CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 17, 1995
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12713
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12713
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12715
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12716
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12717
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12717
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12717
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12718
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12718
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12718
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12719
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12719
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12719
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 12720
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12720
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12720
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12722
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12723
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 12723
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 12723
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12723
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12725
Bill C-327. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted. 12726
Motion for concurrence in 77th report 12726
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 12727
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 12728
Bill C-86. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12730
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 12732
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 12743
Bill C-319. Consideration resumed of second reading 12745
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 117; Nays, 67 12745
Bill C-86. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 12746
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee. 12746
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 12752
12713
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 17, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today we have the very special honour of having the presence in
Ottawa of Western Samoa's High Commissioner to Canada, the
permanent representative of Western Samoa to the United
Nations, His Excellency, the distinguished Neroni Slade.
His Excellency has just returned from Haines Junction where
he addressed federal, provincial and territorial ministers of the
environment on the real threat climate change poses to the very
existence of Western Samoa and other small island states.
Later this afternoon he will also speak at a joint meeting of the
Standing Committee on Natural Resources and the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development about
this critical issue.
Hence it is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to
welcome to Ottawa our distinguished guest on behalf of all
members of this House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like today to honour chemistry professor Pierre
Deslongchamps of the University of Sherbrooke and offer him
our warmest congratulations on his appointment to the
Académie des sciences in Paris.
Known for his work on organic synthesis and on the concept
of stereoelectric effects, Mr. Deslongchamps has been a
professor at the University of Sherbrooke since 1967. The
Académie des sciences in Paris is one of the world's most
prestigious societies in the world and brings together top
researchers in the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry,
natural sciences, biology and medicine. Its members are the
20th century's greatest scientific minds.
A highly respected scientist, Mr. Deslongchamps has been a
fellow of the John Simmon Guggenheim foundation in New
York since 1979, a member of the Chemical Institute of Canada
since 1980, a member of the Royal Society in London since
1983, and a member of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science since 1988.
Professor Deslongchamps' international reputation brings
honour to the University of Sherbrooke, the Eastern Townships
and the Province of Quebec as a whole.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Royal Roads Military College located in my riding is
closing this week and is being gutted.
In this House the Prime Minister assured me that Royal Roads
would become an educational facility and would receive the
same deal as Collège militaire royal in Quebec. The reality has
been completely different.
CMR received $25 million over three years. Royal Roads
received the same, but had $5 million promptly removed.
Conditionality was linked to the deal on Royal Roads but not to
CMR. Most appalling of all, ministers of this government are
having secret negotiations with developers to sell up to 300
acres of pristine old growth of Royal Roads property for a
condominium development.
The treatment of the staff at Royal Roads has been nothing
short of reprehensible. Previous educational facilities
purchased by the college, including the school's oceanographic
teaching vessel, have been removed. No such parallel exists at
CMR.
This government, in collusion with the province, is
destroying this superb educational facility. Despite what the
Prime Minister says, CMR in Quebec has been given
preferential treatment and Royal Roads and the people of B.C.
have been shafted.
12714
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again we are seeing the Canadian
dollar fluctuating on any given week. Last week the dollar
surged to a half year high of more than 74 cents U.S. This week
the dollar has lingered near the mid-73 cent level.
The Bank of Canada's response is to once again jack up its rate
for the first time in almost two months. High interest rates are
having a devastating effect on our economy.
For more than a year and a half I have consistently been
emphasizing that we must have lower interest rates. The interest
rate must come down even if we are faced with a slight increase
in inflation. The bogeyman of inflation did not succeed before;
it killed the growth of our economy.
A country that is fully employed with some inflation would be
better than what we have now. We have a 9.4 per cent
unemployment rate that does not include 700,000 part time
workers who cannot find full time jobs. We have a triumvirate of
destruction of the economy in this country namely-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ontario.
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
draw to the attention of the House the case of Ms. Susan Shewan.
Ms. Shewan, who is a constituent of mine, is also a musician and
songwriter of considerable talent.
Unfortunately she is involved in a protracted dispute with
Canadian Airlines International and the Government of the
Yukon Territory over the alleged unauthorized use of a future
album cover drawing, lyrics and music related to Ms. Shewan's
song ``The Magic and the Mystery''.
The drawing, lyrics and music from this song about the beauty
of the Yukon are similar to items used in certain advertising and
promotional material by both CAI and the Yukon government.
As a single parent with limited finances, Ms. Shewan does not
have the resources to pursue a lengthy and protracted legal
action to protect her copyrighted material.
I call upon the Yukon government and Canadian Airlines
International to respect the intellectual property laws of Canada
and Ms. Shewan's copyrights to her original works and resolve
this outstanding matter forthwith.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, each May, Child Find Canada holds its Green Ribbon
of Hope campaign. The aim is to increase public awareness
about Missing Children's Day on May 25.
Community members are asked to show their support of the
missing children's issue by prominently wearing a green ribbon.
Proceeds generated by the green ribbon campaign will enable
Child Find Canada to continue its mandate of assisting in the
search process for Canada's thousands of missing children and
the education of children and adults about abduction.
The concept of the green ribbon of hope was originated by the
students of Holy Cross Secondary School in Ontario following
the abduction and subsequent murder of one of its students,
Kristen French. In memory of this tragedy, the students and
faculty have generously directed that their idea for the green
ribbon be used exclusively by Child Find Canada.
(1405)
Child Find Canada receives no government funding,
depending entirely on the corporate community and the Green
Ribbon of Hope campaign. For the sake of our children, I ask all
members to support this very worthwhile program.
* * *
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, B'nai
Brith Canada is our country's senior Jewish advocacy
organization with a 120-year history.
Through its lodges, regional offices, League for Human
Rights and Institute for International Affairs, it has built a
national and international reputation for service to the
community, promoting human rights and fostering tolerance and
respect among all Canadians. It has been a world leader in the
fight against racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination.
A grassroots membership organization, it has served the
Jewish community and Canada with distinction on issues such
as immigration and refugee policy, law enforcement,
international human rights, the treatment of Jewish
communities overseas, intergroup relations in Canada, as well
as a host of charitable activities and voluntary action.
On the occasion of its annual meeting in Ottawa this weekend,
I urge all members of the House to join me in applauding the
work of B'nai Brith and in wishing it future success.
12715
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister offered
Canadians direct access to him through Internet.
Unfortunately, in order to reach him, Canadians must
subscribe to and use the services of an American company,
CompuService, located in Ohio.
Why did the Prime Minister not use a Canadian network,
which, in the opinion of experts, does exist and is currently
available at no charge?
How can we believe a government that tells us it gives priority
to Canadian content on the information highway when
information on members and the House of Commons is being
broadcast on the Internet from Switzerland?
The Prime Minister's electronic photo op yesterday sent a
disquieting message to Canadians: in order to talk with their
Prime Minister, they have to pay user fees to the Americans.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday, the environment minister said: ``It is the first
question on the environment in a year and a half''.
We are now seeing why this minister has been such a failure as
Minister of the Environment. She simply does not recognize an
environmental question when she hears it.
How quickly the minister chooses to forget my recent
questions regarding the clean-up of Canada's worst
environmental disaster, the Sydney tar ponds in Nova Scotia, or
my colleagues' questions regarding MMT.
When is the Minister of the Environment going to take charge
and quit whining that her failures are due to the opposition?
When is the minister going to take charge of her own department
and pass some meaningful environmental legislation?
