be some action taken.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board.
All federal public servants have had their wages frozen for
several years. In his latest report, the auditor general reveals
that, since 1993, diplomats have been allowed to cash in their
plane tickets to and from Ottawa to pay for vacations anywhere
in the world, without even having to submit vouchers.
How does the President of the Treasury Board justify this
1993 directive, which nets Canadian diplomats posted overseas
$8.4 million a year, or about $5,000 tax free per person?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand that the
auditor general's criticisms had to do with a former procedure
that has since been completely corrected.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the
reduction in the number of diplomats posted overseas, the total
cost of their vacations, paid for by taxpayers, continues to
increase at the rate of 9 per cent a year.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us why public
officials posted overseas can enjoy all-expenses-paid vacations
in an era of budget cuts?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated it if the hon. member had
at least listened to the answer I gave him. He refers to a situation
that no longer exists. I cannot understand why he continues to
claim that we give preferential treatment to some public
officials when this practice has stopped.
* * *
(1435 )
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
The auditor general's report reveals that an astonishing 58 per
cent of public servants are unaware of the federal government's
conflict of interest policy. The auditor general also noted that
the best conflict of interest guidelines are useless without
leadership from the top, the cabinet.
When will the Prime Minister take the initiative to lead by
example and prove that he has nothing to hide by appointing an
independent ethics counsellor?
12678
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are some very strict guidelines for conflict of
interest for everyone in the ministry and in the public service.
The senior people in the departments are responsible for those
guidelines. There is an ethics counsellor who is consulted on any
problem and he reports to me. I am responsible to Parliament for
any and all mistakes made and I have never run away from my
responsibilities.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that
the ethics counsellor has given an investigation on very, very
few matters of substantive importance.
The Liberal red ink book promises an independent ethics
counsellor. The Reform Party has repeatedly called for an
independent ethics counsellor. Seven of ten provinces have
independent persons in this role. Now Gregory Evans, the
independent conflict of interest commissioner in Ontario, is
calling on the federal government to appoint an independent
ethics counsellor.
What is the government hiding? Why does the Prime Minister
insist on keeping the ethics counsellor totally accountable to
him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor will be invited to meet with a
committee of this House if required. However, in his daily
operations he has to be responsible to somebody so he is
responsible to us. One of the reasons we have acted this way is
because we did not want to have a multiplication of jobs. He has
other responsibilities and we gave him this new responsibility.
He is doing a good job.
In the end, no Prime Minister can get up in the House and say
he is not responsible and that somebody else is. In this
parliamentary system the government is responsible and the
head of the government is responsible for the actions of all the
government in front of this House, nobody else.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Health has refused to take a clear and definite
stand on the need to press criminal charges, once the Krever
inquiry is over, against those individuals whose carelessness
caused the death of hundreds of men, women and children.
Since the Minister of Health failed to take a stand on this
issue, does the Minister of Justice undertake to see that justice is
served and that, once the Krever inquiry is over, charges are laid
against those whose behaviour caused the death of hundreds of
haemophiliacs?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is really an insulting question, considering how
much the government is spending to get to the bottom of this, by
holding a judicial inquiry. Before we can take position on the
inquiry, we have to wait for its findings.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Minister of Justice.
Will the minister admit that the information disclosed to the
Krever commission so far is sufficiently incriminating to justify
pressing criminal charges against those individuals whose
irresponsible behaviour led to the tainted blood tragedy?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, however one might
characterize the evidence before the Krever inquiry with respect
to alleged wrongdoing, in the final analysis the decision whether
to proceed with criminal prosecution is up to the provincial
authorities. In the circumstances, since it is not a matter for the
federal government to initiate, it would not be appropriate for
me to comment on the strength of any such suggested charges.
* * *
(1440 )
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
Mr. Abbott: Another surprise.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, the alligators are restless this
afternoon.
The minister's department has proposed the
professionalization of the fishing industry and an increase in
licensing fees. My Bay of Fundy fishers depend on a
multi-licence fishery to sustain their economy. They are
concerned with these proposals.
Will the minister confirm in the House today that his
department will seek advice and guidance from the fishing
community and industry organizations before proceeding with
these initiatives?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question.
Of course, with 31 of the 32 members from Atlantic Canada on
this side of the House aware that the fishery is not finished,
proper consultation is the order of the day in terms of dealing
with the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
I want to assure the member and all members from Atlantic
Canada, including the one on that side of the House, that when it
comes to any new fee structure, cost recovery structure or
professionalization structure within the fishery in Atlantic
Canada, consultations will begin in the region with the fisher-
12679
men themselves. The process will be driven from the ground up,
not from the top down. The process will start at the end of this
month.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not sure Atlantic Canada can afford 31 members on that side
of the House.
For instance, the ethical high ground is nowhere to be found
on the death valley highway of Wentworth Bypass in Nova
Scotia. The mayor of Amherst says if this case was not found to
be legally wrong, ``I would certainly consider it morally
wrong''. This boondoggle will cost some companies upward of
$400,000 annually, just so the minister of public works can buy
some boats in his riding.
Since the questions of morality, fairness and ethics are being
raised not only by the Reform Party but indeed by the people
who live and some people who have died on this treacherous
stretch of the highway, even some guy from the fifth party-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would encourage all of us to not
personalize our remarks. I would ask the hon. member to please
come to his question.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): My question is for the
Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister admit now that the only
way to clear this up is to assign the ethics counsellor to
investigate this issue and report back to this House?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always edifying to all members of the House to
have the hon. member report on the voices he has been listening
to.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Young: The question raised by the hon. member has been
raised on a number of occasions. I want to repeat that the
decisions with respect to highway construction in the provinces
are the responsibility of the provinces.
The minister of transportation for the province of Nova Scotia
approached us. He asked us if we were prepared to review the
arrangements with the province of Nova Scotia with respect to
allocations of federal funds for highway construction. We did
that.
We have done the same thing with others. As a matter of fact,
this week I met with the minister of transportation for
Newfoundland to do exactly the same thing. We have done the
same thing in Prince Edward Island. We have done the same
thing in New Brunswick. We will do the same thing in any
province in the country because we want to be flexible. We want
to try to accommodate provinces that have the responsibility for
deciding where highways are constructed within their
jurisdiction.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is strange that the Liberals stand up and justify it when the
auditor general of Nova Scotia is critcizing them for it.
The Prime Minister just said he never runs away from his
responsibilities. I would like to ask him this question. I would
like to know why he steadfastly refuses to let his ethics lapdog
look into anything that may be potentially-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1445 )
The Speaker: I am sure we sometimes get carried away in our
questions. I wonder if the hon. member would consider
withdrawing the word ``lapdog'' at this juncture. I find it a little
offensive.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I suppose I
will withdraw that. I would still like the answer to my question.
The Speaker: I put it to the hon. member: Would he please
simply withdraw the word ``lapdog'', yes or no?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very surprised at what they used to call the new
way of doing politics.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I have to tell
members that the answer given by the Minister of Transport was
very clear. We do indeed respect the provincial jurisdictions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture. On May 13, the daily
La Presse reported that several dairy producers were illegally
using the growth hormone somatotropin, which they import
from the U.S. Most of the stakeholders, including the Quebec
federation of dairy producers, recognize that this is common
practice.
Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us which concrete
measure he took to ensure that dairy producers comply with the
moratorium in effect?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad for the last part of the
12680
hon. member's question, which would tend to indicate that the
manufacturers of the product who have agreed to the
moratorium are complying with the moratorium.
The questions that have been raised in the press appear to
relate not to the companies but to the potentially unauthorized
use of this product by certain individuals. Since those news
stories have arisen in the last several days, I have asked my
officials to investigate those allegations to determine whether or
not any rules, regulations, or laws of the Government of Canada
are being violated in any way. When I have their report on their
investigation, I will be happy to share that with the hon.
gentleman.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will
the Minister of Agriculture recognize that his moratorium is
totally useless, since there is no control over the destination and
use of somatotropin once it has gone through Customs at the
border, thus creating a situation which could bring a very
promising Canadian industry into disrepute?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): As the hon. gentleman knows, under the
existing law of Canada, unless and until the Department of
Health has issued a notice of compliance-which has not
occurred to date, because the Department of Health is still
examining the issue and has not come to a decision-and comes
to a decision that is favourable and notice of compliance is
issued in due course, then the sale of rBST in Canada is illegal.
We have undertaken to investigate allegations of its use
presently unauthorized in Canada. We will report the findings of
the investigation when they are available.
(1450)
I want to assure the hon. gentlemen that I and many members
on the government side share his concern about the health and
strength of the Canadian dairy industry. We are anxious to do
everything we can.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The 75-day allotted period for public comment on the draft
regulations requiring cigarette lighters to be equipped with
child-resistant safety locks has been complied with following
publication in part I of the Canada Gazette. Canadians applaud
this government initiative.
When will the new regulations come into force? And can the
minister assure Canadians that retailers will have to remove
from their shelves at that time, not one day later, all remaining
cigarette lighters that are a danger to children?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the regulations banning non-child-proof disposable
lighters will come into effect in the middle of June. Yes, not one
day's grace will be given to any retailer in terms of the disposal
of these unsafe lighters.
It is a pity that the regulatory process has taken so much time
to come forward and bring in the regulations. In the time it has
taken, already more children have lost their lives. I would ask
the retailers, as much as possible, to get rid of those particular
lighters today, because as of the middle of June they will be
illegal.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Parkins communication recently won a media monitoring
contract worth $15,000 a month from Canada Communications
Group. Yet the company failed to meet the mandatory
requirements for the contract, including demonstrated
experience, quality control, or an office in the capital region.
They did not even have a listed telephone number.
The contract was issued mainly because Parkins agreed to hire
contract workers from CCG, the very firm that awarded the
contract. That is an obvious conflict of interest.
Why has the government chosen to ignore its own contracting
guidelines in awarding this contract?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, the hon.
member is quite correct. A contract was awarded on January 24,
1995. The hon. member forgot to tell the House that six
proposals were received and this one was selected.
We did have a file review by an internal audit group. The
review indicated there were no irregularities in the contracting
process. I would suggest that if the hon. member has evidence to
the contrary he should share the evidence with members of the
House so we could have a thorough investigation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
did list a few of the problems with the contract. The contractor
was not qualified. He did not meet the mandatory requirements.
He should not even have been considered for the contract.
He had an audit done, of course within his own department.
An independent audit, which is like an independent ethics
counsellor, something the government has trouble with, should
be considered when there is this type of contract, an obvious
conflict of interest.
12681
Will the government at least release the inside audit so we can
all have a look at it and perhaps reopen the bidding process?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House should
be aware that the hon. member is basing these allegations on a
very reputable source he has been able to come up with in the
last number of weeks. That source, of course, is Frank
magazine.
I want to suggest to the hon. member that my department does
in excess of 350,000 contracts a year, and at any given time there
will be a number of individuals who are not very pleased with
the fact that they have not won a contract. Six proposals were
submitted and this one was selected based upon the best value
for the taxpayer's dollar.
I think the particular awarding of the contract has been done
appropriately, and the investigations I have been able to come up
with confirm that. However, if the hon. member does have
something substantive, other than references to Frank
magazine, I suggest he put up, or he knows what he should
do-shut up.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on January 13, the CRTC issued a new exemption
order concerning the Japanese company SEGA, which is about
to offer its video game service on cable television. Yet, the
CRTC admitted that this was a broadcast service.
Given the consequences of the exemption order granted to the
Japanese company SEGA, can the Minister of Industry tell us if
his government intends to set up a working group to review that
decision, as was done in the case of Power DirecTv?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take note the question. I will provide an answer to the
hon. member as soon as I get it.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, given the minister's answer, I would like to know
if, in the event that a working group is set up to review the
exemption, the minister will pledge that the committee will hold
public hearings, so that all those who want to express their views
on this issue will be able to do so?
The Speaker: I am sorry, but since this is a hypothetical
question, it cannot be allowed.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
been told that the Minister of Justice did not consult adequately
with the governments of the three prairie provinces or the two
territories regarding Bill C-68 and that he did not adequately
consult with the James Bay Cree, the Council for Yukon Indians,
or the Métis. Last night we were told by Chief Mercredi that the
minister absolutely did not consult with the Assembly of First
Nations.
I ask the Minister of Justice, did he or did he not consult with
the Assembly of First Nations on Bill C-68?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the last 12 months
the Department of Justice and in fact this minister personally
have done little else except consult with respect to firearms
legislation.
The fact is that there are some, perhaps including the hon.
member, who define consultation as doing exactly what they
think we ought to do.
The legislation we have put before the House reflects the
broad and careful consultation with the wide variety of interests
on this topic. The work of the committee, which is now under
way and to which the member contributes as an active and
hard-working member, is completing that process of listening
carefully to the views of Canadians on these important matters.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know how many times we have to ask the justice minister for a
straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
On November 30, 1994, the Minister of Justice, while tabling
the proposals to Bill C-68, said ``Let me make it very clear, the
process of consultation leading to legislation is now over''. That
was back in November.
I ask the Minister of Justice one more time: Inasmuch as he
has failed to adequately consult the Yukon Indians, the James
Bay Cree, or the First Nations in the prescribed manner, how can
he say he has not violated the constitutional rights of these
people?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the very fact that those
groups are now before the committee expressing their views
with respect to the proposed legislation is proof positive that
their perspective is being taken into account.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member in opposing this
legislation is merely illustrating the inconsistencies in their
position. This is the party of law and order that will not do as the
police chiefs and the police associations want. This is the party
that wants to reflect the views of the people and will not pay
12682
attention to polls in their own province showing widespread
support for this legislation.
* * *
(1500 )
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister concerning the disgusting and
irresponsible diversion of public funds by the minister of public
works for a highway called ``death valley'' where more than 40
people have died over the last nine years so that he could pave a
tourist trail in his own riding.
The Minister of Transport twice said this was a decision made
by the provincial government. I have in my hand the agreement
signed by both governments which says clearly both
governments must approve any such project or deal. Why is the
Minister of Transport misrepresenting the facts?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I will permit the Minister of Transport to
answer the question but I remind hon. members we are skirting
awfully close to unparliamentary language in this question
period.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I welcome all the members of the fifth party to
the House of Commons.
To make sure the hon. member understands this, the death
highway he refers to was there during the nine years in which he
was a member of government travelling to Nova Scotia. It has
not changed in a year from the condition it was in eight years
ago, seven years ago, six years ago, five years ago and so on.
The one thing we want to make sure of, which the hon.
member should realize, is that it is quite true that by consensus
funds are reallocated for highway construction. The difference
is when the Government of Nova Scotia requested it we did
consent, we did not hold it up the way he and his colleagues used
to do when they were in government.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period in response to a question I asked of the
minister of public works, he suggested I should find it in my
heart to shut up. I do not know what the minister expects me to
do. I have to ask questions of the government. I do not think it is
very parliamentary to ask another member to shut up.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not
unparliamentary and if the hon. member finds the tone
somewhat offensive I would gladly apologise to the hon.
member. Perhaps the next time he might want to select a
different source.
The Speaker: I suggest, with all respect to all hon. members,
you give the Chair enough latitude to decide that which is
parliamentary or unparliamentary.
I hope we would think very seriously about the words we are
using because some of them are inflammatory. Today I found we
were coming pretty close to the line of unparliamentary
language. I appeal to you to please be very judicious in your
choice of words.
(1505 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
you called into question today my use of the word lapdog. I have
found we have used this descriptive word in the House 32 times
already in this Parliament. It is not on the list of unparliamentary
language.
The Speaker: Earlier in the session the hon. member for
Winnipeg South raised a point of order about the use of a word in
Parliament. At that time I explained to the hon. member and to
the House that there is no word which in and of itself is
unparliamentary. We cannot use the word ``liar'' in describing
each other but if we are using it in a sentence sometimes the
word can be used.
The chair is always left with the decision as to what is
parliamentary and what is unparliamentary many times from the
tone of the word, many times in the context in which it was used.
Again I appeal to all members, as I did in past days, that the
decisions I make are hopefully for the proper functioning of the
House. Today I asked the hon. member to withdraw a word he
used. He was very gracious in doing so and I thank him for it. I
would like to let that point sit. I found it offensive today and I
have made the ruling.
_____________________________________________
12682
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
at the GATT negotiations in Geneva, dairy producers were taken
on a roller coaster ride, especially in relation to the talks on
article XI, and the talks on whether the supply management
system should be preserved were far from reassuring.