It is little wonder that the Prime Minister will be shuffling this
minister off into oblivion come this summer. She is simply
ineffective.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, some
controversy has arisen relative to the diversion of public funds
originally slated for the development of Nova Scotia highway
104.
This funding has now been redirected to a tourist trail in the
riding of the minister of public works. In lieu of the original
federal-provincial funding agreement for the upgrading of route
104, a toll funded highway is now being envisaged.
This is unacceptable. There have been 40 tragic deaths since
1986 in death valley. People's lives are far more important than
developing a tourist trail.
Yesterday in this House the Minister of Transport told us that
his government had permitted this diversion of public funds at
the request of the Government of Nova Scotia.
Given that the highway improvement program calls for a
written agreement in these cases, I call on the Minister of
Transport to table all correspondence and documents relative to
this backroom deal.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the proposed public service cutbacks are causing quite
the stir across the country, particularly in Newfoundland, where
the jobless rate remains unacceptably high.
In my riding for example, there is concern about the
restructuring and downsizing proposals for Canada employment
centres, and about the workforce adjustment policy, job
security, seniority rights and the desirability of making
departure incentives available to all employees.
Although the government has taken a step forward with its job
swap offer, there still is a great fear that the level and quality of
badly needed services will suffer at the worst possible time. I
share those concerns.
(1410)
With any changes in the status quo, the government must do
everything in its power to ensure that fairness and equity
prevail.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
from today until May 22, the national capital region will again
host the Canadian Tulip Festival.
To mark the opening of the festival, Her Royal Highness
Princess Margriet of the Netherlands took part in a midday
ceremony at Major's Hill Park to launch the 1995 edition of the
festival. The festival also coincides with the 50th anniversary of
the liberation of the Netherlands by Canadian troops.
This is a good opportunity to remember the thousands of
Canadians who fought on Dutch soil and all those who died in
the liberation effort. Again this year, the Canadian Tulip Festi-
12716
val will probably stand out as one of the highlights of the
national capital's tourist event calendar.
I wish the princess a most enjoyable stay in Canada, the
organizers more clement weather than today, and a very good
time to all those who will participate in the many activities
scheduled.
I would also like to congratulate all the organizers and invite
my colleagues to visit the festival in the coming days.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
Saturday a young man from my riding of London West will
begin a remarkable journey. On May 20 on the TransCanada
Highway at the Ontario-Manitoba border Jesse and John
Davidson will set out together for the Quebec border on a route
covering over 2,000 miles. They intend to arrive in September.
Jesse cannot walk. He is afflicted with Duchenne muscular
dystrophy, a genetic disorder, and is wheelchair bound. John
Davidson has vowed to wheel his son across the entire province
of Ontario.
This remarkable undertaking is sponsored by the Foundation
for Gene and Cell Therapy. The journey will raise public
awareness about DMD as well as money so desperately needed
for medical research.
Young people with DMD seldom live to see their twenties.
Jesse is 14.
I urge all members of the House, particularly Ontario
members, and all Canadians to get involved. I am proud to
acknowledge the efforts of individuals who take action to make
a difference not only for themselves but for all of us. It is now
time to show our support for them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
anti-worker attitude of Liberal members is reflected in every
page of the report on the national marine strategy tabled by the
Standing Committee on Transport.
The report contains many negative comments on the
supposedly excessive salaries and on job security. On the basis
of two recent disputes, the committee recommends that a
commission of inquiry be made responsible for reviewing all
aspects of labour-management relations. The Liberals are set to
call into question a smoothly operating negotiation system in
order to resolve a problem that exists only at the Port of
Vancouver.
May I remind you that, since 1975, only 27 working days have
been lost as a result of strikes or lockouts at the Port of
Montreal, out of a total of more than 7,000 working days.
The official opposition strongly urges the Minister of Labour
and the Minister of Transport to reject this recommendation by
the transport committee, which calls into question the basic
rights of workers in Canada and Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on Monday night Canadians saw a great game on TV. It was
trough night in Canada. The game featured the Liberal pork
patrons against the overburdened taxpayers. The Liberals were
clutching and grabbing for their coveted MP pension trophy.
In the first period Liberals were given penalties for boarding,
the gravy train that is. Another penalty was given for charging
the taxpayer. The Liberal pork patrons went offside with
Canadian voters. The overburdened taxpayer delayed the game
and got five minutes for fighting and ten minutes for drawing
blood. They will get the final score in the next election. When
that comes the Liberal pork patrons will lose, the coach will be
replaced and the team will be dismantled.
This game was brought to the people by greed incorporated,
manufacturers of pork and patronage.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Quebec minister responsible for restructuring
released a new study, this time on taxation.
In his press release, the minister claims that merging the two
tax systems would permit Quebec to, I quote: ``-reap many
benefits''. The minister stressed that taxpayers would have only
one tax return to fill out, that they would have fewer officials to
deal with, and that taxation measures would be harmonized and
streamlined.
(1415)
What is surprising is that the authors of this study made the
conscious decision not to mention that Quebecers could already
be reaping all of these benefits if the Quebec government would
only agree to the changes already proposed by our government.
All of these changes could be made very easily within the
current federal system and at a much lower cost to Quebecers
12717
than those that would result from breaking away from Canada.
But these are the kinds of things that separatists avoid
mentioning.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Premier Bob Rae said today that Ontario has
38 per cent of the population but is being hit with 54 per cent of
federal government cuts. This is deliberately misleading.
When we subtract the equalization payments to the poorer
provinces, which Mr. Rae has frequently said he supports,
Ontario's share of federal budget cuts is 39 per cent for 38 per
cent of the population.
Bob Rae should stop whining, take a few Rae days and get out
of the way so Lyn McLeod and the Liberal Party can put
Ontario's House in order.
_____________________________________________
12717
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, although somewhat late in the day, the Minister of
Human Resources Development finally used some common
sense and decided to give up his two-tier unemployment
insurance system, with one tier for the seasonally unemployed,
with reduced benefits, and the second tier for the rest, with more
substantial benefits. However, there is still cause for concern,
since the minister said he still wanted to make frequent
claimants less dependent on unemployment insurance and
planned to submit new proposals to cabinet very shortly.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that his government has
definitely abandoned the minister's baby, and I am referring to
the unemployment insurance reform proposal for a two-tier
system, and is he prepared to make a commitment that the new
proposals will not penalize frequent claimants, although the
minister seems to be saying that he still has the same objective
in mind?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question.
As the member knows, we had a wide variety of
representations, studies and examinations. It was certainly
recognized that the primary objective of UI reform must be to
help people get back to work. We can use that system not simply
to pay basic benefits but to also enable people to get the tools
they need to restore themselves back in the labour market. That
is still the primary function of our intention on unemployment
insurance.
We saw with the various options we presented, one of which
was the two tier proposal, that it would add complexity to the
system and probably additional cost. I think we can find a much
better alternative which will simplify the system and at the same
time provide a much better set of work incentives for people to
get back in the workforce.
We are still very much on target and on aim to enable
Canadians to get away from unemployment and get into
employment, the whole purpose of our reform.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the minister said in his
answer, and after trying very hard, I think I understood the
minister was giving up his plan. I want to commend him for
doing so, since a minister who admits his mistakes gains in
stature. Would that others followed his example.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: My question is directed to the Prime Minister,
and I hope to get an answer from him. Since the government is
about to review its unemployment insurance reform, will he
promise to stop using the Unemployment Insurance Fund to
finance new intrusions by the federal government in provincial
jurisdictions, especially in manpower training?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development will
table a bill this fall that covers all aspects of the question asked
by the Leader of the Opposition.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Human Resources
Development claims he will stay the course, in other words,
restrict access to unemployment insurance for frequent
claimants, does this mean, and my question is directed to the
Prime Minister, that the government's real objective is not to
make the system more effective but to reduce costs by
restricting access and reducing benefits, which means it will
again be hitting hard at the unemployed?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the minister said a few minutes ago, the
government's objective is to ensure that people can work. This
government's objective is to create jobs, and the aim of reforms
in unemployment insurance and other social programs is to
make it possible for people to work with dignity instead of being
completely dependent on unemployment insurance or welfare.
That is why the minister wants to reform the system, and we
will have a chance to discuss this when the minister tables his
reform proposals this fall. This reform is badly needed, because
12718
these programs were introduced 30 or 40 years ago, and the time
has come to make some adjustments.
* * *
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
As fighting intensified in Sarajevo, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs indicated yesterday that he was unhappy with the current
situation, stating that the peace plan was going nowhere. He also
indicated that he would soon be consulting with the French and
British authorities, hinting that a pullout from Bosnia could be
closer than ever.
Does the Prime Minister confirm what his Minister of Foreign
Affairs said yesterday about the possibility of Canada
withdrawing its peacekeepers from Bosnia in a few weeks?
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada calls on both
parties to withdraw their forces from the zones of separation.
Canada's position all along has been that the conflict can only
be resolved at the diplomatic table, politically, not by military
means. That is still Canada's position.
The minister made it very clear Canada will not withdraw its
forces unilaterally. We are consulting with our partners, France,
Great Britain, et cetera.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
could the Prime Minister or, again, the parliamentary secretary
tell us whether Canada is prepared to consider UN
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's suggestion that UN
troops in Bosnia be reduced and regrouped?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the situation is obviously very complicated in that part
of the world at this time. As the hon. parliamentary secretary
said, Canada belongs to a group of countries ensuring a military
presence in the area and we have agreed not to withdraw without
first consulting with our partners. The French have indicated
that they were contemplating pulling out, but if and when they
do, it will not be unilaterally, since they have asked us not to
withdraw our forces unilaterally.
As far as we are concerned, any suggestion from the UN
secretary-general deserves to be considered because
peacekeepers are under UN command.
So, consultations are under way with the secretary-general,
and we will inform the House of any new development.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after months and months of floundering it is becoming
abundantly clear the social policy reform Liberal style is all but
dead.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has failed to
reform anything. His plans for a two tiered unemployment
system are now on the back burner, as are income contingent
student loans and TAGS retraining. Canada pension reform did
not even make it to the back burner. We fear the minister is going
the way of the turbot, barely clinging to the front benches by his
fingernails.
Why has the minister failed so completely to provide
Canadians with a new vision and plan for social policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to reply to this question.
Reform of social programs is a very high priority for the
government. At the moment the minister is engaged in
consultations with the provinces. Members of Parliament have
held consultations across the land over many months. We will
put all the discussions together and take them to cabinet during
the summer.
There will be real reform, not fake reform which the member
is trying to promote with the name of his party. I hope the
Reform Party will agree with the reforms.
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, reform may be a priority as the Prime Minister says,
but the fact is Canada's social safety nets are in a terrible mess.
The federal government's influence over medicare is
diminishing, CPP is headed toward bankruptcy, consultations
with the provinces are going nowhere, UI is unreformed and
Atlantic Canadian workers are quitting their jobs to get on
TAGS.
A government that proclaims to be the architect and defender
of social safety nets is now presiding over the demise of those
safety nets through its inability to act.
Does the Prime Minister want to go down as the Prime
Minister who presided over the demise of the social safety nets
or does he have a fresh new approach to social policy to lay
before the House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since the road to Damascus I have never seen such a
12719
conversion. I am delighted the leader of the Reform Party now
supports the safety net.
When we make it more effective in the fall I would be
delighted to have his support. It is great that the Reform Party is
now getting more and more Liberal.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the collapse of the government's social reform
program hurts not only Canadians dependent on those programs
but also taxpayers.
Every member of the House knows there is absolutely no way
the federal budget will be balanced unless there is social
program reform and reform of social spending. If the Minister of
Human Resources Development cannot lead that overhaul, then
someone else in the government must be assigned the job.
With the Prime Minister prepared to provide leadership on
this subject, since his government's budget is undermined by the
failure of this minister to overhaul social funding, is it the
Department of Finance that will now be providing the leadership
for social reform?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the kind of leadership I have shown in this area is when
I named an extremely able minister to be in charge of this very
important project.
The leader of the third party should relax because I am
looking forward to the day he will get up and applaud the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board. Contrary to what the
Minister of Foreign Affairs said yesterday, Foreign Service
Directives Nos. 45 and 50 still allow diplomats to cash in their
plane tickets to Ottawa, to pay for vacations anywhere in the
world. The auditor general is critical of Treasury Board's
decision to no longer ask for vouchers.
Given the condition of our public finances and the fact that the
government is about to eliminate 45,000 jobs in the public
service, how can the President of the Treasury Board still allow
such a privilege for diplomats, which will cost over $8 million
this year to Canadian taxpayers?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has long been a tradition that those in foreign posts,
particularly those considered to be in hardship posts, would
have the opportunity for themselves and their families to return
home from time to time, once a year in fact.
Of late the policy has involved a reduction in the amount of
money to 80 per cent of the full economy fare. That has been on a
test basis. All of that is subject to review. Every three years a
review is automatically required. It is part of the union
agreements. Therefore we will do it with the bargaining agents
and it will be done this fall.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
President of the Treasury Board confirm that this privilege,
introduced in 1993, was designed to allow diplomats posted
overseas to avoid the salary freeze now affecting public
servants?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Not at all,
Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out.
A number of diplomats serve in hardship posts in spots in the
world that nobody would envy. We want to give them and their
families the opportunity to be able to come home from time to
time. That was the purpose behind all of this.
Having said that, we have to make sure of the best value for
the taxpayers' dollar. The program has to be operated in an
efficient fashion. We are reviewing it in the normal three-year
cycle and will be negotiating this matter with the bargaining
agents this fall.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we have
already heard today, reports out of Bosnia indicate that the
fighting has risen to the highest level in three years. The UN
Secretary-General says the current peacekeeping mandate is
totally inadequate. Reform has been warning that this would
happen for months now, but the government did not listen.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. For the
safety of our peacekeepers, will the government pull our forces
out now?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, though
we are very concerned about the situation in the former
Yugoslavia, the Prime Minister made the government's position
quite clear last week.
There is good work still to be done by UNPROFOR. The
Canadian government is still committed. We are consulting with
our allies to see whether or not the mission should continue and
if changes are required what could be implemented.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
peace in sight in Bosnia. The UN is powerless facing the
renewed fighting and no amount of tinkering with the UN
mandate is going to change that.
12720
Now is not the time for the Prime Minister to be timid, waiting
for the governments of France and Britain to tell him what to do
in Bosnia.
Will the Prime Minister stop wavering and initiate the process
of withdrawal immediately?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the troops have done a great job.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I do not think it would be
responsible for us to start a process that could result in many lost
lives. Canadian soldiers are considered to be the best. I was told
so by the president of Bosnia. It was also mentioned when I met
last week with the president of Croatia. They both praised the
quality of our soldiers' work. Our soldiers are committed to be
there and will not leave unilaterally.