The new accord to be implemented following the conclusion
of this round of GATT negotiations will force the farming sector
to rapidly adapt to a new economic environment.
12683
Dairy producers in particular are facing an enormous
challenge. By virtue of the GATT's definition of an export
subsidy, NAFTA will force dairy producers to do away with their
system of export levies by August 1, 1995, that is, in two and a
half months.
(1510)
Bill C-86 amends the Canadian Dairy Commission Act in
order to resolve the problem of export subsidies. I would like to
mention that the commission's chairman is Mr. Prégent. In
particular, this bill would implement a national pooling system
of market returns which would be used to promote the export of
dairy products.
Currently, producers pay a levy of some $3 per hectolitre of
industrial milk, which is used mostly to make butter and
powdered skim milk for export. This levy which was labelled
under the GATT and NAFTA as an export subsidy, even though it
is paid by the producers and not by the government, is justified
because the levy is paid at source, like the Rand formula for
unionized workers, as I was explaining to my colleague from
Lévis earlier. Union dues are deducted from wages. In this case,
the Quebec federation of dairy producers takes $3 for each
hectolitre from the farmer's pay. Because it is a deduction at
source, NAFTA and the GATT consider it a direct export
subsidy, and, as of next August 1, it will no longer be permitted.
Therefore, the pooling allowed under Bill C-86 will be
consistent with the international agreements and will permit
dairy producers to keep the advantages of the existing system. In
14 and a half months, there will be a single milk pool for all of
Canada. In other words, on August 1, 1996 all that will matter is
that it is milk, not that it is unprocessed or industrial milk.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi will find that it will
not matter whether the cows were Holsteins, Ayershires or
Jerseys. The issue is milk, and milk alone. And to top it all off,
there will be a single price. No longer will there be two prices,
one for fluid milk and one for industrial milk.
We should, however, be aware that if the United States, which
is only too ready to challenge, of late, decides to challenge this
two price policy for milk, one for the domestic market and one
for the international market, the dairy industry could be accused
of dumping.
However, the United States, or whatever country feels it has
been adversely affected, would have to prove that Canadian
exports were prejudicial to its market. Since we do not export a
lot, and since our exports are increasingly value added
processed products, this proof could be very elusive.
Bill C-86 is the response of producers to the impact of new
international rules on the dairy industry. Dairy producers have
rolled up their sleeves and found ingenious solutions to their
predicament. We in the Bloc Quebecois support Bill C-86
because it allows producers to adapt to the requirements of
international trade agreements signed by Canada.
(1515)
The main purpose of the bill is to replace export levies going
into an export subsidization fund with the pooling of returns
from the marketing of dairy products.
Since some provinces-such as Quebec-export more dairy
products than others, the commission will ensure that each
province's contribution to the export fund matches its
percentage of quotas. That is fair. If Quebec produces 47.5 per
cent of industrial milk, it will pay 47.5 per cent of the export
fund. If Prince Edward Island produces 6 per cent, it will pay 6
per cent.
For once in this country, we will have ensured a process that is
fair. It will be different from the research and development
funding system, in which Quebec receives barely 17 or 18 per
cent of the funds allocated to R and D every year. In this case,
each province will pay according to its percentage of dairy
production.
The pooling of revenues from the marketing of dairy products
from every province will allow domestic producers to continue
to share market risks equitably and to balance the costs of the
system, as the levy system often did. For example, if Quebec
produces 48 per cent, it will pay 48 per cent; if Prince Edward
Island produces 12 per cent, it will pay 12 per cent, and so on.
As you can imagine, I am pleased to point out that this bill will
also allow the commission to delegate its powers to provincial
marketing boards and to receive in return any similar powers
granted to provincial boards, since fluid milk presently comes
under the provinces while the Canadian Dairy Commission's
authority is restricted to industrial milk.
The bill provides for a delegation of powers between the
commission and the provinces for the purpose of managing the
pooled fund. In the absence of a signed agreement, the
commission would administer the pool only for industrial milk.
I look at the Liberal members opposite and I think that they, as
well as the Minister of Agriculture, who is here this afternoon,
will understand. How can this be in a federal system variously
described as renewed federalism, courtroom federalism or
flexible federalism? Those who talk about courtroom federalism
probably worked for the Barreau du Québec or some such
organization and see in this an opportunity to line their pockets.
As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs told us again this
afternoon: ``If you are not happy, all you have to do is sue''.
In a normal country, do we go to court every day, one part of
the country suing the rest? That is this government's vision of
Canada.
12684
Fluid milk, the type we drink every day, comes under
provincial jurisdiction, while industrial milk comes under
federal jurisdiction, that is to say our jurisdiction, here, in
Ottawa.
(1520)
That is federalism for you: the same cow has to have two sets
of udders, with the federal government drawing from the left
side and the provincial government from the right. This
agreement will help a little bit in correcting this distortion. I can
see Liberal members laughing. They are laughing because they
did not even know that industrial milk fell within their
jurisdiction. One of them just woke up, poor him. He finally
realized that reality in the legal world is quite different from the
reality of agriculture.
These are the technical changes introduced by Bill C-86
regarding the Canadian Dairy Commission. It is interesting to
note that the bill is put forward in a context where six provinces,
namely Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have signed an agreement in
principle to pool their whole milk supply system.
I must say that, among the ten provinces, there is one
exception and that is Newfoundland, because it has only fifty of
so dairy producers, producing mainly fluid milk, which comes
under provincial jurisdiction. So, Newfoundland is not a
member of this consortium, leaving nine potential members.
The three Western provinces-Alberta, Saskatchewan and
British Columbia-have not joined the other six yet. Should
they be called sovereignist provinces? Or secessionist,
indépendantiste or even, as the Prime Minister says, separatist?
I do not think so. These are elected people who want to properly
manage government affairs, adequately represent their
constituents, and also check with them to see if this is a good
solution. I must say that, regardless of what happens, the six
other provinces account for over 82 per cent of Canada's milk
production.
Even if all the provinces keep their current quotas, there will
only be one milk. There will no longer be any distinction made
between industrial milk and fluid milk. Consequently, only one
price will apply to milk across the country. The provinces will
split the increases in quotas among themselves, and producers
will be able to buy quotas from other provinces, which is a nice
change.
A Quebec producer will be able to buy a quota in Ontario or in
New Brunswick, and vice versa. Of course, there could be an
increase in consumption if we help each other, if this
government stops reducing subsidies to industrial milk
producers, as it just did. The hon. member said that the Minister
of Finance was not increasing taxes. What a naive statement on
his part, given that the federal tax on gas has gone up half a cent
per litre. And the member claims this is not a tax. Oh no, this is
not a tax.
The government reduced its industrial milk subsidies by 30
per cent. This is not a tax. However, the cost of milk will
increase and the government reduces its subsidies. But this is
not a tax. Oh no. It is not a tax. Go and ask producers. Go to
Lafaille's for example. I did go last Monday to the Lafaille and
Sons' auction, in the riding of my friend, the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, and I talked with some of my
fellow farmers. Let me tell you that the minister should stay
away, because if he went there-but he would not dare do that,
of course-he would find out what farmers think of his budget.
(1525)
Admittedly, it took some doing to conclude this agreement. It
is the result of lengthy negotiations in which Quebec
demonstrated commendable leadership. When the topic of grain
and cereals comes up in the House, the West takes the lead role.
But in this case, where for once a bill affects Quebec, I am sure
you will not mind if I take a minute this afternoon to
congratulate some of our own experts on their tireless efforts. I
am thinking of the Quebec federation of dairy producers, its
president, Claude Rivard, and its vice president, Jean Grégoire,
as well as economist Guylaine Gosselin, the UPA milk expert.
I would also like to pay tribute to officials of the Quebec
federation of dairy producers for their unremitting efforts
throughout these negotiations. There is no doubt that our milk
producers in Quebec are very well represented by their elected
officials and by their union, the UPA.
I invite my Liberal colleagues to occasionally take a look at
La terre de chez nous. They would find this weekly newspaper
very instructive regarding the views of Quebec farmers and
other questions. Speaking of the West, La Terre de chez nous
carried an article this week about the Canadian milk pool, which
threw out an invitation to Western indépendantistes, the three
provinces that have not yet signed up: British Columbia,
Saskatchewan and Alberta. Despite their hesitation, the
repercussions of this historic agreement may well be greater
than first thought.
From a practical point of view, we need only mention that in
1996, Quebec dairy producers should see their income rise by 60
to 70 cents per hectolitre. Of course, 60 or 70 cents is not a
fortune. It is an increase of a little over half a cent a litre, which
has nothing to do with the increase they should have received,
given the rise in the cost of living and the cut of the 30 per cent
subsidy that the federal government is getting ready to
implement on July 1. This increase of 60 to 70 cents per
hectolitre results from the realignment of prices for industrial
milk and unprocessed milk in Quebec and the prices of milk in
the other
12685
provinces, since by 1996, there will be one national price for
milk in Canada.
Because of the GATT, Canada will have to allow butter to be
imported this year, which will probably affect quotas. But, with
the pooling of all returns, the six provinces will share the impact
of market fluctuations on all milk prices and no one province
will be hit harder than any other.
What must be stressed is that this kind of agreement is based
on the economy. It is the kind of agreement which maximizes the
strong points of each and every member, who are all working
together. Even with a referendum around the corner, producers
from various provinces did not hesitate to collaborate with
Quebec because it was in their best interests to do so. When we
get down to reality, not hypothetical disaster scenarios, we see
that the voice of reason prevails over political considerations.
(1530)
In a document written by The Council for Canadian Unity,
largely funded by the taxes paid by all Canadians, and in
particular by Quebecers who are forced to pay for this kick in the
behind, the council strongly suggests that the word
``separation'' be used, although the explanation it gives of the
term in the glossary simply refers the reader to the definition of
sovereignty.
And a few weeks ago, I saw that, regarding the separation of
Quebec, the Prime Minister once again uttered the sentence that
he just loves to repeat: ``Does Quebec want to separate or not?''
He knows very well that his only way of convincing people is by
fearmongering.
Last week, when I was doing the rounds in my riding, I made a
point of visiting-and I hope you did too, Madam Speaker,
because I know you have a very special relationship with seniors
and as you know, last week was national seniors homes'
week-so I made a point of visiting the homes in my riding, and
to my surprise, I found that more and more seniors support
sovereignty for Quebec.
When I read in La Presse that the Premier of Quebec went to
the Lower St. Lawrence, in the riding of the Quebec minister of
agriculture, where at a home for seniors, he renewed the
membership card of the oldest member of the Parti Quebecois on
that member's one hundred and first birthday, I thought that was
splendid.
This always reminds me of my elderly mother-unfortunately
she passed away three years ago-who said she was going to
vote for sovereignty because all her children were in favour of
sovereignty. But she always added that this was the only weapon
we have against their scare tactics. In fact, in a document the
Council for Canadian Unity recommends using the term
``separation'', but they have a nerve, it is not even in the
dictionary.
According to them, with sovereignty Quebec would
immediately lose-and this is just to scare our farmers-all its
market quotas in Canada. According to them, it is unlikely that
farmers in other provinces would agree to maintain those
quotas. When I say them, I am referring to the Council for
Canadian Unity, led by a bunch of dyed in the wool federalists
who are biased and misrepresent the facts.
Does this mean that after making substantial changes in their
operating procedures during this referendum year, producers
outside Quebec would be so inconsistent as to drop the whole
thing this fall? Madam Speaker, let us be reasonable. In business
matters, farmers know which side their bread is buttered.
An hon. member: As they say: ``Money talks''.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Indeed. This single milk pool
which, as I said earlier, represents 82 per cent of milk
production, was created not for the sake of any one group but
because it makes sense, and the six provinces that are part of this
agreement are in it because it works for them. And who knows,
maybe this agreement will be the first of many to be negotiated
between Canada and Quebec, after a positive response by
Quebecers to the referendum this fall.
At a time when we must adjust to the new environment created
by the GATT agreements, we should welcome this agreement
wholeheartedly.
(1535)
As the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles du
Québec, Laurent Pellerin, pointed out: ``The day after the GATT
agreements, the government reiterated its support for supply
management on the condition that producers, and dairy
producers in particular, collectively adapt their marketing
tools''. The ball is now in the federal government's court. Let us
see whether it keeps its word on this.
Let us now take a closer look at Bill C-86, which was made
necessary. As usual, the present federal government waits until
the last minute before acting. This bill must pass all stages,
receive Senate approval and be in force by August 1, 1995. If we
do not count May, only June and July remain. Therefore we have
to get on with it.
The aim of this bill is to adjust the famous $3 currently
deducted on every hectolitre of industrial milk produced by
dairy producers. This $3 levy, known as the export costs in the
industry, will be illegal under international agreements as of
August 1. This levy is vital, however, because, without this
assistance to industrial milk processors, our exports would no
longer be competitive, and we would not be able to compete with
products from outside the country, which could flood the
markets in Canada and Quebec, because our prices would be too
high.
12686
I have 40 minutes, Madam Speaker. Yes. I wonder if time does
not go by faster on your watch than on mine.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): You had 30 minutes left
when you started.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, if I have only a
minute left, I would like to remind you that, here in Ottawa, on
May 2, 3 and 4 the representatives of nine provinces discussed
matters in detail. Six of them subsequently made a three-point
proposal to Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. If you
permit me, I will read it to you.
The proposal to British Columbia was to pool industrial milk
revenues on August 1, 1996. Fluid milk revenues would be
added the following year, on August 1, 1997. The province
would keep much of the future increases in fluid milk, because
the population in British Columbia is the fastest growing in
Canada.
Madam Speaker, I thank you very much for your attention. As
I indicated to the Speaker before you, five of my colleagues will
help me with Bill C-86. They are the hon. members for
Champlain, Lotbinière-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would remind the hon.
member that I have the list of his colleagues who will take part
in the debate.
Debate continues with the hon. member for Vegreville.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
with enthusiasm and some trepidation that I lead the debate for
the Reform Party on the future of supply management and the
dairy industry in Canada.
(1540)
The enthusiasm comes from my belief that there could be and
should be a bright future for supply management and
particularly the dairy industry in Canada.
The trepidation I feel is for two reasons. First, if the changes
in the dairy industry are handled poorly or badly everyone
involved in the industry will suffer. Second, I have less of an
understanding of the dairy industry than I do of many other areas
of agriculture. I have been working hard with the help of dairy
farmers and groups that deal with dairy farmers to improve my
understanding and I will certainly continue to work on this.
Today we are debating Bill C-86, an act to amend the dairy
commission act, but our debate must go beyond the bill to a
discussion on the very future of supply management and the
dairy industry.
I will debate the bill by summarizing it and how it will affect
the dairy industry and discussing the future of the dairy business
in Canada as I see it with input from farmers and groups I have
talked to. I will do this by discussing Liberal policy on supply
management from the red book and later added to the red book in
an appendix. I will discuss it by talking about the Liberal
position as presented from two other sources. I will refer to
these sources later.
Bill C-86 is an act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission
Act. It was given first reading on April 28, 1995. The purpose of
the bill is to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act to
provide for a replacement of the existing system of levies with a
system of pooling market returns from different classes of milk.
The government claims the switch to a pooling system will
maintain equity among producers and is consistent with
Canada's international trade agreement.
I have some background information. As part of Canada's
system of supply management, the Canadian milk supply
management committee, chaired by the Canadian Dairy
Commission, oversees the application of the national milk
marketing plan.
The CMSMC sets national production targets, establishes
each province's share of the national quota and exports any
surplus milk through planned marketing programs. The orderly
export of surplus production is an essential element for ensuring
the integrity of the supply managed system. Without it the
system would falter.
Currently producers assume the cost of exporting dairy
products not consumed in Canada through a system of levies
collected by provincial marketing boards and agencies as
deductions from payments to milk producers. Once remitted to
the commission these levies are used to finance special
programs intended to increase the domestic use of dairy
products and to cover the commission's administrative costs.
During the 1993-94 year a total of $141.5 million was
collected from the industrial and fluid milk sectors. Such levies,
however, are now considered to be a form of export subsidy
under the new GATT deal and must be reduced or modified.
Through the bill Canada's dairy industry would abandon this
established system of producer levies on industrial milk. The
levies will be replaced with a system of national pooling which
allows all stakeholders, including farmers, processors and the
commission, to equitably share the costs and benefits of pooling
revenues and the effects of fluctuations in market size for both
fluid and industrial milk.