When we tell our partners we will do something, Canadians
keep their word.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
According to the director of Telefilm Canada, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage plans to charge the major American film
companies a tax of between 5 per cent and 10 per cent on their
revenues for the distribution and showing of their films and
videos in Canada. The director of Telefilm Canada has
confirmed that the Minister of Canadian Heritage discussed this
matter during his now famous trip to Los Angeles.
Would the minister confirm having discussed such a tax with
the representatives of the major film companies during his short
trip to Los Angeles?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we have such a strong
and imaginative individual, with an eye for change, at the helm
of Telefilm Canada. My discussions with the major American
companies, however, did not cover this particular point. They
were much more general in nature.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as my supplementary, I would ask the minister
what measures he is considering in order to force the major
American film companies to reinvest in Canadian culture some
of the billions of dollars they are making here, as is being done
in France, for example?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that our colleague is
interested in this matter. Now she understands why the Minister
of Canadian Heritage wants a policy on the film industry
supporting the interests of the industry in Canada.
There are a number of ways to go about it. This is in fact what
I am looking at with representatives of the Canadian industry
and with the American major film companies and independents.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
A key recommendation of the Fraser report was that the
federal government not expand the native only commercial
fishery. In his rush to conclude the AFS agreements by Monday,
the minister expanded this native only commercial fishery to
include early chinook salmon on the Fraser River.
Can the minister explain why he broke his commitment to
follow John Fraser's recommendation not to expand the AFS
commercial fishery?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Delta
for his question. I know of his interest in the protection of the
salmon resource.
However, the member will know that what the Fraser panel
reflected on, both in the report and in the press conference which
was held, was the need to ensure that early sales agreements
were signed in order to ensure that proper management routines
were put in place.
I would have thought that the member would have wanted to
stand in his place, given his comments on this matter in the past,
and reflect out loud on the fact that this year for the first time
since sales have been implemented we have agreements in place
fully two months earlier than was the case last year. All of these
agreements were reached by the May 15 deadline put in place by
the federal government. As a consequence of the early
agreements, we will have the best managed, best conservation
regime in place for salmon this year for the sales programs in
British Columbia.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is quite correct. Mr. Fraser recommended the early signing of
the native fishing agreements so that workable enforcement and
management regimes would be established prior to the opening
of the first fishery.
However, by allowing the native commercial fishery to start
within days of signing the agreements the advantage of the early
signing is lost.
12721
Why are we proceeding at this time? Why is the minister
giving up the advantage of the early signing? Why is he ignoring
his commitment to implement Mr. Fraser's recommendation?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no objective individual who believes that it
is possible for aboriginal people to make and keep agreements in
good faith, and who believes it is possible for the people who
represent the First Nations and the Government of Canada to sit
down and come to reasonable terms on a reasonable sales
agreement, would come to the conclusion that having reached
agreements two months early, having met the requirements of
the Fraser panel report and having negotiated in good faith, is a
matter to complain about. That is a matter to celebrate.
I say to the member, let us have some faith in the people who
first settled this land, the First Nations people. Let us work with
them in good faith and make this agreement work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last week, the auditor general reported that the Department of
the Environment has not established a program for the disposal
the federal government's PCBs, nor has it estimated the total
cost of such an operation. The auditor general also confirmed
that no funds have been earmarked to cover the cost.
Since the Minister of the Environment has committed herself
to disposing of the federal government's PCBs before 1996, will
she tell us what the total cost of this operation, which
supposedly is already in progress, will be, and where the
departments should cut in order to find the necessary funds to
meet her objectives?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government decided to put an end to the never ending search for
a site precisely because $20 million was spent on the fruitless
search for a federal site between 1988 and 1994. I felt that this
expenditure related to the green plan was no longer justifiable,
and I asked Public Works Canada to resume sending these
products to Swan Hills in Alberta from the month of March
onwards.
Negotiations are ongoing and, as the former minister of the
environment will explain to the hon. member, the cost of
disposing of PCBs is not Environment Canada's responsibility.
Each department that is responsible for PCBs must pay the cost
involved in shipping them to Swan Hills. In addition, under the
supervision of Public Works, we are already negotiating with the
Department of National Defence, among others, to also ensure
that we will not have to absorb the storage costs and to ensure
that we will be able to dispose of all of the federal government's
PCBs by the end of 1996, as was promised in the green plan.
(1440)
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister is looking for sites, we can show her the ones we found
last week.
How does the minister expect us to believe her promises when
her colleague from Public Works has said not only has no
contract been negotiated with Bovar Inc, the company which
will be disposing of the PCBs, but also that it is still much too
early to forecast the related costs or the timing of the disposal of
the federal government's PCBs?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I
told the House last week that I took the decision at the end of
March to stop spending federal money on the search for a site in
addition to Swan Hills. I turned to negotiations instead. That is
what I explained last week.
The Department of Public Works is in the process of
negotiating with each department to find out the quantities of
PCBs and where they will be shipped, and I am certain that
negotiations have already begun in the Atlantic provinces. The
hon. member for London issued a press release in March
regarding PCBs and the disposal plan-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: Maybe you could not care less whether the PCBs
will be disposed of. We will dispose of them. They are going to
be shipped to Swan Hills, and the federal government will see to
it.
[English]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Brunswick Mining and Smelting is actively considering
moving its operations from Dalhousie, New Brunswick.
Can the minister tell the citizens of Dalhousie who will be
responsible for the estimated $50 million bill for the
environmental restoration of the site and surrounding waters?
Can the minister guarantee that she will use all the resources of
her department to ensure that the company will be held
responsible for the complete restoration of this site?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the
points made by the auditor general last week on contaminated
sites, it is the view of the government that when a company
occupies a site and has a signed leasing arrangement with the
12722
Government of Canada, if ever it vacates the site it will leave the
site in the condition in which it was found.
It is our belief that the restoration project could cost in the
millions of dollars. We intend to ensure that if any decision is
made about a change in location of this operation, all the costs of
the rehabilitation of the site will be borne by the company that is
responsible for making the mess, not the taxpayers of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, animal rights activists seem to be convincing our
trading partners in Europe to ban furs imported from countries
which use leg hold traps. In Canada such a ban apparently would
affect about 100,000 jobs, including 80,000 trappers of whom
about half are native people.
I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade
whether it is true that our only strategy in the situation is to seek
delays beyond the current proposed deadline of January 1, 1996.
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier indications from the European Union
had been that the proposed regulation would be delayed beyond
January 1, 1996.
Because of the more recent indications of the European
Union's likelihood of moving on the issue, we are pursuing on
an urgent basis with the European Union, with the United States
and Russia, with other countries directly involved in the issue,
to design and agree on what is called a more humane trap so that
we can resolve the issue during the current calendar year.
However, I acknowledge to the member opposite that time is
short. We shall need to consider as a fallback position, if the
European Union does act, whether we would seek one of the
various forms of trade remedies that are open to us.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I am glad he
realizes that time is of the essence.
As a former trapper I can verify that the Conibear trap which
kills the animal instantly rather than inflicting the suffering of
leg hold traps, has been available for many years.
I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern development
what his department is doing to encourage Canada's trappers to
change over to non-leg hold traps as soon as possible, in order to
avoid a major blow to the local economies which such a ban on
Canadian furs would cause?
(1445)
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as well as assisting the
Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs wherever we can in whatever format and whenever we
can to get the matter settled because it affects industry, we have
put significant amounts of money-I do not have the exact
amount-into training and into the development of a more
humane trap.
The problem is that we think no matter how humane the trap is
there will still be European backlash against animal furs. We are
doing our best to overcome it but it is a problem. To say it is not a
problem would be misleading the hon. member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ):
Surprisingly enough, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Human Resources Development. On Monday, the
Quebec employment minister announced the unilateral funding
of Phase I of a labour adjustment measure in response to the
mass layoffs in the clothing industry. The Quebec government
would spend close to $7 million to provide assistance to these
older workers, while the federal government will not contribute
a penny.
How does the minister explain his stubborn refusal to modify
the Program for Older Worker Adjustment or POWA, which is
now putting Montreal at a disadvantage, by extending it to
layoffs involving 20 workers or more instead of 100 as is now
the case?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the
Government of Quebec is offering supplementary assistance to
older laid off workers in the clothing industry, but it is not
correct to say that the federal government is not involved.
Under PATA, as the member knows, we cost share at a level of
70 per cent a major program for older workers in the province of
Quebec as we do in all provinces. The province of Quebec agrees
to the criteria of that program.
In the last month or so we have provided assistance to seven or
eight major factories that laid off older workers in the clothing
industry. I would be glad to give the hon. member a full list of
joint federal-provincial support for older workers in the
Montreal area.
12723
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, surely the minister must know that the federal
government is not investing a penny in the program I am
referring to.
I will ask my supplementary question slowly to make sure the
minister understands. Now that the Quebec employment
minister has announced her intention of initiating talks with
Ottawa to convince the federal government to make a financial
contribution to Phase II, should it be implemented, does the
minister promise that he will acquiesce to his Quebec
counterpart's request?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to make sure that each of us
understands what is going on, I point out that under the present
program for older workers Montreal has 4 per cent of the
Canadian population and receives over 11 per cent of the full
support for older workers right across Canada, which I think is a
substantial contribution that we are making.
We have put forward as one major element in looking at social
reform in the country how we could provide greater assistance to
older workers. All we need now is the co-operation of the
Quebec government to join us in that enterprise. Then we can
jointly arrive at an effective answer.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the minister of Indian Affairs
what he had done about serious allegations regarding the misuse
of band assets, capital project funds and housing moneys on the
Yellow Quill Reserve.
I am now in receipt of a letter from a band member who says
that the Indian affairs department has finally admitted that the
$2 million deficit was due to ``incompetent bookkeeping''.
The band may have a financial management plan in place, but
band members want to know what the minister has done to
determine where the missing millions went.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe I responded to the
question last week. I would be pleased to take the member's
letter under consideration. Again I emphasize that there are 605
First Nations out there. Over 80 per cent run their affairs well,
and I never hear the Reform saying that is good. Some 152 of the
remaining 200 have remedial action plans in place and we are
working with them.
(1450)
We are working with the people to make sure they do the
things the Reform allegedly wants. I quote the leader of the
Reform Party when he said that his goal was to dismantle and
decentralize my department's function, funding and
responsibility and transfer them to local aboriginal agencies of
government.
If the Reformers are complaining, that is good. That is
democracy. At least they are showing an interest in what is
happening.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to hear that the minister will take the letter
under consideration, because it is addressed to him.
The minister of Indian affairs cannot continue to ignore band
members requesting financial accountability of their chiefs and
council. As the minister knows, this is not an isolated case
despite what he claims.
To pay for the so-called incompetent bookkeeping band
members must forgo much needed capital projects and social
programs. They have called on the minister to uphold his
fiduciary obligation to them.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. What
steps will the minister take to hold chiefs and council financially
accountable to all band members and guarantee that abuses like
this will never happen again?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a letter is being drafted, in
response to that letter, to the member. A full review is under way
in this instance and I wanted to advise the member of it.
I repeat that members of the Reform Party never look at the
good side of what is happening out there. They take isolated
cases like they did on immigration and on anything else in the
House that they oppose, such as the gun laws. I say they should
go and talk with the people they represent. I can assure them that
most people want to do the honourable and just thing for native
people to get true self-government and to bring some dignity
into the process rather than single out individuals in the House
and come close to defaming them.
* * *
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In recent weeks we have read about the projected closures of
all agricultural centres across our rural communities. These
services provide a very vital service for agriculture in Essex and
Kent counties as well as other rural areas.
What will the minister do to maintain agricultural
employment services across Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon.
member and members of the House that as part of our reform
program we are presently engaged in a major reinvention of the
way the department provides delivery of services. It is our
expectation that by this time next year we will have
substantially expanded the level
12724
of service to rural areas by providing more delivery points at
areas where they have major responsibilities.
In terms of the special activities under the agricultural
employment service, we are prepared to sit down with the
agricultural community, the Canadian Federation of Labour and
the horticultural society to work out ways to have direct
partnerships with the agricultural community in the rural areas
and to both have a facility in which we share in the opportunities
that the centres can offer for jobs and employment. That is part
of the new partnerships we are trying to establish in
reorganizing the department.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister responsible for Public Service
Renewal.
In its budget, the federal government announced that the
public service would be reduced by 45,000 positions over three
years, including more than 12,000 in the Ottawa-Hull area. The
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal seems to be
unable to give specifics about the extent of these cuts, stating
that it should be a rather large number, but that he does not know
the exact number because it varies from department to
department and from day to day.
Are we to understand from what the Minister responsible for
Public Service Renewal said that the decision to eliminate
45,000 public service positions was an impromptu, last minute
kind of decision?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member from the opposition knew
anything about public administration, he would know that, when
plans are made that affect departmental administration, it is
clear that each department will come up with a different plan and
that surplus notices will be sent out on the basis of evolving
needs.
(1455)
It is therefore impossible for any department to indicate today
what it has done because, obviously, its plans are implemented
on a day by day, week by week basis, and the answer that was
provided is correct.
What is important to know is that we are going ahead with our
plans to streamline the public service; we are in the process of
implementing the measures announced in the budget with
efficiency and competence.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if, as
the minister claims, this was not an impromptu decision, does he
undertake to release the department by department program
evaluation report, which resulted in the decision to lay off
45,000 public servants, and to tell us how the work force
adjustment program will be carried out?
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 budget tabled before this House clearly spells
out the government's fiscal plan and its impact on each
department.
The government had the courage to make the decisions
required. Unfortunately, this means that certain positions will
have to be eliminated. We acted in a humane way, providing
programs such as early retirement or buyout packages and, so
far, the unions feel that the budget is being implemented
appropriately and efficiently, in an effort to accommodate the
public service.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, recently an American tourist was acquitted of assault
for spanking his five-year old daughter. Every parent in Canada
was on trial.
Last June the minister stated that the government was
reviewing section 43 of the Criminal Code. This section permits
parents and educators to physically discipline their children
using reasonable force. The minister also stated: ``I know of no
plan at present to propose a change to this section''.
My question is for the justice minister. Will the minister state
today the outcome of the government's review of section 43, and
regardless of that outcome will he reaffirm his support for
section 43?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied the
section in the Criminal Code complies with our obligations. I
can tell the hon. member and the House that the government has
no intention to introduce any change to section 43 of the
Criminal Code.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If the minister has no
intention of changing section 43, why in the world is his
government continuing to fund the Children's Bureau review of
section 43?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I made clear in my
response to the question when it was last put, because we are
signatories to international conventions and treaties we are
12725
obligated like other civilized countries to do an audit of our laws
to ensure they reflect the values and the principles to which we
subscribe with other nations.