Through a system of pooling the producers who export milk
into the U.S. would receive smaller returns for their milk but the
burden would still be shared by all dairy farmers. Basically
instead of a levy taken off farmers' cheques to subsidize
exports, the national pool would achieve the same ends since the
net return to farmers would be in theory identical.
For its part the processing industry would still pay lower
prices for its industrial milk. These amendments to the Canadian
Dairy Commission Act add a certain amount of new pricing and
funding distribution authority to the Canadian Dairy
Commission. The new pricing and pooling approach for milk
has
12687
received agreement from all provinces in principle. However,
negotiations are ongoing as to whether there will be one national
pool, which at the moment appears very unlikely, or two
separate pools. There would possibly be one for B.C., Alberta
and Saskatchewan, and we do not know about Newfoundland,
and another for the other six provinces.
(1545)
Ontario dairy farmers supply most of the industrial milk to
further processors and Quebec dairy farmers are the biggest
exporters. They would receive less than other dairy farmers
unless there is some form of national pooling. On the other hand,
under a national pooling system producers in the other
non-exporting provinces subsidize those who are exporting. It
really amounts to a form of equalization payment from one
sector of the industry to another or from one province to another.
This is perhaps the biggest obstacle to achieving agreement on
establishing one national pooling regime for all classes of milk.
I would like to talk about the Reform Party's policy and
position relating to Bill C-86. Reform policy in this area has
four main points.
First, all processors will be able to structure and manage their
organizations in any manner they believe will best serve their
interests. The matter of regulating production and setting prices
for products under the organization's jurisdiction is a producer
issue and should be dealt with by producers.
Second, Reformers acknowledge that the agriculture industry,
including supply managed sectors, is moving toward a more
competitive market driven system.
Third, we have proposed tough positive measures to ensure
fair competition. These are measures such as a tougher
anti-combines legislation. That would lead to lower input prices
and fair trade policies which would help protect against
dumping from other countries particularly from the United
States. It would help to protect Canada from the effects of high
subsidization in other countries in particular the United States.
Fourth, Reformers propose general changes which will reduce
government overspending in a general way but through that will
reduce input costs to farmers and indeed to other business
people.
We presented these measures before the election campaign,
during the election campaign and most recently in the taxpayers
budget which would lead to a balanced budget over a three year
period if implemented. It would be good for all businesses,
including the dairy industry.
In February I visited with farmers in the Niagara peninsula.
They spoke of three options. These three options have been
presented many times since from a variety of groups. For
example, a group of dairy farmers and veterinarians who were in
Ottawa a couple of weeks ago wanted to discuss the issue of the
BST, but also other dairy issues. These options were presented
from dairy farmers in my constituency and across the country
both in person and by letter.
The three options concern the future of supply management in
the dairy industry. The first option is to end supply management
now. I do not believe that this is a widely accepted option within
the dairy industry. The second option is to start preparing.
Recognize the reality and start a transition process which will
allow a healthy dairy industry to continue down the road. The
third option is to keep supply management as it is.
The third option clearly is not a reality. Unfortunately it is the
position this government presents at least in public. It chooses to
go down the avenue of least resistance. It would be appropriate
now to look at what happened to grain farmers in western
Canada because past governments have chosen to go down the
road of least resistance.
(1550 )
I am talking about the elimination overnight of the Western
Grain Transportation Act subsidy, the old Crow benefit. Due to
the lack of openness, honesty and action on the part of previous
Conservative and Liberal governments, no phase-out period
was provided. There is no clear direction on how farmers will
deal with the loss of the freight subsidy. There are no changes in
place or proposed by government which would allow
efficiencies to be put in place within the grain handling and
grain movement system. There are no changes which would
allow lower input costs in other areas. Many grain farmers in
western Canada will go out of business over the next few years
because of the loss of this subsidy, particularly the loss without a
transition period for crops which are now being seeded in
western Canada.
Governments have talked a lot over the past several years
about stabilizing the agriculture industry, but their moves have
led to chaos, not stability.
Of these three options, the second option is the option which
the Reform Party supports and believes is most realistic. Use
what time there is left before we move to open competition in
the dairy industry to help prepare for the changes which will
come in a supply managed industry. Let us not take the bury your
head in the sand approach which has been taken by the
government.
Let us look at the reality of the situation in supply
management. First, let us look at the GATT and what it does to
supply management in the future. After the year 2000 new
negotiations will begin regarding supply management through
the GATT. In the new negotiations there will be a rapid reduction
in tariffs. Those tariffs are presently high and protect the supply
managed
12688
industry quite well. There will be more access to imported dairy
products in this country.
The changes to the GATT starting a short five years from now
will have a huge impact on dairy farmers. That leaves precious
little time for farmers to prepare for these changes.
I believe that the real open borders, particularly between the
United States and Canada in supply managed products and in
dairy products, will come through new NAFTA negotiations. A
lawyer for the Dairy Farmers of Canada, which of course is
arguing that the GATT supersedes NAFTA in guiding supply
managed industries in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, said in
a Western Producer article: ``The Americans have a strong case
in arguing that NAFTA supersedes and that dairy farmers should
be preparing for this possibility''.
Further, a very significant event happened when our Prime
Minister and U.S. President Bill Clinton announced a few
months ago that Chile would be a part of the NAFTA deal within
four years. Why is that significant? It is significant because the
Americans, who are looking for and pushing Canada in every
way they can for more access to our supply managed markets
will not sign a new NAFTA deal until they have much more
access to the Canadian market in milk and dairy products. That
will mean that in less than four years the supply managed
industry in Canada will have to move to a much more
competitive environment.
The government can pretend that it will protect supply
management through this process but it cannot. I will
demonstrate this with quotes from three sources, from the red
book first. I will quote all of the agriculture policy in the red
book; it will not take very long. This is how important
agriculture is and was to the Liberals when they drafted the red
book. This is their complete agriculture policy:
The Canadian agri-food sector has a unique opportunity for growth. An
overall policy for the agri-food sector must build upon three component
strategies: developing new domestic and international markets for Canadian
food products; reducing input costs to make farming more viable; and
introducing a new ``whole farm'' income stabilization program. Liberals
believe that farm families need long term programs to assist them in securing
their future, so that they can continue to provide Canadians with the best quality
food in the world.
(1555)
The red book goes on for one more whole paragraph to
conclude the Liberals' agriculture policy:
Canada's agri-food industry needs policies and programs such as supply
management, the Canadian Wheat Board, and stabilization programs to
minimize the impact of market price fluctuations; government support in
developing new commercial markets for commodities in which the agri-food
industry has a competitive advantage; sustainable agriculture practices to
maintain and improve the quality of our land and water; and mission oriented
research to increase productivity and create quality products to meet market
demand.
That is the entire agriculture policy that was included in the
Liberal red book.
There was a very secret appendix that was even more difficult
to get than the red book itself during the campaign and since. It
was quite difficult to get. The appendix goes on for three more
paragraphs regarding supply management. Three whole
paragraphs. That is the extent of the Liberal policy on
agriculture and on supply management.
I will go next to some quotes from the parliamentary secretary
to the agriculture minister. I will read from a publication put out
by the Independent Dairymen's Association Committee of
British Columbia which is made up of the Mainland Dairymen's
Association and the Southern Interior Dairymen's Association:
Following are some public quotes from Lyle Vanclief, parliamentary secretary
to the federal minister of agriculture, member of Parliament for Prince
Edward-Hastings, and owner of a cash crop and market garden farm in Ontario:
``It is more than definite that the future of supply management in Canada will
be `uncertain after the year 2001'. The United States insists that the earlier signed
NAFTA supersedes GATT rules. The Americans expect tariff levels to be reduced
at a quicker NAFTA rate and be completely gone to zero by 1998''.
There are three or four more paragraphs but for the sake of
brevity I will end the quote from the parliamentary secretary
with that.
It is interesting to note the difference between what the
Liberals said in the red book and what the parliamentary
secretary to the agriculture minister is now finally starting to
say in public. Until now this Liberal government has pretended
it can protect supply management. It seems to have refused to
acknowledge that NAFTA and the GATT and changes that will
come to both agreements will bring about quick change to the
supply managed industry, including the dairy industry.
It is encouraging that the parliamentary secretary is finally
starting to talk publicly about some of the changes that will
come about. This will give the industry some time, a bit of a
transition period, to get from where it is to a competitive system
which will be in place some time over the next few years.
The third source is an article from the May 4 Western
Producer. The headline is: ``Grits didn't support supply
management''. The lengthy quote is from Michelle Comeau,
former assistant deputy minister for agriculture: ``Supply
management has proven useful in stabilizing farm income but
has generated costs to consumers and to the economy in
general''.
12689
(1600)
Barry Wilson leads in by saying: ``The Liberals wanted the
end of supply management long before GATT, say internal
documents''. This is totally different from what the Liberals
have been saying publicly.
Part of this article states:
Long before the December 1993 world trade deal ``forced'' Canada to
abandon the legal basis for supply management, the government had decided the
system had to go, according to an Agriculture Canada planning document.
Memos issued in 1993, obtained from government files under access to
information legislation, show a government publicly proclaiming support for
supply management, while privately drawing up plans to manage its weakening.
According to a memo written in late 1993 by then assistant deputy agriculture
minister Michelle Comeau to then deputy minister Rob Wright, the system was
too rigid and too farmer-dominated.
In any reform, the power of the provinces would have to be reduced and the
``excessive producer control over decision making'' would have to be
counter-balanced by a greater role for processors, retailers and consumers who
want lower prices.
``Supply management has proven useful in stabilizing farm income but has
generated costs to consumers and to the economy in general'', she wrote.
``Reform is required.''
Point out how different this is from what the Liberals were
acknowledging at the time. If the Liberals did not agree with
what the bureaucrats were saying, they should have said so then.
They chose not to. It is clear from this article the Liberals are
saying one thing in public and another thing privately.
I continue with this article:
Comeau's memo was part of a plan devised by the bureaucracy to handle
fall-out from the decision to sign a new world trade deal, even though it
excluded the rule which had allowed Canada to control imports of dairy, poultry
and egg products governed by supply-managed rules.
For years, the government had been criticizing the rigidity of the
decision-making process while praising supply management as a way to help
farmers make their living from the market.
Privately, the bureaucrats were agreeing with consumer and processing
lobbyists that supply management was bad for the country and the economy.
The planning documents laid out a strategy for dismantling the traditional
rules of supply management-controlling the communications, stressing that
the system could survive under new rules, injecting more voices into the
decision-making, stressing that trade deals and competition made change
inevitable and making sure the provinces accepted some of the responsibility
for deciding to tear the old system down.
This, released through access to information, is much
different from what the Liberals have been saying publicly.
Reform has chosen the more direct and honest approach, even
if it means taking some heat in the short term. Which is kinder
and gentler, as the Liberals like to always say, to pretend that
major changes are not coming and ending up with the pain and
hardships that grain farmers in western Canada will feel over the
next years as they deal with subsidies that were removed
overnight, or being open and honest and allowing dairymen and
others involved in the industry to make the transitions that are
necessary?
(1605 )
It would be kinder and gentler to lay the cards on the table and
allow farmers and processors the time they need to make the
transition from this protected industry to a more competitive
industry.
The change is coming. Reformers have chosen to be up front
and honest in dealing with changes to supply management. I
encourage dairy farmers across Canada to choose the approach
they prefer and to choose the people they prefer to help them
with the transition they must make over the next few years.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member
for Vaudreuil.
I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-86, an act to
amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act. It offers a new,
more competitive marketing approach for the Canadian dairy
industry, which is required to allow Canada to honour its
international trade commitment while preserving the fairness
and equity for Canadian milk producers of the present system.
While market opportunities will flow from both the North
American free trade agreement and the World Trade
Organization agreement, certain changes to our domestic
structure must be made. Effective August 1, 1995, under
NAFTA Canada will not be permitted to export dairy products to
the United States where the price of the product has been
supported by a producer funded levy. This relatively immediate
export restraint will be accompanied by a more gradually
implemented WTO restriction on our ability to use levies to
finance dairy product exports to other market destinations.
The importance of maintaining current export and domestic
markets for dairy products and for products containing dairy
ingredients in a manner that still allows all dairy producers to
share the cost of supplying milk to these markets cannot be
overstated.
12690
Over 300 dairy plants in Canada employ almost 25,000
Canadians to process milk used as table cream and milk or in
products such as milk, cheese, yogurt, and ice cream. Thousands
of other jobs are provided in the further processing sector for
items containing dairy ingredients such as cookies, pizza, and
chocolate, as well as in areas of dairy product transportation,
packaging, storage, and marketing.
Under the rebate program for further processors in dairy
product export assistance programs, initiatives currently funded
by the producer levies and administered by the Canadian Dairy
Commission, export assistance was provided to facilitate the
export of over 10 million kilograms of cheese in 1993-94 and to
support processor purchases of dairy ingredients used in the
production of over 2,000 finished food products.
In 1993-94 dairy exports to the United States involved about
0.7 million hectolitres of milk, about 1.7 per cent of the entire
Canadian milk quota set for that period.
Canada's dairy processing industry is largely centred in the
provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The 1992 census data
indicated that 105 plants processing fluid and or industrial milk
were located in Ontario, while the 83 plants situated in Quebec
had the highest value of shipments, at $3 billion. Alberta
follows with 31 processing establishments. B.C. has 25,
Manitoba 18, Nova Scotia 14, Saskatchewan 12, P.E.I. 9, New
Brunswick 6, and Newfoundland has 5 such processing
facilities.
Without price discrimination and pooling of returns, dairy
and further processors would not be able to access milk at price
levels that would enable them to compete on the U.S. market and
be competitive against imports on the domestic market.
Furthermore, the current level playing field provided to
producers by the current levy system would be eliminated.
The largest volumes of the lower priced milk needed by
processors and further processors for certain export and
domestic products are produced in the more industrial provinces
of Ontario and Quebec. Some smaller provinces are also greatly
affected in terms of the proportion of their total milk marketing
that is sold at reduced prices.
Without a workable alternative to the current levy system
such as that offered by price discrimination, the loss of the U.S.
market for Canadian dairy products and products containing
dairy ingredients would lead to reduced competitiveness and
would place in jeopardy the domestic further processing sector
for such products.
(1610 )
Without pooling of the market returns, there would be an
inequitable sharing among producers of the cost of maintaining
exports to the United States and for domestic competitive
markets. This could lead to their abandonment. Should these
markets not be maintained, the domestic further processing
industry would be less viable due to the diminished economies
of scale. Pressure on further processors to relocate their
operations to the United States would result. The job loss
ramifications of such relocations would be significant.
There is a potential additional reduction in the industry side of
almost two per cent resulting from the growing restrictions
agreed to under the WTO agreement of the allowable quantity of
subsidized exports and the export subsidy paid annually for each
product class up to the year 2000-2001. A price discrimination
system with pooling of market returns as facilitated by Bill
C-86 would address this issue.
Everyone in the Canadian dairy sector is becoming clearly
aware of the need to adapt to the new North American and global
trade conditions in competition. To illustrate Canadian dairy
producers' awareness of this need to adapt, I quote from a May 4
letter written to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and
copied to me by my constituent, Mr. John Core, chairman of the
Ontario milk marketing board.
Mr. Core writes:
It is extremely important that Bill C-86 be passed by the House. We have
negotiated long and hard to arrive at a system to replace levies effective August 1.
The changes to the CDC Act are critical to special class pricing and the required
pooling that follows from that new pricing method. Your directive to not use
levies for exports to the U.S. cannot be adhered to without the necessary
amendments.
We met the challenge given to us by the federal and provincial agricultural
ministers to find the solution. We require the legislative changes now to
implement the necessary changes.
Mr. Core, I am proud to say, is one of my constituents.
The dairy industry leaders who have developed and
negotiated the approach facilitated by these amendments fully
understand that while tariff protection is in place between now
and the year 2001, the only way to reduce uncertainty and
concern about what happens after this period is to meet the new
trade challenges head on. Bill C-86 will allow the industry to do
so.
I urge my fellow members to support these amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I listened with great interest the hon. member's speech on Bill
C-86. There was a point I found particularly interesting, and I
would like the hon. member to clarify, because I know very well
that the farmers' problem is not producing milk but producing
just enough to fill their quota.
If farmers were told to raise their quota by 5 per cent this year,
they would be very happy. The problem is that they have to
produce, say, 10 000 hectolitres of milk, but if they produce
more than that they are fined, and if they produce less their quota
will be reduced in the following years because-bad boys, bad
girls-they cannot fulfil their commitments. So much so that
people often joke and compare cows, as the hon. member for
Lotbinière did yesterday, to gas pumps that have not been fixed.
With gasoline, once the exact number of hectolitres has been
12691
pumped into the tank, the pump is turned off, and the customer
waits until tomorrow or the next year. But one can hardly do that
with cows.
Therefore our problem is not to produce more, because milk
production could easily be increased by 5 per cent a year. What I
want to ask about is the 1.7 per cent of our milk production
which was exported to the United States last year or in 1993-94.
I would like the hon. member to tell the House what province
this 1.7 per cent came from and in what form it was exported.
(1615 )
[English]
Mrs. Ur: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
In his statement he said that the dairy farmers do not wish to
produce more milk. Bill C-86 is not about producing more milk.
It is about providing a proper environment for the new export
rules that will be implemented in August of this year. Bill C-86
will open those avenues to the dairy farmers so they can adjust.
Dairy farmers are well aware of the adjustments they have had
to make since the Uruguay round of discussions. It is not
something that was thrust on them at the last minute.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
agree with the hon. member for Frontenac that Canadian dairy
farmers could increase production very rapidly. If Quebec were
to become independent and leave Canada I believe that the rest
of the country could take up the production that Canada would
lose very quickly. Alberta and western Canada would love to be
able to improve dairy production.
They do not want Quebec to leave so that will happen. They
have other plans for allowing for the increase in dairy
production.
There is an understanding that the present system of levies is
not GATT friendly. I ask the hon. member if she is completely
confident that this bill cannot be challenged successfully by the
World Trade Organization?
Mrs. Ur: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
We certainly have top priority with our dairy people. I feel the
government has moved in a fashion that will protect the whole
dairy industry.
I realize that six provinces have signed on and other provinces
agree with portions of Bill C-86. The bill is in the best interest
of Canada and its export markets and pertains to the reduction
and changeovers that will be happening in August of this year.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Frontenac has 30 seconds left.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Do we not have
ten minutes for questions and comments?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): No. It is five minutes
because there was an agreement to share time.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Then 30 seconds will
not be enough.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
my pleasure today to speak in favour of Bill C-86, an act to
amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act. The proposed
amendments will permit the strengthening of the partnership
between the commission, provincial milk marketing authorities
and the dairy industry, through the joint administration of the
new pricing system and the pooling of market returns.
This approach will allow Canada to comply with the new trade
conditions under the North American Free Trade Agreement and
the World Trade Organization agreement. Milk used for
exported products or for products on domestic competitive
markets will continue to be made available to processors at
competitive prices. At the same time, we will maintain the
producer equity that is so essential to the current milk marketing
system.
Even though Bill C-86 gives new powers to the Canadian
Dairy Commission, it has no effect on provincial jurisdiction.
An interface between current provincial and federal powers on
pricing is necessary so that all milk marketing can be regulated,
whether the milk is sold beyond provincial borders or on export
markets.
The pricing and pooling approach, authorized by the
amendments in Bill C-86, was proposed by the dairy industry
itself and represents only administrative changes to the mandate
already given to the Canadian Dairy Commission and the
provincial milk marketing authorities.
(1620)
Since its creation as a Crown corporation in 1966, the
commission has assumed a key role in the development and
implementation of the federal dairy policy. It is working in close
collaboration with important national organizations such as the
Dairy Farmers of Canada, the National Dairy Council of Canada
and others working under them.
The Canadian Dairy Commission is also facilitating the
essential work of the Canadian Milk Supply Management
Committee through the chairman of this committee responsible
for controlling the implementation of the national milk
marketing
12692
plan, the federal-provincial agreement governing the
management of milk supplies in Canada.
After detailed consultation with the industry, the commission
sets the target price of industrial milk-the milk used in dairy
products such as cheese and yogurt-and the support price of
butter and skim milk powder.
The Canadian Dairy Commission is also authorized to collect
levies from producers remitted by the provincial milk marketing
authorities. This is to cover exportation costs and finance
special programs aimed at increasing domestic consumption of
dairy products.
Provincial milk marketing authorities are authorized to set the
prices and pool market returns within their respective borders.
The new legal provisions contained in Bill C-86 will place the
commission on equal footing with provincial authorities as far
as price setting is concerned and authorize it to operate the
pooling system agreed on by the provinces for milk earmarked
for interprovincial or international trade.
In order for the Canadian Dairy Commission to be able to
manage this new price setting and pooling approach in the
interest of producers, legislation must give certain powers to
provincial dairy authorities and, as required, provide that they
give up certain responsibilities. In the new system, provincial
authorities will grade milk for export or sale on competitive
domestic markets and set prices depending on end use.
Under the terms of the amendments before us, the Canadian
Dairy Commission would be able to delegate to provincial
authorities its present responsibility with respect to the pricing
of milk traded interprovincially while being granted the power
to pool revenues from the sale of milk sold interprovincially by
provincial authorities.
On a regular basis, boards and milk marketing boards would
report to the commission the sales volumes and going prices for
each grade of milk sold during a given month. The Canadian
Dairy Commission would then be asked by provincial
authorities to average nationally the price for each component
included in the pool. Sufficient amounts would be included from
each province to ensure fair distribution of the proceeds from
the sale of milk for the lowest priced classes.
We must bear in mind that not all provinces contribute to the
same degree to processing activities. The quantity of milk for
special classes of products, that is to say, dairy products for
export such as cheese, or further processed products such as
chocolate and pizza, varies widely across the country.
Most of the inexpensive milk in these classes will be sold to
processors in the most industrialized provinces, namely Ontario
and Quebec. Some smaller provinces, however, are greatly
affected as to their proportion of the total volume of milk sold at
reduced prices.
To ensure that the cost of maintaining these industries and the
essential export markets is shared equitably among producers,
each province will be required to inject a minimum percentage
of its total monthly sales of milk into the pooled fund.
(1625)
This is how national average prices for the different classes of
milk products would be calculated. This percentage is being
negotiated by provincial authorities.
Returns from the agreed upon percentage of milk sales would
then be pooled and redistributed to producers through provincial
authorities on an equitable basis negotiated by the industry and
provincial authorities and set out in official federal-provincial
agreements.
The industry has concluded that creating special classes of
milk sold at competitive prices on the destination market would
be a good way of maintaining our share of the dairy export
market without resorting to production levies.
The importance of finding an equitable way of maintaining
our share of the export market in dairy products and products
with dairy ingredients was the main force behind the intense
negotiations and hard work undertaken by the provinces through
the various committees and working groups in the past year.
Just before Christmas, the hon. Ralph Goodale and his
provincial and territorial counterparts responsible for
agriculture and agri-food confirmed their support of the
industry's consensus that some pooling of market returns from
dairy products was urgently needed so that the industry could
meet Canada's international obligations and maintain an orderly
marketing system.
By passing Bill C-86, the House can finally take an active part
in the development of this essential sector of the Canadian
economy, which successfully faces the modern challenges of the
emerging global market.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member for Vaudreuil talked about the target price for
industrial milk, which is essential to producers of powdered
milk, for example, or frozen pizzas with cheese; this class of
milk is sold at a lower price. He talked about the targeted price
for that milk. I would like him to elaborate on that.
Secondly he spoke about NAFTA and GATT. I often ask
Liberal Party members as well as Reformers which of the two
agreements should take precedence. Would the hon. member for
Vaudreuil not agree that his government should seek to
determine which should take precedence?
For example, the three dollar levy per hectolitre of milk was
partly consistent with GATT. It could have been reduced each
year by 15 per cent, while, according to NAFTA, it will have to
be totally eliminated by August 1, 1995. Which one is right? Is it
12693
GATT or NAFTA? If the hon. member for Vaudreuil does not
know, would he not be tempted to suggest to his minister of
agriculture that he seek a determination of whether GATT or
NAFTA takes precedence?
Mr. Discepola: Madam Speaker, first, the hon. member for
Frontenac will surely agree that the bill was drafted in
consultation with Quebec's dairy industry, which is very
supportive of this legislation.
I do not want to get into a debate as to which agreement takes
precedence over the other. Rather, I want to congratulate the
hon. member for Frontenac, who is the opposition's critic on
agriculture, for his very positive comments, in this House, on
April 4, 1995, regarding the development of the memorandum
of understanding which integrates the marketing of industrial
milk. Indeed, the hon. member was very pleased with this
change.
(1630)
Consequently, I wonder what the opposition is now up to. The
fact is that, if the amendments to the act do not come into effect
by August 1, 1995, there is a risk that producers' contributions
could no longer be used to finance exports to the U.S.
Considering that Quebec accounts for over 47 per cent of the
industrial milk production, and that most of this production is
exported to the U.S., it only makes sense to pass this bill as
quickly as possible, so that producers in Quebec and in the rest
of Canada can benefit from it.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 Davenport, World Bank and International
Monetary Fund; the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe,
internal trade; the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, gasoline
prices.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am very happy to rise and speak today to further the interests of
farmers in Quebec and Canada, and more particularly in my
riding of Champlain.
It is all the more pleasant to do so since Bill C-86, an act to
amend the Canadian Dairy Commission, shows that, for once,
the government has understood how important it is for our
agricultural producers to adjust to the new international trade
rules.
We all know that agriculture is an industry that cannot be
compared with any other, especially in Quebec. For example,
virtually all farm production in Quebec comes from family
farms. Agricultural performance depends on the weather and,
for most products, marketing is done jointly by producers.
Those few points illustrate the distinctive features of this local
industry that has to compete on world markets.
With GATT and NAFTA, farmers are thrown onto a free
market and have no other choice but to succeed. To do so, they
must prepare, and we must set up systems that are allowed under
those agreements and provide independent producers with a
framework that is both flexible and competitive.
Bill C-86 is a step in the right direction, but the government
should keep in mind that producers must constantly adjust and
keep their production costs as low as possible, to be able to meet
the challenge of world competition. Farmers have realized as
much in the last few years, and they do whatever is needed to
succeed. In Quebec, let us just mention the establishment, in
1992, of the Quebec dairy industry recovery fund, which has, as
one of its prime missions, the funding of research projects on
dairy products or of marketing projects aimed to increase sales.
This recovery fund is partially financed through a levy on
each hectolitre of milk produced and on processed products. The
fund was set up by the Quebec milk producers federation,
Agropur and its subsidiaries, the Lactel Group and a number of
associated co-operatives, as well as a company belonging to
private manufacturers members of the Dairy Council.
This example shows the innovative spirit of producers and
others involved in the Quebec agri-food system and, in addition,
it reflects their capacity and willingness to work together to face
common challenges. It is no longer possible to ask producers
alone to constantly reduce their production costs without asking
the other people involved in the agri-food system to do the
same.
(1635)
This reality is the basis of our collective approach and
competitiveness on the world markets. Emphasis is now put on
total quality and the implementation of research results not only
throughout the Quebec and Canadian agri-food systems, but
also by all the stakeholders involved, including the federal
government.
As for the government, it must make the legislative
framework more flexible and maintain the assistance measures
allowed under the international trade agreements, as requested
by the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture
during the last general assembly of his organization. The
government and the Minister of Agriculture must constantly
ensure that their action does not harm the agricultural industry.
The budget recently tabled by the Minister of Finance took
away some of the basic resources our farmers need and
undermined the growth of our agricultural industry. Under the
February budget, Agriculture Canada stands to lose 2,000 jobs,
including 900 in the research sector, one of the most important
sectors in agriculture, and the farm support programs will be
12694
reduced by 30 per cent. More specifically, milk producers will
sustain over a two-year period a 30 per cent cut in the subsidies
for industrial milk. These producers live for the most part in
eastern Canada, which includes Quebec, and the government
has made no provision to compensate these producers, although
it plans to compensate western farmers for the elimination of the
Crow benefit. The producers will have no other choice but to
pass part of the bill on to consumers. And producers will again
be accused of having increased the price of dairy products.
As the president of a farmers association, Laurent Pellerin,
said in an article which appeared in the weekly La terre de chez
nous: ``The Martin budget singles out rural regions''.
The government cannot, on the one hand, change the rules
applying to the dairy industry and, on the other, gradually
withdraw its support. I would hope that both measures are
carried out with the same outlook on our agricultural future and
that the Minister of Finance has consulted the Minister of
Agriculture before proceeding with these cuts. I would also hope
that they have assessed the impact because it would be a shame
for the farmers to see the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture
wiped out by his colleague, the Minister of Finance, year after
year, budget after budget.
Bill C-86 is a very praiseworthy initiative of the Minister of
Agriculture, who wishes to establish a national pooling system
of market returns which will help sustain dairy product exports.
This new system is consistent with international trade
agreements and gives producers the same advantages as a
deduction system. However, I hope that the minister has thought
of a reply for the American government, which has the habit of
challenging Canadian agricultural policy and could be tempted
to accuse Canada of dumping, since this system favours a lower
price for milk used in export products.
We must not forget that the bill before us has been introduced
right after six provinces, including Quebec, signed an
agreement in principle on the pooling of their milk supply
systems. That means that, in these six provinces, producers will
get the same price for their milk and that the provinces will
administer a common quota. Put together, these six provinces
account for 85 per cent of all the industrial milk produced in
Canada. That consolidation will allow them to implement a
single milk marketing system under which interprovincial
barriers to milk supply will be phased out in the medium term.
(1640)
Moreover, the consolidation of the milk supply system will
help these provinces make the adjustment to competition from
further-processed foreign dairy products. The agreement is the
culmination of lengthy negotiations in which Quebec played a
leadership role.
Quebec is the main stakeholder in the dairy products supply
management system. Without Quebec, the Canadian dairy
policy collapses. The Canadian dairy producers understood that.
This agreement proves indeed that, even in the middle of a
referendum campaign, dairy producers from the other provinces
have recognized the importance of economically integrating
their industry with that of Quebec in order to protect their
interests.
By their actions, dairy producers have shown that economic
reality prevails over emotional debates. This is proof once again
that all the dire scenarios that federalists spread about will
simply not materialize once Quebec becomes sovereign.
Quebec will not lose its present share of quotas. On the
contrary, like the other provinces, it will maintain the supply
management system in the interest of all dairy producers in
Quebec and in Canada. Quebec's success in dairy production is
an economic reality hard won by producers, not a gift from
Canadian federalism.
I wanted to mention these facts because they are important in
order to explain the role of each player, to understand fully the
economic dynamics of the dairy industry and to clarify the role
of the government, which must follow suit and work with
producers toward a shared vision of tomorrow's agriculture and
the actions needed to get there.
The government's contribution to the development of our
agricultural economy is mainly through the creation of a
favourable environment. It must act as a guide and help all those
who want to consolidate their markets or to develop new ones.
Let us hope that Bill C-86 is only the beginning and, as the
member of this House for the riding of Champlain, where
agriculture is very important to our economy, I must support
such initiatives.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened attentively to the hon. member's representations, and, I
must say, it sounded to me like a rerun of all of the debates which
have taken place in this past year, or even in the past 30 years.
They always come back to how our federalist system has
mistreated Quebec.
But, recently, the debate shifted to how Quebec can retain the
benefits of a federalist system even after declaring its
independence. For almost a year now, they have been discussing
how Quebec could keep the same currency as Canada, the same
passport and citizenship, and how it could remain a member of
all of the trade agreements.
I will ask my question now because I would like to give them
ample time to answer. How can they dare say to Quebecers
today, in this House, that if Quebec were to separate, they would
guarantee them-? Under the federal system, dairy producers
get 47 per cent of overall production. We heard the Reform
member say-
12695
(1645)
[English]
How happy the rest of Canada would be, if Quebec ever
decided to separate, to take up the slack in milk production in the
rest of Canada. They would be happy. He stated that they did not
want the separation of Quebec.
[Translation]
Therefore, I am going to ask my hon. colleague how he can
dare, first, to tell Quebecers today that they will be a signing
party not only with the rest of Canada, but that they will also
remain part of NAFTA, GATT and other trade agreements? But,
more importantly, how does he intend to guarantee that the
production quotas of dairy producers will remain at their current
levels?