The work to which the hon. member has referred is simply
part of that effort and it must be done.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance who will know from press
reports today that his present seatmate has said: ``Cash means
clout. No cash, no clout''. He went on to point out that the
majority of members of the finance committee agree it is
important for Ottawa to maintain the cash transfer to make sure
the federal government maintains its influence, meaning the
ability to enforce legislation like the Canada Health Act.
Will the Minister of Finance agree with his seatmate that the
idea bears merit and that he will consider it in terms of changing
the legislation presently before the House?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like my
colleague to answer the question and my colleague would like to
answer it.
We are delighted as a result of the reform of House of
Commons committee rules that we have a very active, dynamic
and incisive finance committee of the House.
(1500 )
As to the particular comments of the chairman of the
committee, as the hon. member for Kamloops knows, we will be
sitting down with the provinces, and quite clearly we do not
want to do anything premature in terms of those discussions
with the provinces. It is very important for us to hear from the
provincial finance ministers on this issue.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday morning the justice committee heard moving
testimony from Burlington resident Priscilla de Villiers on gun
control. In no uncertain terms, Mrs. de Villiers stated: ``Let me
tell you about inconvenience. The death of your children at the
hands of a man wielding a gun is an inconvenience.''
I ask the Minister of Justice if he feels the proposed gun
registry contained in Bill C-68 will inconvenience Canadian
gun owners.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is telling that
the question of the day did not come from the other side of the
House, because the witnesses yesterday were victims of
violence with firearms and they were not in a position that could
be exploited by the Reform.
The very purpose of Bill C-68 is to address the kinds of
tragedies the committee heard about yesterday. The point is
perhaps best made by comparing on the one hand the
inconvenience of filling out a form and mailing it in with $10
over the next five years and on the other hand losing a member
of your family.
I am often asked for proof that registration of firearms will
achieve something for Canada. For those who ask for proof, I
suggest they speak to the parents, the mother who yesterday
described the tragedy of losing a child, speak to the children
whose mother is dead because she was shot in her home.
This government with this bill stands with the Victims of
Violence for Change. This government stands with the police
chiefs and the police across this country. We shall not fail them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: This concludes the question period.
I have a point of order from the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House
that during this last question in question period, the question
concerned specific matters that happened in committee. My
understanding of the rules under the standing orders is that is not
a proper question for question period. I would ask you to rule on
this issue, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The hon. member is correct in stating that we
cannot ask questions in the House that directly relate to a
committee. In my interpretation of the question, it would seem
to me that at the time I heard it, it seemed to be general enough.
I will take the hon. member's request under advisement. I will
review the blues, and if necessary I will come back to the House.
_____________________________________________
12725
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
seven petitions.
12726
(1505)
[English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the
honour to present to the House the report on the joint
parliamentary delegation visit to Brazil on April 15 to April 21,
1995, in both official languages.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade relating to the reform of international financial
institutions for the agenda of the G-7 summit in Halifax.
The report makes 20 recommendations aimed at
strengthening Canada's position heading into the G-7 economic
summit in Halifax in June. It is a unanimous report of the
committee.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is asking for
the government's response to the report.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There has been some quick consultation here. I believe there
might be unanimous consent to allow my colleague from Wild
Rose to introduce a private member's bill today without the
usual 48 hours notice, since he is not available to be in the House
on Thursday and Friday. I would ask the House to give him
consent to introduce his bill today.
The Speaker: I am informed that we have to have the bill.
Does the member have the bill with him? We have the bill. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-327, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bail in
cases of assault with weapon or criminal harassment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for
giving me the opportunity to present this private member's bill.
The bill is an act that would amend the Criminal Code
regarding bail in the case of assault with a weapon or criminal
harassment. There have been a number of cases throughout the
nation where people have been released on bail who have
committed some very serious violent crimes and have followed
through on their threats after bail has been issued. This bill
would be an attempt to assist the victims so they would not be
vulnerable in the future.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you might find unanimous consent that the
House adopt the motion standing in my name on today's Order
Paper, No. 17, that the 77th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
(1510 )
This important report deals with the form of the Journals in
respect to supply proceedings in the House and in the other
place. I think there will be consent to adopt the motion without
debate this afternoon.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to rise to support a petition that has come from
1,038 members of my riding, which reads as follows.
We the undersigned residents of the province of British
Columbia draw the attention of the House to the following: that
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a real and
hurtful form of discrimination in this country; that all forms of
families in this country, those based on financial and emotional
interdependence, are equally meaningful and important to the
social well-being of Canada; and that both protection against
discrimination and recognition of relationships based on
financial and emotional interdependence are necessary to ensure
the equal treatment of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals under the
law.
Therefore, your petitioners request that the Parliament of
Canada amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
sexual orientation as a basis for protection against
discrimination and to include recognition of relationships based
on financial and emotional interdependence.
12727
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was asked
by a group of people to table a petition on their behalf. I am
pleased to do so. These people are from a number of Quebec
municipalities, mainly Longueuil, but also Terrebonne,
Sainte-Monique, Montreal and Laval.
They are asking Parliament to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act so as to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present.
The first is from petitioners in and around the cities of
Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, where the petitioners request
that Parliament recognize and address the concerns of this
petition regarding the Young Offenders Act and that action be
taken immediately to bring about results that would improve the
situation.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition contains 96 signatures, wherein the petitioners
call upon Parliament to enact legislation that would re-evaluate
and amend the Canadian justice system to provide protection to
and give precedence to victims rights, which require stricter
sentencing guidelines, stronger penalties for major crimes,
deportation of convicted non-Canadians, and all juveniles
charged with major crimes to be tried in adult court.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition contains 40 signatures from the Kingston, Ontario,
area, wherein the petitioners pray and request that Parliament
delete section 718(2) entirely from Bill C-41.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions from citizens and residents of Peterborough. All
the petitions concern the cuts in global education and I will
summarize each one.
In the first, the petitioners say: We are concerned that our
children learn how to live as responsible global citizens. We
know we consume too much of the world's resources and we
want to learn how to change.
In the second one, the petitioners say: We believe in
democracy and want to be actively involved in community
discussions on Canadian foreign policy and global issues. We
believe that global education is an investment to counter the
social, economic, and environmental deficit facing the
developing and developed world.
In the third petition, the petitioners say: We know
non-governmental agencies are the best delivery system for
global education and for overseas development assistance. We
commend the work of the Kawartha World Issues Centre based
in Peterborough and four surrounding counties as effectively
linking global issues to local action for justice across many
sectors of the community.
Therefore, in the three petitions, the petitioners request that
Parliament reinstate public participation as a goal of Canadian
foreign policy and request that Parliament reinstate global
education through non-governmental organizations based in
Canada.
(1515 )
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions.
The first petition deals with the Young Offenders Act. The
petitioners, some 490 strong, from the metropolitan Toronto
area ask Parliament to recognize that they wish stiffer penalties
for young offenders convicted of violent crimes.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second set of petitions contains approximately 230
signatures, all from the Richmond, British Columbia area.