Mr. Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my
colleague opposite, the member for Vaudreuil. We can see how
consistent the Liberals are in their approach. They continuously
resort to the same scare tactics against Quebecers. What I want
to say to the member for Veaudreuil is that we, on this side, have
guts, we have courage, we are willing and able to trade with any
country, and we want to maintain provincial agreements. I
believe it will be in the best interests of everybody in Ontario
and in the western provinces.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, my
party's position on Bill C-86 is very clear. We support this bill,
which enables milk producers to meet the requirements
contained in the international trade agreements signed by
Canada. This bill provides for the creation of a national pooling
system of market returns which will help support the export of
milk products.
Among the interesting proposals, we notice that, from now
on, the Canadian Dairy Commission will manage a common
fund made up of returns from the sale of dairy products.
Previously, the commission deducted levies from producers'
pay cheques. With this bill, the commission will ensure that the
provinces fund exports proportionally to their milk quotas. For
instance, Quebec which exports more dairy products than the
other provinces, will be assured that producers will share
equally in the risks and in the costs of the system, as was the case
under the old levy system.
On April 4, I mentioned in this House that six provinces had
signed a memorandum of agreement aimed at merging their
milk supply systems. This bill is being tabled while Quebec,
Ontario, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick have signed a memorandum of agreement providing
for the common marketing of industrial milk and fluid milk in
these six provinces. Even if the provinces keep their present
quotas, there will be only one class of milk and one price and no
more distinction between industrial and fluid milk.
Quebec has played a major role in the signing of this
agreement, I want to make that clear. I want to mention it
because, even with the upcoming referendum on Quebec's
future, the other provinces recognize the importance of an
economic union with Quebec. Federalists say that, if Quebec
separates, it will lose its present part of the quotas. I say this is
false.
Come on. Quebec will keep the supply management process,
mainly because it is in the interests of milk producers in other
provinces. If the federalist threat were true, Quebec products
would create a very harsh competition for dairy farmers from
the rest of Canada and there could even be a shortage of these
products on the Canadian market.
The fearmongering campaign of the federalists caught on
rapidly in Quebec. One of their key arguments is the threat that a
sovereign Quebec will lose half of its industrial milk quotas and
that thousands of dairy farms will be out of business in Quebec.
Roger B. Buckland, a vice-principal at McGill University,
suggested in the Opinion rurale column of the March 2nd issue
of the magazine La Terre de chez-nous that the United States
would drive many dairy farms to the brink of bankruptcy.
(1650)
According to him, the United States would refuse to maintain
the tariffs agreed to under GATT in an agreement which would
make an independent Quebec part of NAFTA. He argues that
sovereignty would have a negative impact on Quebec dairy
farmers since, within Confederation, they supply 48 per cent of
the industrial milk sold on the Canadian market when Quebec
has only 25 per cent of the population.
Fortunately, the same publication also ran a reply from a
sociologist, Stéphane Paré, in its issue of March 30 to April 5.
Here are some excerpts from this reply:
``Will Americans swallow us? Will they take advantage of the
situation to make NAFTA prevail over GATT? Will Canadians
produce more milk and will Quebecers have to reduce their
production? Quebec, even if it separates, will remain a signatory
to GATT, at least that is the way we interpret international law. It
is called ``state succession'', and it means that the successor
state abides by the laws and obligations of the country it was part
of previously.
Mr. Buckland, I can just see you rushing in to argue that the
rule of successor states does not necessarily apply. You are right.
In fact, this is one of the reasons why I believe that Canada
would be interested in siding with us against Uncle Sam.
Canadians know very well that, without Quebec, they would be
an easy prey for the Americans. Therefore, they would see the
advantages of sitting down with Quebec to negotiate. If there is a
possibility that Chile could join NAFTA, I fail to see why the
signatories would be harder on Quebec. We must keep in mind
that, for the U.S., Quebec is a more important economic partner
than France is, for example. As for the fate of dairy producers in
12696
Quebec, you should know that they do not need Quebec's
independence to disappear. All they have to do is to let Mr.
Martin do his thing''.
Rational arguments always prevail over fear, and Quebecers
will not be fooled on the day of the referendum. Why claim that
a sovereign Quebec would not be allowed to trade with the rest
of Canada, when we know that Canada's dairy production is an
economic reality? Trade between Quebec and Canada exceeds
$80 billion.
Do you think that it would be in Canada's interest to cut all
ties to an independent Quebec? If Quebec loses, how can Canada
expect to gain? The need to maintain a Quebec-Canada
economic zone is obvious.
The agreement in principle reached between the six provinces
that we referred to earlier is an increasingly relevant case in
point. Dairy producers in the other provinces know that Canada
will maintain economic ties with a sovereign Quebec. Economic
reality will prevail over feelings of emotion and vengeance.
Furthermore, the Quebec government is committed to
maintaining a quota system, which it sees as essential to both
producers and processors.
We know that scrapping this system would not be in the best
interest of any dairy industry in Quebec and Canada. As the Bloc
Quebecois demonstrated during the official opposition day on
agriculture, excluding Quebec from the quota system would
expose dairy producers in the other provinces to the fierce
competition of their Quebec counterparts, in addition to creating
a shortage of dairy products in those provinces.
GATT rules virtually preclude the imposition, by Canada, of
restrictive measures to prevent Quebec dairy products from
getting in. These rules seem to be open to a legal challenge. So,
we will leave it to the lawyers.
Maintaining a common economic zone within the dairy
industry will make it possible to resist pressure from the United
States. Quebec and Canada will have to join forces if they want
to counter constant American opposition to custom tariffs on our
dairy products. The bill before the House, Bill C-86, will
probably be challenged by the Americans.
(1655)
It should not come as a surprise to us to hear that the U.S. are
accusing Canada of dumping by reason of the fact that Canada
intends to promote low prices for milk in dairy products for the
export market. However, it will be up to our neighbours to the
South to prove that Canadian exports have an injurious effect on
their market. This will not be an easy task, for our products are
exported in small amounts and generally processed.
At any rate, we know that all European GATT members
subsidize their dairy exports. Canada is not there yet. Therefore,
there is no reason to worry too much. However, if Canada were
to act on the federalists' threat to break off any ties with an
independent Quebec, the American ogre would be sitting pretty.
The federalists also threatened Quebec dairy producers with the
loss of tariffs negotiated with the U.S. under NAFTA if and
when Quebec became sovereign. Come on.
The U.S. appetite for international trade is well known and I
am convinced that they will not change their ways with a
sovereign Quebec. Naturally, they will try to get more than they
already have and to renegotiate the agreement with an
independent Quebec. But the fact of the matter is that this is
already going on now with Canada. Like Canada, Quebec will
reply that customs tariffs are protected by GATT.
The Americans are putting the pressure on and will continue
to do so, whether Quebec becomes sovereign or not. However,
they do understand that money talks. With exports of $14 billion
and imports of $27 billion to and from Quebec, it is not the
economic considerations involving Quebec's dairy industry that
would keep Americans from signing a new free trade agreement
with us.
There is currently very limited trade between Quebec and the
U.S. involving the dairy industry, because of high tariffs. It is
easy to see that we would have a new free trade agreement
without having to make concessions on agricultural tariffs. So,
where is the catastrophe for the Quebec dairy industry in a
sovereign Quebec?
Where is the catastrophe, if it is wrong to claim that a
sovereign Quebec would lose half of its industrial milk quota,
which would result, if we are to believe the fearmongers, in the
closure of thousands of dairy farms in the province? Where is
the catastrophe, if it is wrong to claim that sovereignty would
adversely affect Quebec producers, because they provide 48 per
cent of Canada's industrial milk production, while accounting
for only 25 per cent of the country's population? Where is the
catastrope, if it is wrong to claim that Quebec dairy producers
will lose the benefit of the existing tariffs with the U.S., under
NAFTA. Where then is the real threat?
The real threat was tabled by this government not long ago.
The real threat for Quebec's dairy industry is the last federal
budget, as I said a few moments ago, when I quoted a Quebec
sociologist. Because of that budget, the federal subsidy for
industrial milk is reduced by 30 per cent over a two year period.
We mentioned earlier that Quebec accounts for 48 per cent of
Canada's industrial milk production. So, who do you think will
bear the brunt of these cuts? It is pretty easy to figure out. These
cuts amount to a loss of income of $3,775 for an average size
dairy farm producing about 2,500 hectolitres of milk. This
means a 15 per cent loss of income for a producer with a net
income of $25,000. And this is not taking into account the
12697
increased feed costs, following the elimination of transport
subsidies for grain and feed. Quebec farmers have been left high
and dry. The finance minister's budget does not provide any
compensation for them, even though they are the most affected
by it.
This bill will allow producers to adjust to the requirements of
international trade agreements signed by Canada. As we said,
this is why the official opposition supports Bill C-86. However,
the problem confronting our daiary producers is certainly not
solved, given the obstacles set in their way by the finance
minister's budget.
(1700)
What gives me hope however is the agreement in principle
signed by Quebec, Ontario and the four other provinces to pool
their milk supply system. This shows that a sovereign Quebec
would not be isolated for mere emotional reasons, when it is
economic considerations that really count.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the remarks of my colleague with great
interest.
I come from a rural Ontario riding that has an excellent dairy
industry. Speaking on behalf of the farmers, the dairy producers
in the immediate area where I live, I am perplexed by the
remarks that separation would not hurt Quebec producers.
The dairy farmers in my area feel very strongly that Quebec
dairy farmers are enjoying a singular advantage right now and
would look forward to an opportunity to compete face to face
with Quebec as would be the case in the event of separation.
There are farmers in my riding who are very expert in the dairy
industry.
Does my colleague feel in the event of Quebec's separation
that Ontario dairy producers would lose or gain? Would they
produce more milk and get more money?
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer this
question because, in reality, our colleagues from Ontario, our
neighbour, have nothing to worry about. They know very well
that they have a good thing going with Quebec, and Quebec
knows it too.
I do not believe that the day after Quebec's separation, should
that day come, Ontario would say: ``From this day on, we are
going to ignore you, ignore your businesses, your dairy
businesses, your imports and exports''. I do not believe it
because my colleague opposite knows very well that two
provinces, two good provinces, Quebec and Ontario, which have
always had good trade relations, are not going to erect walls at
their borders, even when it comes to agriculture, I might add.
My colleague also knows very well that, as things stand now,
such a move would cause Ontario to lose thousands of jobs and
millions and millions in revenue. Therefore, I think that a
married couple can always make some kind of alliance and come
to some kind of agreement. I would like to add that we are all
sensible people, whether we are from Quebec or from another
place in Canada. We are all very reasonable and very talented.
Should Quebec separate from the rest of Canada, I would be
worried in the least. We will continue to have very good trade
relations. I assure you. I thank my colleague for raising this
excellent question.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
marriage is not on the agenda in the current political situation in
Quebec. Divorce is. And I never knew people to be better off
after a divorce than they were before. Never. They keep talking
about threats and scare tactics when we disagree with them. The
real scare tactics started when the budget was brought down in
Quebec. Although six or as many as eight provinces brought
down a balanced budget, the Quebec minister of finance opted
for genuine scaremongering. Vote no or vote yes, depending on
the question, otherwise we raise taxes.
The hon. member also said everything would be just fine after
separation.
[English]
They are dreaming in Technicolor. They stand in the House
day after day and state everything will be rosy after separation. I
challenge them.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Question. Question.
Mr. Discepola: The hon. member for Frontenac might as well
know this is a time for more than questions, this is a time for
questions and comments. He never had the intestinal fortitude to
tell the House how Quebec and its farmers would be better off in
an independent Quebec.
(1705)
The hon. member also said that, in an independent Quebec,
Quebecers would have the assurance that their new country
would be a party to all trade agreements.
[English]
He says again that it is in the interest of Ontario and all other
provinces to continue a lateral trade relationship with Quebec.
We are talking about a divorce; we are talking about the
destruction of a country. They cannot stand in the House day
after day and pretend that in a separate Quebec people would be
able to keep the monetary policy, the Canadian dollar, and to
have dual citizenship. Imagine people in Quebec being able to
vote in the rest of Canada because they have dual citizenship and
people from the rest of Canada not being able to vote in Quebec.
12698
There is never a campaign of fear mongering in this party. We
will reach a decision diplomatically and democratically. I would
like them once and for all to stand and say there may be a risk but
they do not. They continually tell Quebecers that it will be
business as usual.
How can they guarantee that? They have said they want to
take the good things Canada has to offer. They want the same
dollar, the same passport, the same everything. Pretty soon they
will be telling us: ``We will keep Canada; find your own
Quebec''.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Madam Speaker, it will be a pleasure to respond
to the hon. member for Vaudreuil. I wish the hon. member would
remember what I said. When I referred to marriage, I meant an
economic marriage, and I would like to point out that today, as
many as 60 per cent of businesses in Quebec and Ontario are
involved in joint ventures, and that Ontario has a $3.8 billion
trade surplus with Quebec.
Just a minute, Madam Speaker, just a minute, please. Will
Ontario ignore us overnight? Will Ontario and the other
provinces in Canada turn down economic ties overnight? Hardly
likely. Globalization is the order of the day. But let us continue.
Just because we are talking about agriculture, we do not need
more fences. There will be no fences tomorrow. These are the
figures I wanted to mention in the House when I spoke earlier,
and I repeat, this is an economic marriage regardless of the
outcome for Quebec. With respect to agriculture, which was
supposed to be my topic today, there are no borders, no fences.
And I may add that yes, this will be a good economic marriage.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as someone from British Columbia I am sick and tired
of talk about some kind of economic merger.
A lot of dairy products come from Quebec into British
Columbia. Why does the member think British Columbia would
accept product from a country that just separated from Canada?
What motivation is there for people from British Columbia to
take the product when we can produce it ourselves?
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Madam Speaker, I think our western colleague
overlooked the fact that Quebec buys $800 million worth of
beef.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Annually.
Mr. Landry: Annually. Eight hundred million dollars worth.
Does the West-
An hon. member: And Western wheat.
Mr. Landry: We could say plenty about Western wheat,
Madam Speaker.
I will say this, if the Reform Party does not want an economic
marriage, it can refrain, but as a politician, I say that we are
going to have a real marriage, a marriage that is economically
and politically sound.
(1710)
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
happy to join my colleagues in the debate on Bill C-86, an act to
amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act and to add my
support to this important initiative.
Dairy farmers of Canada as well as producers in my home
province of Prince Edward Island are very anxious to see the bill
passed prior to the end of June so that the legislative
requirements laid out in the act are in place prior to August 1.
The P.E.I. milk marketing board held a number of public
meetings on the proposals outlined in the act and had strong
producer support. However I underline the important point that
producers in my province do not want to see this as the first step
in moving toward a national quota exchange. It is important to
have the quota distributed throughout the country and not drawn
basically into Quebec and Ontario through quota pricing
practices. I underline that as a concern.
The bill provides Canada's dairy sector with the ways and
means to successfully face demanding new market realities. As
well the amendments are very much in line with the
government's fiscal goal of getting the deficit under control.
The new milk pricing and pooling system will not require any
additional resources from government reserves. It will not entail
any contingent liability on the part of the federal government or
involve any reallocations from within the Canadian Dairy
Commission's current operating funds.
As my colleagues before me have noted, the principal
amendments to the act provide the commission with the legal
administrative authority to work co-operatively with provincial
milk marketing authorities to calculate the average national
price level for the milk classes whose returns will be pooled, to
obtain the returns from sale to processors through the provinces
and then to redistribute the returns to producers through
provincial authorities on an equitable basis under the terms of a
formal federal-provincial agreement.
The other amendments contained in Bill C-86 are even less
complicated. They are necessary to add clarity to the act to
ensure compatibility and consistency with provincial
authorities and legislation, to enable proper and efficient
banking procedures and administration of producer money, and
to strengthen the enforcement provisions of the act.
12699
Through Bill C-86 a provincial milk marketing board is
specifically defined to add clarity to the act and to ensure
consistency with similar provisions contained in the dairy
products marketing regulations. The new industry pooling
system for milk marketing returns will be carried out through
arrangements agreed upon by the Canadian dairy commission
and the provincial milk marketing authorities.
An amendment has also been included for clarity to ensure
that there is no misinterpretation of the fact that the regulations
made under the CDC act do not take precedence in terms of the
authorities provided to the commission under the act.
The provisions contained in any legislated act always take
precedence over any regulations made pursuant to the act. That
is an important point. Other amendments provided by Bill C-86
enable the commission to recover pool administration costs
from the pool, to establish a special bank account to deal solely
with the producer moneys entering and leaving the pool through
the provincial authorities, and to permit the CDC to establish a
line of credit to ensure continuity of producer payments. These
are important principles to ensure that we meet our GATT
obligations and that we are not using government moneys to
fulfil these procedures.
Under pooling arrangements the Canadian dairy commission
will simply be administering a pool of producer moneys on
behalf of producers. If necessary, any borrowing costs would be
undertaken on a short term basis only to ensure timeliness of
payments as moneys enter and leave the pool. Any such
borrowings would be subject to prior approval by the Minister of
Finance and be totally funded by producers.
(1715)
Bill C-86 also enables the CDC to continue its long standing
practice of returning any excess fees or levy funds rightfully
owed back to producers. The amount of in quota production per
producer can only be estimated at the beginning of each dairy
year. The amount of actual production is not known until the end
of the year.
While no penalties are charged for under producing milk,
under the supply management system over quota production is
exported and levies are charged on these amounts to cover
export costs and other related CDC program costs. The same
type of situation may well occur under the pooling system as
average national prices will be calculated at the beginning of a
certain period and may differ when the marketing costs are
finally determined. Again, no additional government funds are
involved.
The last amendment contained in Bill C-86 strengthens the
enforcement provisions of the CDC act. Given the attorney
general conducts all litigation for the commission and has the
power to seek injunctive relief in its own name the new
provision will ensure the same relief is available if litigation is
commenced by or against the commission in the name of the
CDC.
Again I urge my fellow members to fully support Bill C-86.
Such approval will demonstrate clear recognition of the
importance of Canada's dairy sector and the continuation of the
supply management system and its benefits to not only
producers but to all Canadians. This is a model we should be
encouraging other countries to adopt and these amendment will
go a long way in terms of making it compatible with GATT
agreements.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
my distinguished colleague and member for Malpèque is an
expert in dairy production, and I have considerable respect for
him.
The Federation of Dairy Producers of Canada decided to
comply with the provisions of NAFTA-and NAFTA is the
reason we are here debating Bill C-86 this afternoon-because
the $3 levy per hectolitre of milk could have been reduced by 15
per cent a year. However, GATT determined that, as of August 1,
1995, this $3 deduction from the income of industrial milk
producers would be illegal under the NAFTA agreement,
because it would be considered a direct export subsidy.
This is debatable, but since it seems we do not want to overly
upset the Americans, we bowed to their demands. We still do not
know which takes precedence-GATT or NAFTA-so we
comply with the requirements of NAFTA.
Under this agreement, we obtained an extension in order to
become legal. As the member for Malpèque pointed out, the
quota may be negotiated between provinces. The hon. member
for Malpèque could buy part of Quebec's quota to expand his
farm. Better yet, if he wants to swell his coffers, he could sell his
quota to Quebecers, who could take his quota from Prince
Edward Island and bring it to Quebec.
I think this is a very good point in Bill C-86, given that, in the
agreement signed by the farm producers of the six provinces, if,
for example, Prince Edward Island sees its milk quota vanish
like snow in springtime after the 1 per cent sale, it can
temporarily withdraw from the agreement it signed with the
other five provinces.
(1720)
What I want to find out from my colleague for Malpeque, who
is very familiar with agriculture across Canada, is: what is going
to happen to the three recalcitrant provinces? I will not go so far
as calling them separatist, but I would like to know what we can
give these three western provinces to get them to sign the
agreement with the six other provinces, since they produce
barely 18 per cent of Canada's milk.
12700
[English]
Mr. Easter: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
I want to make it very clear that Bill C-86 is only talking
about the legislative authority to implement a national pooling
system of market returns from the different classes of milk. It
will not establish a national quota exchange. To be very clear, it
will set up a national pooling system of market returns and
would give that authority within the context of
federal-provincial agreements on pooling mainly through
delegated functions. I raised quota exchange because it is a
concern of producers in Prince Edward Island that this
legislation not been seen as the first step toward moving in that
direction.
This requirement is really as a result of the GATT. In terms of
the point he raised with respect to GATT and NAFTA, we in
Canada know which tariff reduction regime has priority. We
know it is the GATT negotiation and not NAFTA. The
Americans may differ in their opinion but certainly we are
firmly behind the stand that the GATT tariff reduction rules
apply.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the debate to this point has been quite
insightful. It tells us a bit about Canada and some of the
problems we face. It is interesting that the debate is over
something as simple as milking cows. The previous Liberal
speaker has been actively involved in the dairy industry. I
cannot say the same although I have milked cows.
It is very interesting to see a debate in the House, an argument,
a scrap might be the correct word, between the Liberals and the
Bloc over milking cows. It was at the point at which they were
talking about marriages and divorces over milking cows. We
have to wonder, in the marriage or the divorce who is the cow
and who is the bull. Maybe we have two bulls, in which case
where is the milk?
If we have this kind of debate over milking cows, can we
imagine a fight over the future of Canada as to whether we
remain a united country? We can imagine how the scrap will
intensify. We will not be talking about milking cows, we will be
talking about the St. Lawrence seaway, the division of assets,
federal buildings across the river in Hull, federal buildings in
Montreal and all across Quebec, apportioning the federal debt.
We can only imagine the difficulty.
The problem is we have two parties in the House talking about
marriage and divorce. It is time to change the parameters of the
debate and start talking about life and death. With the parties
involved in the debate all I see is the potential of death. They
will scrap until someone is killed.
(1725)
We may be talking about some new life in this issue. When I
think about new life I think about Reform because Reform talks
about a constructive new way of looking at things. Perhaps both
parties need to lay aside their instruments of war and listen to
Reformers who talk about a new Canada, the birth of new ideas,
a new Confederation with 10 equal provinces working together
because they have responsibilities appropriated to each level of
government in a manner that will allow us to work
co-operatively and lay aside some of these foolish and silly
debates like the debate over how we milk our cows.
I farm and I have milked cows, mostly as a young lad. I do not
claim to be an expert but I recognize the importance of the
industry. Therefore it is a privilege for me to speak this
afternoon on Bill C-86 which provides for the replacement of
levies with a pooling system of market returns from different
classes of milk use, which system maintains producer equity and
is consistent with Canada's international trade agreement.
I rise in the House today to talk about an issue that should
have been addressed many months ago. While I congratulate the
government for finally addressing the issue of supply
management, I have many doubts whether the government has
the resolve to develop a policy that addresses farmers' concerns
for the long term.
Canada's supply management system has provided stability to
the dairy industry. In the system farmers are given a reliable
means of marketing their product with a consistent price.
Consumers are guaranteed in receiving a product of high
quality. However, this has come with a hefty price tag for
consumers with goods in some cases double what the same
product would cost in the United States.
As long as our dollar is relatively low, below 80 cents U.S., it
does not create too much of a problem. However, when we see
our dollar increase above the 80 cent mark certainly we have
cross-border shopping. Any Canadian who goes across the
border to shop in the United States will put in their hamper large
quantities of dairy products such as cheese, milk and the like.
That indicates perhaps there are some fundamental problems
and pitfalls ahead with regard to not only the dairy industry but
all supply managed areas we need to openly discuss in the House
and in the industry.
Recent developments in world trade have signalled the
inevitable end of Canada's supply managed systems as we know
them. The status quo will go, just as it will go with regard to the
squabble between separatists and federalists. The status quo in
the supply managed system will have to pass away as well.
As of August 1, 1995 under the Uruguay round of GATT all
import quotas must be converted to tariffs. While tariffs may
protect supply managed commodities in the short term, it is
doubtful they will be a fixture in the long term. Canada will try
12701
to maintain the 85 per cent tariff level until the year 2001 but it
is likely the United States will challenge it. Even the
parliamentary secretary to the federal minister of agriculture
has said publicly this is inevitable.
I quote the MP for Prince Edward-Hastings:
What will likely happen is that the Americans will ask for a NAFTA panel in the
very near future. The panel of industry experts is made up of two Americans and a
fifth person who is chosen by `a flip of a coin'. The system is somewhat biased,
depending on which country `wins the toss of the coin'. That's the way the system
works.
The government is confident it can win an American
challenge against tariff levels. However, what plan of action has
the government developed if the Americans win the challenge?
It reminds me that the Liberals said they were sure Canada
would win the debate over article XI in the GATT negotiations.
Everyone knows the Liberals were wrong. We have found out
the Liberals are wrong a lot of time. We are concerned that they
do not always accurately communicate the conditions not only
of the dairy industry, but those that many sectors of our economy
may face in the future. The Liberals are not being
straightforward with the results of the ongoing deficit and
increasing debt.
It is about time we started to deal realistically with the issues
before us and address in a very direct form the concerns of the
dairy industry. For instance, a ruling in favour of the Americans
would put the current system in jeopardy. We are reminded that
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The Reform
Party supports the tariff levels which were agreed to under
GATT.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
12701
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved
that Bill C-319, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(reimbursement of election expenses) be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is a very straightforward bill. It
intends to put one more very small hurdle in the path of
registered political parties before they are eligible for
reimbursement from the public purse. It would be a hurdle
similar to the one that is in the path of individual candidates.
When individual candidates run in a particular riding, the
candidate is required to have 15 per cent of the total votes cast in
that constituency before the candidate is eligible for
reimbursement from the public purse.
Reams and volumes of books have been published over the
years on election financing in Canada. The stack is quite high. It
all has to do with financing elections in Canada and ensuring
that financing is straightforward and transparent. It ensures that
candidates who are able to run in elections come forward to
represent their constituencies without having to be
independently well off.
The election financing rules are intended to ensure that
candidates are not bought by individuals. That is why there are
limits on campaign expenditures. That is why there is full
disclosure on funding of individual and national campaigns.
The bill speaks only to the national campaigns. It was
motivated during the last election when I found myself, as
everyone in the House did, in the situation where there was a
cacophony of candidates representing quite a wide variety of
platforms.
Perhaps the most outrageous was the platform of the yogic
flyers. While the debates were going on I wondered what yogic
flying had to do with running our country and what yogic flying
could do to get our country out of debt and make our country
work better. At first I am sure many people thought it was a joke.
We certainly do not want to dissuade anyone from running and
getting involved in politics. And perhaps yogic flyers do have
the answer to Canada's problems.
I wish to inform the Chair that it is my intention to share my
time with my colleague from Okanagan Centre.
(1735 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, here we were in the
middle of the election campaign surrounded by yogic flyers.
That would have been great, except that when the election was
over I checked into it. They received a grand total of 84,000
votes in the last election, .6 per cent of the total votes cast. They
also received $717,000 from the taxpayers of Canada in
reimbursement for their national campaign expenditures. It
worked out that the taxpayers of Canada reimbursed them $8.41
for every vote cast. They spent $37.38 for every vote they
received, which is their business. It did not make sense to me
that the taxpayers of Canada should be subsidizing what really is
not a political party.
The intention of having the national campaign party
reimbursement was to ensure that national or regional political
parties had some income between elections. It was intended to
12702
keep them going. National or regional political parties are
necessary for the lifeblood of the country.
In looking at the campaign expenditures, we thought about
how we would make sure the hurdle was low enough, so small
that parties could get started yet high enough to be real. We came
up with the figure of 2 per cent. Federal parties would have to
have spent 10 per cent of their total allowable limit and also
have garnered 2 per cent of the total votes cast. In the last
election that would be something like 270,000 votes across the
country.
Some with whom I have discussed this bill have suggested it
might be appropriate to have a lower threshold. If that is the
case, I would be quite happy to consider amending this bill to
have a lower threshold, perhaps 1 per cent.
Mr. Milliken: Why not higher?
Mr. McClelland: That would still be 130,000 votes across the
country. As an hon. member opposite mentioned, why not
higher? If it is the will of this House either in committee or in
debate that it should be higher, that could be considered. In my
view, 2 per cent was high enough that it was a hurdle but low
enough that it was possible to achieve.
I wish to reiterate the intent is not to prevent new parties from
getting going. The intent is in keeping with the spirit of the
Electoral Reform Commission to ensure hurdles are in place to
protect the public purse, to ensure that genuine political parties
are able to benefit from the very wise intentions of those that
preceded us in this House.
I ask hon. members opposite to give this bill their
consideration and support. It may save us somewhere in the
region of $1 million, which for most Canadians is quite a lot of
money. For the federal budget, it is not that large an amount.
However, it is not just the amount, but the principle we are
talking about.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased and happy today to be able to support my
colleague from Edmonton Southwest and his bill to amend the
Canada Elections Act.
Canadians are a people with a profound respect for
democracy. Look around at the make-up of the House. We know
by the change that took place from the last election to this one
how democracy is respected in our country.
We understand representation very well. We respect it even
when we do not necessarily agree with everything our
representatives say. One of the things that brings this home most
clearly is the structure of our electoral system.
(1740)
We conduct open, free and fair elections in Canada. We give
political parties tools to raise funds and to run candidates. We
place limits and restrictions on their activities during and
between writs to ensure fairness, even in dealing with each other
and with the public. We have disclosure rules to make the system
transparent. But our system also has some flaws. The bill put
forward by my hon. colleague is all about addressing one of
those flaws.
Bill C-319 seeks to limit the reimbursement of election
expenses to those parties that have spent more than 10 per cent
of their allotted expense amount as described in section 46 of the
Canada Elections Act if and only if they receive more than 2 per
cent of the vote nationally. What this would do is limit expense
reimbursement to only those parties that have received a
significant number of votes in the election, those parties that
have a reasonable level of public support among Canadian
voters.
In the most recent election, Elections Canada reports that
there were 19,906,796 registered voters. This means that with
this bill a party would have to have received 398,136 votes
nationally to be eligible for reimbursement of election
expenses. I do not think it is unreasonable for Canadians to
expect a party to give a reasonable showing in an election before
hard earned tax dollars are handed over to help it pay its bills.
What this bill seeks to prevent is the situation that arose in the
last election. During that election certain parties were either
well financed or had policies that were way out of touch with
reality but were still well financed. These parties managed to
field a large number of candidates and spent considerable sums
on their campaigns. The taxpayer reimbursed them for a
sizeable chunk of those expenses, even though they received
only a very tiny portion of the overall national vote.
It does not sit well with me nor with many other Canadians
that we are reimbursing expenses to parties that do not get more
than a handful of the overall votes. I am not advocating the
restriction of the electoral system here, far from it. I am only
suggesting that it is about time we started to apply some fiscal
restraint to our electoral system just as we are to the rest of the
functions of government.
Parties should in no way be limited from forming or running
as many candidates as they can muster. Parties should be
allowed to spend as they see fit within the current rules set out
by Elections Canada. Parties that do not command a significant
share of the vote should not expect the Canadian taxpayer to
cough up money to pay their bills.
I need to correct myself. We want 2 per cent of the total votes
cast which in the last election would have worked out to 270,000
votes or thereabouts. The earlier figure I used was a theoretical
12703
number based on the actual number of people who could have
cast a ballot.
The reimbursement of election expenses should be a privilege
enjoyed by those parties that have demonstrated they have the
support of a significant proportion of Canadians. It is that
simple.
What Bill C-319 seeks to introduce is fairness and fiscal
restraint in the electoral system. We all know that fiscal restraint
is absolutely essential in Canada today. We want political
parties to demonstrate that they are deserving of any benefits
they might derive from the taxpayer. We want them to show that
they have support at the ballot box before they get the support
from tax dollars. It is really all about fairness.
If a party deserves to be reimbursed because it has support
among the people, it will be. If, however, a party is using the
electoral system in this country as a soapbox for personal or
questionable exposure and the people ignore it, then it should
pay its own bills.
Again, I am not suggesting that we limit participation in any
way. It is just that parties that do not command a certain level of
support from the voters should not expect those same voters to
bail them out with tax dollars. It is about being fair, responsible
and accountable to the taxpayer for the dollar spent.
I am pleased to offer my support to my colleague from
Edmonton-Southwest in this Bill C-319.
(1745)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am highly interested in the bill introduced today by
the member for Edmonton Southwest. I congratulate him on the
fact that his bill was chosen. I hope that today, or at a later date,
the House will adopt the bill at second reading so that it can be
referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs which will study it, and maybe recommend a few
amendments before sending it back to the House for
concurrence.
[English]
The bill purports to put a minimum in place for contributions
from the federal treasury for parties participating in elections.