The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure the present
provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third set of petitions contains approximately 220 signatures
from the Trenton area, my riding of Scarborough West, Kanata,
Carleton Place, Ontario and from Vernon, British Columbia.
The petitioners call on Parliament not to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the act to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table a petition signed by elderly people from several
communities in my riding. These people feel powerless when
12728
they have to use voice mail technology. They want a more
appropriate service, particularly as regards their income
security claims.
They are asking that an appropriate service be provided and
that the government give up its idea of using voice mail to
answer queries.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure today
to present a petition on behalf of citizens of Prince
George-Peace River. Some 74 citizens have signed the
petition.
The petitioners call on Parliament to oppose any amendment
to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
I find myself in complete concurrence with this and it is my
pleasure to present it.
The Speaker: When we present petitions it is not necessary to
be either for or against a petition. We have been doing that on all
sides as of late. I ask you to simply present the petitions.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present. The first petition concerns the
provisions of Bill C-68.
The petitioners wish to express their opposition to the
universal registration of long guns, restrictions and controls on
the purchase of ammunition and the undue use of regulation by
order in council.
They therefore call on Parliament to refrain from passing Bill
C-68 as it presently stands.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is very thick. It is from virtually every resident
of the Arborfield, Zenon Park area and represents those who use
the Arborfield subdivision of the Canadian National Railway
which now serves an excellent grain producing district as well as
a large alfalfa dehydrating plant employing some 40 people.
Without the line the future of the plant and the village of
Arborfield is in doubt.
They ask, therefore, that the Parliament of Canada support
Canada's rural way of life by rejecting the policy proposals now
before it which lift the prohibition orders on branch lines and
instead develop agriculture and rural development policies for
Canada in which rural citizens are considered to be necessary
humans with spiritual, social and economic needs; not to treat
them just as statistics.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition signed by 250
constituents in my riding of Lincoln asking Parliament not to
amend the Canadian human rights code to extend spousal
benefits to same sex partners.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present petitions on two issues.
The first petition I received from my constituents of
Essex-Windsor asks that Parliament ensure the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second set of petitions also requests that Parliament act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child.
(1520)
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my duty to table in the House a petition signed by
60 residents of Kapuskasing and area on the gun registration
legislation.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to deal more with crime
control than gun control. The system should also concentrate its
efforts on the criminal element of society instead of further
eroding the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling four petitions today, all
duly approved by the clerk of petitions.
The first two deal with the moral issues of euthanasia and also
include sexual orientation legislation.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last petitions deal with the criminal justice system.
These were signed by over 6,000 citizens of my riding of
Okanagan-Shuswap. These 6,000 Canadians are asking the
government to reform the justice system to protect the innocent
and deal more efficiently with criminals.
These requests are added to the request of many thousands of
Canadians. It is time for the government to act.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am presenting four petitions signed by over 200
constituents from various parts of my riding.
12729
The petitioners are calling on Parliament not to amend the
human rights act or charter of rights and freedoms in any way
which would indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships.
I am also presenting a fifth petition signed by some 50
individuals calling on the government to amend the human
rights act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present the following petition
dealing with sexual orientation.
The petitioners from my constituency believe the term sexual
orientation in Bill C-41 is ambiguous and therefore would
broaden implications indicating societal approval of same sex
relationships.
They humbly request that section 718.2 of Bill C-41, the
sentencing bill, be rescinded. This petition contains 113
signatures.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions, the first containing 40 signatures.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code and the Canadian Human Rights Act or
the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend
to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition contains 167 signatures. The petitioners request
that Parliament support laws that will severely punish all violent
criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime,
support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which
recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own
and use recreational firearms, and support legislation that will
repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not
improved public safety or have proven not be cost effective or
have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective and/or
unenforceable.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition of
many thousand names which would probably bring the total to in
excess of 60,000.
The petitioners are calling on government to keep dangerous
sex offenders and pedophiles locked up for life, to eliminate
statutory release, to impose stiffer sentences for violent
offenders, have violent criminals serve their full sentence and
have time added for bad behaviour, and on and on.
Members get the idea of the petition, basically calling for
changes to the Criminal Code to make Canada a safer place.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
tabling the following petition which calls on Parliament to
oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or
the charter of rights and freedoms which provide for the
inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
I also have a petition calling on Parliament to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition which
has been circulating around Canada. It is signed by a number of
residents from the Oakville, Ontario region.
(1525)
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society. They also state the
Income Tax Act discriminates against families that make the
choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to present two petitions from the province of
British Columbia on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue.
The first petition signed by 42 individuals deals with the issue
of sexual orientation.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker
the second petition signed by 1,100 individuals concerns the
Young Offenders Act.
The petitioners request that Parliament amend the act to
automatically try a youth in adult court for any crimes of
violence and to provide for public identification of a convicted,
young dangerous offender.
12730
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise in the House today
to present two petitions from the constituents of
Hamilton-Wentworth riding calling on Parliament to oppose
any amendments to the federal Criminal Code which would
provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation. There
are about 300 names on these two petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today, pursuant to Standing Order 52, and move:
That this House do now adjourn for the purpose of an emergency debate on
a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.
Both the council for the James Bay Cree and the Yukon
Indians have agreements with the federal government which are
appendages to the Constitution of Canada. Both groups claim
their constitutional rights demand consultation with the federal
government prior to the enactment of federal law touching on
hunting, trapping or food gathering.
The testimony of both groups before the Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs claims unequivocally that no
consultation took place in the prescribed manner regarding Bill
C-68 and therefore their constitutional rights have been violated
by the federal government.
I believe the allegations of the violation of the constitutional
rights of the aboriginal people are so pressing that the public
interest will suffer if this issue is not given immediate attention.
The foremost responsibility of members of Parliament is to
uphold the Constitution of our country and that can only be done
in the House.
The public interest and the interest of aboriginal people
demand this matter be dealt with immediately.
The Speaker: I listened with great attention to what the hon.
member had to say. The matter raised is important to Canadians.
However, in my view the hon. member would probably have
other avenues to explore this topic, in committee and otherwise
here.
At least at this time it would seem to me the hon. member's
request does not meet the requirements for an emergency
debate.
_____________________________________________
12730
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 16 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-86, an act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday when debate resumed I was the first
speaker following a rather bad movie unfolding in the House
called ``milk wars'' between the Liberals and the Bloc
Quebecois over what would happen to the dairy industry should
Quebec separate. It was rather amusing at times.
The Reform Party supports the tariff levels agreed to under
GATT. However, we should become proactive in this area and
address future concerns.
(1530 )
I am concerned about the health of the dairy industry down the
road. The trend toward more open and competitive global
markets is happening whether we like it or not. Failure to adapt
will undoubtedly result in the destruction of an industry that has
provided Canadians with a quality product for many years.
Dairy farmers must move to a more efficient means of producing
milk.
I would like to address a few aspects of Bill C-86. I have
already mentioned that the Canadian government had no choice
but to make alterations to the supply management commodities.
As with many of these programs that were initially developed by
the Liberals, they, the creators of the system, are reluctant to
change them or drop them entirely. Sentimental feelings are
driving the government's agenda.
All we have to do is look at the GATT negotiations and the
Liberals' position, who at that time were not the government,
with regard to the GATT negotiations and article XI. They said
that article XI was non-negotiable. They told people in the dairy
industry to support them and they would defend article XI and it
would be in the new GATT agreement.