The hon. member has proposed a political party must receive at
least 2 per cent of the votes cast in order to be eligible for the
22.5 per cent reimbursement allowed under section 322 of the
Canada Elections Act.
The hon. member will be aware there is a fairly significant
history in relation to this issue which might be of interest to him
and other hon. members wishing to participate in the debate
today. The Lortie commission, the report of the royal
commission on electoral reform and party financing,
recommended registered parties that receive at least 1 per cent
of all the ballots cast be reimbursed at a rate of 60 cents for each
vote received provided that no party would be reimbursed at an
amount greater than 50 per cent of its electoral expenses.
This increase proposed by the Lortie commission rewarded
parties that received a large number of votes in proportion to the
number of votes they received and also increased the rate for the
major parties so they would get more money because there was a
recognition that at the national level Canada's national parties
are generally short of cash, particularly those not forming the
government.
There was a recognition by the royal commission that the
governing party had an easier time raising funds than parties in
opposition to the government. In part to offset that the
commission recommended this rather generous reimbursement
procedure but based on votes so that only a party that was fairly
successful in the polls would receive a substantial chunk of
money.
The hon. member will know there were extensive discussions
between the parties about the Lortie recommendations. In the
last Parliament I had the honour to be a member of the special
committee on electoral reform which dealt with the Lortie
proposals in some detail and came up with a series of reports
tabled in the House. One of the reports resulted in the adoption
of Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, in the
last Parliament. The other major report from the committee was
never acted on by the government prior to the dissolution of
Parliament and accordingly this issue, as were some others, was
left untouched.
The committee, composed with representatives of the three
recognized parties then in the House, the NDP, the Progressive
Conservative Party and the Liberal Party-the Progressive
Conservatives of course had a majority on the committee-was
unable to agree on the Lortie commission proposal.
While it was something that would have been palatable with
our party, the New Democratic Party in particular found it
offensive because it would have received far less money than
under the current legal arrangements. The Progressive
Conservative Party, looking at the polls, was very nervous it
might also be disastrous for it and so it was not very keen on it.
I say with some pride the Liberal Party has always done well
in the polls, whether in opposition or in government. Hon.
members opposite laugh but it has been a fact for really all of
this century that we would have come out reasonably well on any
scenario with this arrangement. Other parties were more
apprehensive and based on the election results in 1993, I can
understand their apprehension. We all know the New
Democratic Party took a terrible whipping, although well
deserved, and the Progressive Conservative Party similarly was
thrashed, and very properly so.
12704
They would have felt this rule in a very harsh way had they
adopted it before the election, which this party would not and
had not in any election. With all the elections it has lost in this
century it still would have done all right under a rule of this kind.
(1750 )
I now want to turn to what the committee did. The committee
came up with another way of enriching the parties a little, and
that was to increase the reimbursement from 22.5 per cent to 25
per cent and simply leave the rules as they were. That was the
only deal we could make which every party agreed on and it was
part of a package which included other changes to the financing
of political parties. Of course none of it was enacted.
I do not mind telling hon. members opposite one of the points
the government was very anxious to include in the bill was a
restriction on the minimum number of votes one had to receive
in order to qualify. The government was very anxious to put in
place a figure which I think was around 5 per cent. That would
have put at risk various other parties that were more regionally
based. When I say that I look at the two parties in opposition
because both of those parties come from a fairly regional base. I
think the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest would concede
the Reform Party is not strong in Quebec or in Atlantic Canada.
We resisted that at the time because we felt if we were to have
a regional basis to the parties it was unfair to stack the deck
against the establishment of new parties and we were naturally
somewhat concerned about that. Therefore we resisted and I
think I can safely say from the point of view of hon. members
opposite it is probably just as well we did.
However, that is history and certainly from a theoretical point
of view there was no objection on our part to putting some
minimum number of votes obtained in place. Therefore, to have
this bill before us today and allow the committee to study it is
very important. I support the hon. member in that objective.
However, I cannot let the opportunity pass without
commenting on the 2 per cent figure. It strikes me as being
rather low. In South Africa and in Germany where there is a
system of proportional representation, in order to qualify to get
any seats in the legislature they have to have at least 5 per cent of
the votes. That is my recollection. That is to get seats, let alone
reimbursement.
In our country we can win seats in Parliament in one or two
places, as we had with the Reform Party which had one member
in the last Parliament, the hon. member for Beaver River, who
was here throughout that Parliament. With a modest number of
votes in a general election a party can still have seats in the
House. We have two areas in which there is reimbursement, at
the national party level and at the constituency level. If one is
successful at the constituency level, money is paid to the
successful candidates and to the other candidates who run well.
In looking at the 2 per cent figure I cannot help but look at the
results of the 34th general election, the 1988 election. Eight
parties ran in that election which would not have qualified using
the rule of the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest. They all
had less than 1 per cent of the vote. However, the one party over
2 per cent was the Reform Party. That party received 2.09 per
cent of the vote in 1988. It is an extraordinary coincidence that 2
per cent is the figure which the hon. member chose because of
course it saved the Reform Party based on the 1988 results. I am
sure he did not look at the results to come up with the figure, but
perhaps a researcher did.
While it has initial appeal, I think a little higher figure might
not be inappropriate. I would have hated to see the Reform Party
cut out of the financial jackpot if we had put it too high in the last
election. I cannot remember if that party broke 5 per cent. I
would want to look at a higher figure in committee. I served
notice to that effect and I certainly look forward to hearing the
witnesses the committee is able to call on this bill, should the
House in its wisdom decide to give the bill approval in principle
at second reading.
There are lots of ways to skin a cat, as they say, and I think
there are many ways we could seek to improve Canada's
electoral law with respect to the reimbursement of political
parties. I am glad to see the Reform Party by this bill is adopting
the principle that the state does have an important role to play
with respect to the reimbursement of political parties because
that is certainly something we have regarded as fundamental for
some time and on which occasionally I have heard statements. I
cannot say I have read the little blue book, but I have heard
statements that make me wonder if the Reform Party really is
committed to this principle.
(1755)
I assume this bill put forward by the hon. member for
Edmonton Southwest has some approval from the powers that be
in his party, including the member for Calgary Southwest who I
gather has some say in these matters, that this is okay and this
principle therefore is satisfactory.
I am glad to support the principle. I hope we can work out a
series of rules that will be fair not just to the parties currently in
the House but to other parties formed in Canada and also to the
Canadian taxpayer.
The problem with the current system is it encourages parties
that are registered and fielding the requisite number of
candidates to spend as much money as they can. As long as they
spend 10 per cent of their limit, I believe, they become entitled
to a reimbursement of 22.5 per cent of their expenses no matter
how
12705
many votes they get. I agree that is wrong. There should not be
an incentive to spend.
In my view, the money paid should be based on some other
principle, whether it is on the number of votes received or on a
minimal number of votes one must get in order to qualify for the
expense. Something needs to go into the law.
I quite agree with the hon. member in bringing this forward. I
would be glad to support the bill at second reading in order that
the standing committee may do a detailed study on the proposal.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to represent the
official opposition in this debate on Bill C-319. Before I start, I
would like to salute and thank the members who are constantly
striving, through their work and reflection, to improve the
elections act and the way our tax money is managed, with a view
to reaching a very significant goal, namely the representation of
the people.
On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to give a
point of view based solely on democratic principles in action.
The purpose of this bill is to allow only those registered parties
that have received 2 per cent of the total number of votes cast in
a national election to receive a 22.5 per cent reimbursement of
their election expenses.
We believe that this new provision of the Canada Elections
Act will result in making it more difficult-and I especially
stress more difficult-the emergence and survival of a variety of
political formations which often reflect political diversity and a
rich and vibrant democratic life.
I do understand the underlying principle of the bill, which is
to avoid reimbursing part of the election expenses of groups or
factions formed to campaign in favour of a political idea shared
by a tiny minority. I believe that this bill is aimed at the Natural
Law Party, for example. We have no intention of launching into
an endless debate, even if I am opposed to the principle of the
bill. Again, I understand the bill's objectives. It could, however,
set a dangerous trend for democracy in Quebec and Canada.
Since a political party is already required to nominate at least
50 candidates to be registered, which I feel is enough to confirm
how serious a political formation is, why should it also be
required to receive at least 2 per cent of the total number of votes
cast in an election to be eligible for a 22.5 per cent
reimbursement of its expenses? Preventing the wasteful use of
public funds to promote silly ideas during an election campaign
is one reason, but it is not enough to convince me that this bill is
justified.
In my opinion, this bill is strangely reminiscent of Bill C-229
tabled by the Reform Party, which would require a political
party to nominate candidates in at least seven provinces in order
to be registered. I think that both these bills are similar to the
extent that they both seek to limit the expression of democracy
in Canada.
Make no mistake. This is a discussion about principles, a
discussion that could lead us in this House to debate the
relevance of the multiparty system at the so-called ``national''
level.
(1800)
Bill C-229, which required a political party to nominate
candidates in at least seven provinces that have, in the
aggregate, at least 50 per cent of the population of all the
provinces, was nothing short of undemocratic. We regarded it as
an insult to democracy, because it denied Quebec's right, as a
distinct society, to have its own representatives in the federal
legislature.
In Canada, the multiparty system is also a matter of regional
representation, and that is what the bill denied. In the past,
several political parties have been active on the Canadian scene
while based only in one province. As early as 1920, members
from other parties started to be elected to the House of
Commons in relatively large numbers and with enough support
and credibility to influence the democratic system. In the 1930s,
the Social Credit and the Commonwealth Cooperative
Federation, for example, represented very special interests, and
their demands and aspirations were in no way national in nature;
these were movements created by Western farmers to protest the
excessive taxation powers of a highly centralizing federal
government.
So, why limit access for the political representation of
minority views and amend the Canada Elections Act if not to
prevent Quebec in particular from voicing its rejection of the old
national parties, the people commonly referred to as the Grits
and the Tories?
Let us be clear. The introduction of such restrictions on the
exercise of a democratic right in the Canada Elections Act
would mean the end of the multiparty concept in the Canadian
electoral system. We feel that the provision requiring that a
party gets 2 per cent of the votes to have part of its expenses
repaid is a restrictive measure.
Such bills promote the emergence of a one-way political life,
of a biparty system essentially dominated by two parties taking
turns to defend the same interests and the same vision of a very
centralized Canada.
The biparty system does not reflect the geographical reality of
Canada. Our country is part of a continent. Each region of that
continent is a country in itself, with its language, its character
and its cultures. In that context, we feel that the Canadian
culture is a myth.
12706
The two party system can no longer reflect reality across the
continent; the rout of the Conservative Party of Canada in the
last general election is proof of that, even though the hon.
member for Sherbrooke is trying like the very devil to resurrect
his party.
Mr. Ostrogorsky, one of the fathers of modern political
analysis, condemned-and this democratic approach is
important-what he called the ``perverse effects of a
mechanical democracy''. He was referring to the two party or
one party political regimes under which the democratic life
looks somewhat mechanical and loses all its meaning. ``The
ongoing nature of parties is the basis for the development of the
machine and disturbs the workings of democracy'', he wrote.
Therefore, the appropriate solution to the problem of parties
appears obvious. He felt that we have to get rid of the use of rigid
and permanent parties, whose only goal is to gain central power.
Where I come from, we say that it does not make the slightest
difference whether the Tories or the Grits are in power.
We should go back to the true nature of political parties, that
of groups of citizens formed to promote certain policies. The
author describes political parties as forums where all those who
are trying to solve a given problem or reach a given goal have a
role to play and an opinion to voice on each and every issue.
They are a kind of comprehensive and regional association.
He writes: ``In countries with a bipartisan system like the
United States, Great Britain-and Canada, I should
add-political debate all but disappears. When the discussion
revolves around the vision of the Tories or the Grits, we end up
nowhere. Real debates on social issues take place outside the
political parties''.
(1805)
So, he makes the basic and implicit assumption that there is
no universality in the differences of opinion within our society
and that our conflicts and differences cannot be resolved by a
single entity.
The last general election proved that the two major parties,
the Conservative and the Liberal parties, the Tories and the
Grits, are no longer alone in the Canadian political arena, which
is being redesigned according to regional considerations that
have nothing to do with the concept of a Canadian nation. To us,
any measure aimed at limiting the expression of political
differences at the continental level is inconceivable.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is
against this bill and wants to point out during this debate that we
are now faced with a new democratic approach which recognizes
the fact that, since the last election, there is no longer a truly
national party in Canada. We have well-represented regions,
which clearly indicates the goals we have to reach.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am glad to be here today to debate this private member's bill.
Private Members' Business gets far too short a shrift in this
Parliament as it did in other Parliaments. It is a time for private
members who do not get to set the legislative agenda of the
government, both on the government side and indeed in the
opposition, to come forward with pieces of legislation that they
believe will fix things that are wrong.
Some of Private Members' Business is inherently partisan,
which is fine; that is the nature of the beast in this place. Some
seeks to try to get some consensus and camaraderie around the
Chamber with respect to principles, goals and ideas.
I do not support the bill in its entirety but I do understand the
direction the hon. member is trying to set. Having run in two
elections and having run election campaigns in a number of
elections prior to that, I know it is extremely difficult as a
candidate or as a campaign manager when one gets individuals
or indeed parties that form for a very frivolous reason the
intention to go out and paint everybody else who has a legitimate
political belief as somehow ripping off the system.
We have seen that all the time. The Rhinoceros Party and
some other regional parties form for the sole intention of trying
to make some fun out of the very serious business of politics. It
is difficult as a candidate when that happens. However, one has
to be extremely careful when one starts introducing pieces of
legislation whose impact may be to limit entry of legitimate
political thought in our system. It begs the question of what is
legitimate political thought. That is really in the ear or eye of the
beholder.
One of the major problems I have with the bill and one of the
reasons I could not support it in its current form, although I
would support it's going to committee so that we can at least
have some non-partisan debate not structured by our parties
with respect to this issue, deals with the percentages. The reason
I had difficulty with the percentages, and the hon. member will
be interested in hearing this, is not so much that I am opposed to
setting a benchmark below which a party is not deemed to be
worthy of support by the taxpayers of Canada. I am worried for
two reasons. One is that I firmly believe we have to do
everything humanly possible to ensure genuine political debate
is fostered, that it does not become the purview of the rich and
the famous and those who can bankroll on their own.
The second thing we have to be very careful of is the
minimums when one starts establishing in law certain
parameters within which political debate and thought must be
con-
12707
ducted. Otherwise one will not be able to get the type of funding
necessary, which in turn will thwart the fostering of new
political thought, new political ideologies.
I did some quick math. In Atlantic Canada we have 32
constituencies. One thing that strikes an individual after getting
elected, be they from Alberta, Nova Scotia, northern Ontario or
Quebec, is the vastness of this nation. This is a wonderful piece
of God's earth. Although from time to time we just deal with our
troubles, it really behoves us to think about the enormity of the
resource we have.
(1810)
It is a regional country, like it or not. I am a regionalist. I
believe the country is made up of a number of regions. We may
have provincial boundaries that fit inside those regions, but
most of all it is a country of regions.
In Atlantic Canada many times we have voted differently than
the rest of the country has. I remember back in 1984 when the
Conservative Party first came into power there was a sweep
across the country. The sweep was not nearly as complete in
Atlantic Canada. In 1988, while the Tories enjoyed a second
electoral victory, in Atlantic Canada the tides turned. Atlantic
Canadians moved away from that governing party in a larger
percentage than any other region of the country.
An hon. member: We are awfully smart.
Mr. MacDonald: We are awfully smart and perhaps that is it.
Different regions may find different political ideologies
appealing for whatever reason. In Atlantic Canada we have 32
seats. We are a vital part of the nation. We have the great
province of Newfoundland. We have Prince Edward Island, the
birthplace of Confederation. We have the bluenosers from Nova
Scotia and the herring chokers from New Brunswick. We have
32 wonderful constituencies and four tremendous provinces as
part of this great country.
The Tories did not do terribly well in the last election, as we
know, right across the country. In Atlantic Canada they did not
do terribly well either. The message of the Reform Party was so
objectionable to the people in Atlantic Canada that people who
could not see their way to vote for the Liberal Party stayed with
the Tory Party, knowing their vote would be lost, that the Tories
would not get another term in office. They could not go with the
third option, the Reform Party. They will never go with the
Reform Party. That will never be an option down there.
The Tories did exceedingly well with respect to how they did
in other parts of the country. They got wiped out as well there,
with the exception of the member for Saint John, the former
mayor, who perhaps most days wishes she had not been so lucky
to win that night.
In Atlantic Canada the rough math tells me that the Tories in
32 seats polled about 290,000 votes. That is pretty close to the
two per cent limit set out in the bill. I do not have them all
marked, but I will run through the percentages of votes cast that
Tories received in all of the ridings in Nova Scotia: 20 per cent,
8, 22, 11, 32, 36, 23, 20, 23, and 32.
I do not throw those numbers out to say the Tories are a viable
alternative now or in the future. I throw them out to show they
did still garner a significant vote because the Reform Party's
message was not saleable in Atlantic Canada in the last election.
It probably never will be.
Mr. Epp: You wait, you'll see.
Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for Delta knows of which
I speak.
There are 32 ridings in Atlantic Canada. The Tories scored
fairly well, better than they should have and better than they did
on the national average. Yet if that were a regional party in
Atlantic Canada it would have garnered only about two per cent
of the vote nationally. I have a problem with the percentage. Two
per cent is probably too high, and perhaps the percentage should
be lowered to about one per cent.
Another concern is with respect to the establishment of
minimums. When we establish minimums, many times they
become maximums. Perhaps down the road, if this bill is
fortunate enough to gain the consent of the House, people might
say there is a precedent that there have to be certain criteria
before you are deemed to be a legitimate political party in
Canada. It may also be that at some point you must win seats in
more than one province or more than one region before you get a
political rebate.
I know that is not covered in the member's bill. I worry that at
some point, unless a bill like this is crystal clear and the the
debate is crystal clear leading up to the adoption of such a bill,
somebody would try to use it as a precedent to do those certain
things.
(1815 )
I do not support our colleagues in the House who represent the
Bloc Quebecois. I believe that deep down they are good
individuals but they are terribly misguided with respect to their
desire
12708
to take the great province of Quebec, la belle province, out of the
great Canadian Confederation.
However, they have a legitimate right as a political party to
voice their concerns, to go out and seek support in a general
election through the democratic process. I would not want to see
at some future point even separatists in the province of Quebec
somehow trying to use a restrictive bill like this which seeks to
put parameters on legitimate political parties for the purposes of
rebate to stifle political thought they found to be objectionable.
I commend the hon. member for putting thought into this bill
and I hope it does go to committee so it can get some fuller
debate at committee.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Edmonton Southwest on
Bill C-319. It is very obvious the debate has started members
thinking about a very important issue.
I will approach it in a slightly different way. One of the issues
it raises which is so important in our electoral process is
appearances. I remember my own election campaign, which was
a first experience for me since I had never run for election
before, going to all candidates meetings in which there were the
five major parties represented as well as another four candidates
from very minor parties.
I do not reject the right of groups to try to run as national
parties; I think it is fine. However, we have to draw the line
somewhere. At these candidates meetings I found myself with
the candidates from the other major parties speaking on issues,
then having to waste my turn while these very minor parties
spoke. In the case of the Natural Law Party-its members will
forgive me for saying this-their platform which had to do with
levitation did not really seem to fit seriously into the issues of
the day.
While I agree they had the right to speak and the right to run as
parties in the election, they did dilute the debate when we had
our candidates meetings. They also diluted the debates when
they appeared in the media. It has a responsibility to provide
equal space to all candidates in an election. Perhaps the debate
was not as good or as serious as it could have been. I agree we
can do nothing about that.
On the other hand, I find myself supporting the member's bill
on this point. If the public were to perceive, as it does, that
anyone is eligible for compensation in running for election
regardless of any limit in the number of votes they garner, it
trivializes for them the exercise of candidacy, the exercise of
running in a national election.
If the Natural Law Party wants to run for election, that is fine.
If it wants to field candidates, that is fine. If it wants to use an
election as a platform for promoting its particular agenda of
metaphysicalism or whatever it is, that is fine too. It becomes a
problem when the public perceives it is funding that type of
group. This is the difficulty.
It is the same with all the other parties as well. If the public
perceives a group is out promoting itself in a national election
and does not have much support or has trivial support, and the
government funds its election expenses because it can afford to
put the money out there, then we erode our political system and
the faith people have in the process.
I do support the principle of Bill C-319. We have to draw the
line somewhere. Whether it should be 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 5
per cent, I cannot say. I actually rather like 2 per cent. Nine of
the 14 parties that ran in the last election had less than 2 per cent
of the vote.
(1820)
It is interesting to run down the percentages of those nine.
Beginning with the Abolitionist Party of Canada at 0.1 per cent,
the next was 0.2 per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.2 per cent,
0.1 per cent, .01 per cent for the Marxist-Leninist Party of
Canada. It is not doing well. Then we go on to 0.6 per cent and
1.4 per cent, which was the National Party of Canada which I
happen to agree had a message.
I agree with the intention of Bill C-319. The line has to be
drawn somewhere. I do not know if this bill is the answer. As the
member for Dartmouth and others mentioned, we should bring
this to committee for further debate. In the final analysis I do not
think it will affect regional parties. We will still be able to go
forward with certain amendments to the bill which will make the
process more efficient.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
12709
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, there have been conversations
earlier this day among party whips. If you would seek it you
would find unanimous consent that the vote be deferred until
tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall I call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
12709
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
on May 8 I asked the hon. Minister of the Environment and
Deputy Prime Minister whether the G-7 leaders at the June
meeting in Halifax will discuss the important issue of making
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
environmentally sustainable institutions.
At present, the lending programs of international financial
institutions, including the World Bank and the International
Monetary fund, provide mostly developing countries with over
$30 billion a year in the form of loans. Too often these loans fail
to take into account environmental and social considerations as
in the case of dam construction.
(1825 )
Closing the gap between the rich developed nations and poor
developing countries must remain the principal goal of the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We all agree
with that. However, these institutions and their initiatives in
developing countries must aim at alleviating poverty while
protecting the environment. That is where the point needs to be
made.
In the case of the International Monetary Fund, we feel that
instead of relying predominately on economic considerations,
economic and environmental goals should be integrated.
As to the World Bank, while it has made some progress toward
greater accountability, it still has a long way to go to fully
incorporate sustainable development principles into the
decision-making process. Furthermore, at every opportunity the
World Bank should ensure that the principles of international
environmental agreements such as the convention on climate
change and the one on biodiversity, to mention two, are upheld
and reinforced by its decisions.
It is my understanding that the Prime Minister intends to
discuss the role of international financial institutions at the next
meeting of the G-7 in June in Halifax. Therefore, in that context
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can
inform us whether the urgency of incorporating the principles of
sustainable development into the activities of the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund will be discussed there.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, first let me say that the meeting hosted in
Hamilton by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the
Environment for the G-7 environment ministers reached
substantive recommendations and conclusions.
With respect to the question of international institutions, the
ministers looked at two different aspects. First, they discussed
the roles and responsibilities of the primary international
institutions that address the environment and sustainable
development. The ministers agreed that the United Nations
environment program should be reinforced in its efforts to be the
global environmental voice, while the United Nations
commission on sustainable development, created just over two
years ago in the aftermath of Rio, should continue to evolve as a
key political and policy forum to promote sustainable
development principles and practices worldwide.
With respect to international financial institutions, the
ministers agreed that the World Bank should place sustainable
development at the top of its list of priorities and that it should
operate on a much more open and transparent basis. Plans for
projects funded by the World Bank should demonstrate how the
principles of sustainable development will be promoted and how
local participation will be a basic part of the process.
The ministers also called on the International Monetary Fund
to take environmental considerations into account in its
structural adjustment programs. They also called for continued
work from the new global environmental facility, the GEF, on
providing funding for global environment priorities and noted
the important role that private capital flows will play into the
future. They also indicated their intention to work with the new
World Trade Organization to make sure the environment is a
fundamental part of its work. In this regard, let me signal the
initiatives recently taken by UNCTAD and UNEP in focusing on
the environment and the economy.
The important outcomes of the Hamilton meeting of
environment ministers are being provided to the preliminary
process for the Halifax summit. I am certain that any
consideration of financial institutions that might take place in
the context of the
12710
Halifax summit will be well informed by the views of the
Hamilton meeting, which will flow into the Halifax summit.
(1830)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, during a previous question period, when addressing
comments regarding Bill C-88 to the Minister of Industry, I
suggested that Bill C-88 contained provisions which go far
beyond the agreement on interprovincial trade, which gives each
party recourse to retaliatory measures.
Bill C-88 appropriates powers to the federal government
which were never discussed during the negotiations leading up
to the signing of the agreement on interprovincial trade last
summer and is also indicative of, we feel strongly, the federal
Liberal government's extremely strong will to centralize trade
relations with its partners. The current trend in international
trade is to give regions more political autonomy and to establish
economic unions, not to create big federations with rigid
centralizing constitutions, like the Canadian federation, which
is given an inordinate amount of power to take retaliatory
measures.
The primary goal of the bill is to implement the Agreement on
Internal Trade, not to permit the federal government to implant
itself as the supreme power on interprovincial trade. Do not
forget that the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of
liberalizing trade in this way, which, at any rate, is the
framework within which all modern states must develop.
Therefore, we do agree with the agreement in principle.
The way we understand the provisions of this agreement is
that, if the federal government is the slighted party in a trade
deal covered by the agreement, it has the means to take
retaliatory measures. By the way, so can any other party to this
agreement. However, that is not what is written in Bill C-88.
Why not? Because clause 9 of the bill goes over and above the
intent of the agreement. This is quite straightforward. Clause 9
reads as follows: ``For the purpose of suspending benefits or
imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a
province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the
Governor in Council may, by order-but the other parties may
not-''
The bill refers to orders, which cannot be taken lightly. None
of the other parties have this authority. Orders are used by
totalitarian governments to subdue the other parties. It says in
this bill that the Liberal government wants to govern by order
under this agreement on interprovincial trade. Are we looking at
a dictatorship? That is the question.
In this context, according to the wording of Clause 9, when
one of the parties is found to be at fault pursuant to Article 1710
of the Agreement, the federal government-and it alone, among
all the parties-whether or not it is a party to the dispute,
assumes the right to impose retaliatory measures on all the
provinces, without exception.
In this bill, the federal government demonstrates its
determination to act as judge and jury in the area of
interprovincial trade, to introduce its exclusive authority to act
by order in council and to extend the application of any federal
law to the provinces-
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the questions raised by some
members on Bill C-88 last week stem from an inability or an
unwillingness to understand the plain meaning of the text of the
bill.
The Minister of Industry was quite clear in responding to
questions in the House on May 5. Perhaps repetition at this time
will help the hon. member.
Only in rare cases would the federal government be a
complainant in the dispute under the agreement on internal
trade. If a dispute were resolved in favour of the federal
government and if the province involved refused to comply with
the impartial panel findings, then the federal government could
withdraw benefits of equivalent effect. Such retaliation would
have to be in the same sector as the original violation or in
another sector covered by the agreement. Retaliation could not
involve transfer payments or social programs because those
things are not covered by the agreement. Anyone who takes the
time to read the head notes to section 9 of Bill C-88 and article
1710 of the agreement on internal trade can verify the accuracy
of what I have just outlined.
(1835)
Remarks by Quebec premier Parizeau and Quebec industry
minister Paillé on May 9 and May 10 suggest they had not
bothered to do so before speaking on the issue. The repeated
expressions of concern in this question by BQ and PQ
representatives suggest they are unable or unwilling to
understand plain and clear language.
Bill C-88 deals only with what the federal government must
do to live up to its obligations under the internal trade agreement
and nothing else.
At the April 12 meeting of the committee of ministers on
internal trade, the Minister of Industry advised his provincial
colleagues of the steps the government intended to take and that
legislation would shortly be brought before Parliament.
Premier Parizeau has unequivocally supported the agreement
and stressed the importance of free trade within Canada. He
reaffirmed on May 9:
12711
[Translation]
``The change in government in Quebec City has changed
nothing. We believe in free trade''.
[English]
I am sure all Canadians look forward to seeing what those
governments that claim to support internal free trade actually do
in concrete terms.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, in late April gas stations across Canada raised prices as
much as 10 cents a litre. It was the sixth price increase of gas in
11 months.
These increases excluding tax increases represent a 20 per
cent increase in the price of gas to consumers. What is even
more startling is that oil companies have seen a 40 per cent
increase in their revenues once taxes are factored out in the same
period.
There has been no reasonable justification by the oil
companies for these repeated increases. Each year since 1991
the average daily price of crude has declined. Crude prices today
are virtually the same as they were a year ago with the 11 months
in between seeing lower prices.
The profits of the major oil companies including Imperial Oil,
Shell and Petro-Canada have increased each year over the past
three years. In 1994 Imperial Oil profits went up 29 per cent;
Shell went up 43 per cent and Petro-Canada went up 62 per cent.
When gas prices have risen they have risen uniformly from
company to company in each region within hours of each other.
Consumers are outraged and believe strongly that they are again
the victims of price gouging at the pumps and price fixing by the
oil companies.
This latest series of price increases is nothing more than a
cash grab by the major oil companies that monopolize the
industry.
In a recent court case in Ottawa a gasoline retailer, Mr. Gas,
admitted communications between gasoline retailers are
common in the industry when setting prices. What this means is
if smaller chains set prices, certainly the majors do.
This latest increase in gas prices represents an extreme
polarization of power and wealth into one sector, multinational
oil companies. This increase is also extremely bad timing for
farmers who are seeding their crops.
The increase is injuring Canada's economic recovery and
must be addressed. Every two-cent increase costs Canadian
$750 million a year. These recent increases of six cents will take
over $2 billion out of the Canadian economy in one year.
The federal government must intervene in arbitrarily rolling
back gas prices until a full energy price review can take place to
ensure these increases are fair and justified.
In my question to the Minister of Industry on April 28 and on
May 3, the minister commented: ``When the prices are the same,
it is consistent with both competition and price fixing.
Therefore how do you know which it is?'' I suggest that if one
does not know the difference that in itself demonstrates the need
to conduct an investigation.
The House of Commons is elected to ensure Canadians are not
victims of the marketplace and to ensure the interests of Canada
are protected. A gas price review would send a clear message to
the oil companies and to Canadians that in a key economic
sector such as energy fairness must prevail and significant price
increases must be justified.
The setting of energy prices is no different than the regulation
of communication services. When Rogers cable or Bell Canada
want to increase prices, the CRTC reviews their request to
ensure they are fair and justified. Having the oil industry justify
its increases is no different. Gas prices are viewed by the public
as being set unfairly and unjustifiably and must be reviewed and
regulated.
The government has the power to question industry on its
pricing practices and to create new laws that would demand gas
price increases be made only after justification.
Why do the Liberals refuse to act in the best interest of
Canadians? The federal Liberal Party receives substantial
donations from the oil companies. Husky Oil donated $14,000;
Amoco, $27,000; Imperial Oil, $47,000. Is this the reason the
government will not conduct an investigation into gas pricing?
Is the Liberal Party concerned it will offend its top party donors?
He who pays the piper calls the tune. The government-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, the time has
expired. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime
Minister.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to
respond to the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden on his
question concerning the uniformity of gasoline price increases
across Canada.
As the matter involving an Ottawa gasoline retailer is
presently before the court, it would not be appropriate to
comment further on that case.
No federal government agency has the authority to regulate
gasoline prices. It is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. In
1994 the Minister of Industry asked the director of investigation
and research at the Bureau of Competition Policy to review the
provisions of the Competition Act. His report stated the
Competition Act is adequate to address concerns about
anti-competitive behaviour and that amendments were not
required at this time. The report is public and I encourage
concerned members to read it.
12712
At the suggestion of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre we
are presently studying the implications of introducing whistle
blower legislation to protect industry insiders who provide
information about anti-competitive behaviour in the petroleum
industry. The act empowers the director to investigate
allegations that prices have been set as a result of
anti-competitive behaviour. Where evidence exists of a
criminal offence the case is referred to the attorney general for
prosecution.
It is important to realize this is criminal law and offences
must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the petroleum
products sector uniform price increases may be the result of
normal market forces; the visibility of posted prices and the
homogeneity of gasoline tend to result in identical prices in a
given market. It is very easy to immediately respond to a
competitor's price movements up or down.
Gasoline prices should be set by competitive market
disciplines. When there is evidence of anti-competitive
behaviour the Competition Act authorities will take appropriate
action. People with information about anti-competitive acts
should bring the information to the attention of the director.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.)