A few days after the Liberals took office, history shows us
that in fact article XI had to be negotiated away. We had no
support in the international community for article XI.
Tariffication was put in place to replace that article.
I might add the Reform Party anticipated this event. We said
in our election platform that we believe the structure of national
supply management agencies need not change at all as long as
12731
these agencies continue to have the support of their producers.
They should continue in any manner in which they feel best
serves their interests. Tariffs will be reduced as other countries
reduce their support. This will allow Canadian producers to
remain competitive and will ensure that these sectors are able to
adapt to the new market driven environment.
The point that we raised was that tariffs should initially be set
at levels sufficiently high to protect the domestic market and
industry. We said that supply managed producers should have
access to our comprehensive income stabilization program. We
went on to say that import control regulations as a defence
against foreign dumping should be rationalized and
strengthened.
We said that licensing and arbitration regulations as an
improved safeguard against business which might engage in
unfair practices should be strengthened. We also said that
competition and anti-combines legislation intended to place
limits on the power of buying groups should be strengthened and
vigorously enforced. We concluded by saying that the impact to
the sectors during the tariff reduction period should be carefully
monitored.
The Reform Party believes that this approach will not only
ensure the continued viability of supply managed sectors, but
will build a bridge to a new era of opportunity and expansion.
Bill C-86 fails to address the problems it has set out to
correct. While the intent of the bill is to help the Canadian dairy
industry to comply with the GATT regulations, it is almost
certain that industry will be open to other trade sanctions,
especially from the United States.
The pooling market system which replaces the existing
system of levies has long been a bone of contention with the
United States. We have seen the response of the U.S. over the
last five years to the effect of the Canadian Wheat Board. While
the Canadian Wheat Board has been functioning in the manner it
should and we have been winning the trade disputes,
nevertheless the pooling is an irritant. If we are looking at
pooling in the dairy industry we need to be very careful that we
do not structure it in such a way as to become a trade irritant with
the Americans, or at least not a trade irritant that we would lose a
scrap over.
The Reform Party is concerned that this government has not
been honest and open with those farmers that are within the
supply managed areas. I believe this government has not reacted
to the global trend toward a more open and a more competitive
market. As we know, Canadian dairy farmers are capable of
competing in these competitive markets.
More and more, Canadian farmers are going to have to
compete in a global marketplace. As we see trading blocs
forming, currently NAFTA is expanding with the inclusion of
Mexico and negotiations with Chile and other Latin American
countries, we realize that there will be more and more
observation of our own trading practices here in Canada. We
will have to be very careful as to how we design our marketing
and our trade deals so that we do not jeopardize industries which
at the current time are very sustainable and are functioning very
well.
(1535 )
The Liberal messages to the industry have been misleading in
the past and we are concerned that they may be misleading in the
future. We will be scrutinizing the bill very carefully to ensure
that we are not sending the wrong signals to the dairy industry
with respect to what it can expect in the future from agreements
such as the NAFTA and the GATT.
There have been some good questions brought forward in the
House as to whether the NAFTA supersedes the GATT or the
GATT supersedes the NAFTA. Those are important questions
and we need more clarification from the government that in fact
the legislation which it is proposing will not be challenged under
the NAFTA and we will not lose the challenge.
The question I ask of the government is whether Canadian
dairy farmers will be given the tools and the time to adapt to a
new market driven economy. We need not look any further than
the current fiasco with the WGTA and the Crow buyout. Imagine
a government which would discontinue the Crow benefit and
replace it with a one time payout and then talks about a
transition period and a transition program which would take
place one year following the conclusion of the Crow benefit.
That is not very good planning in my mind and I am getting the
same message and the same signal from my constituents and
other Canadians who are affected by the elimination of the
WGTA, the Crow buyout and this transition program.
It would seem to me that it would be much more logical to
have a transition program spelled out before implementing
legislation to end the Crow benefit and introduce a buyout to
producers. We wonder about the logic of a government which
would eliminate something and then a year later introduce an
unspecified program to help the industry make the transition
from transportation subsidies to an unsubsidized system.
We have the same concerns about the dairy industry. We are
concerned that the government is not looking at the long term. It
is not considering carefully the outcome of its policies with
respect to the dairy industry. It is not looking at the need to
access new markets. It is not thinking long term; it is continuing
to look only at the short term situation.
Another important issue which needs to be addressed is
whether supply managed industries should have access to
income stabilization, in particular, a whole farm income
stabilization plan. Many spokespersons in the dairy industry and
other supply managed industries are suggesting they would not
like to be a part of any income stabilization plan or a whole farm
program.
12732
I think part of the reason they are suggesting that is because
the Liberals have made guarantees to them about the current
supply managed system which perhaps are not supportable in
logic. In fact, perhaps if the industry was given the true picture
of what awaits it in the future it might be more interested in
looking at belonging to some kind of income stabilization plan,
something along the lines of NISA.
Again I would communicate to the House that the Reform
Party envisioned the need for that to happen. We suggested that
an income stabilization plan should be a shared
federal-producer program having universal application, which
means all sectors. It would include the supply managed sectors.
This would be made available at the whole farm level. If a farm
produced many commodities all those commodities would be
recognized by the plan. Supply managed sectors would have
access to the program upon the introduction of tariffication.
Of course, that was written before the tariffication was
introduced. We were correct in anticipating that. I believe we
were correct in anticipating that there will be a need for the
supply managed industries to have access to a NISA type income
stabilization program, given the market trends and the
formation of a global economy in which eventually supply
managed industries will have to participate and be in a
competitive position.
I would like to conclude my speech by asking the government
to be more honest and more open with the Canadian dairy
farmers. The government promised that it would be very open
and honest with the public. It is in its red book. We sense that
those pages are being torn out of the red book and it concerns us
very much. It should concern dairy producers across Canada as
well.
Before the Liberals were elected it was very easy for them to
say they would be open and honest, but they seem to be having
some difficulty now fulfilling some of those red book promises.
We are concerned that one of the casualties may be supply
managed industries, in particular the dairy industry if the true
situation of international negotiations and of course the
jurisdiction of the NAFTA versus the GATT are not correctly
and very clearly communicated to the industry. The Reform
Party would like to see that honesty and openness with regard to
this situation.
(1540)
Hopefully, the House will get away from the milk wars I spoke
about in my remarks yesterday. I think we should quit talking
about marriage and divorce and start talking about birth and
death. Let us let the old system die and let us see a new Canada
formulated in which we all get along well and where we do not
have milk wars and turf wars over just about every other issue in
Canada. To be competitive in the global economy we certainly
cannot be scrapping within the borders of this great country.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to provide a little background on the dairy industry in
Canada. In the 1960s, there was no supply management in the
dairy industry. Farmers were producing as much milk as they
wanted.
In the summer, when they were out to pasture, dairy cows
produced three or even four times as much milk. The milk was
put into containers commonly called milk cans. To keep the milk
fresh, these cans were placed in the spring or the river nearest to
the barn. At 9, 9.30 or 10 a.m., depending on the transporter's
route, the cans were picked up on tripods along the road.
The truth be known, freshness left something to be desired.
Processing plants were drowning in milk in the summer, but
come winter, farmers were having a more difficult time; in order
to produce the milk, they had to buy meal, ingredients, inputs. It
was not really worthwhile to produce milk in the winter. So they
produced the maximum in the summer and stopped producing in
the winter.
That is what was happening on our farms during the 1960s and
early 1970s. In 1970, 1971 and 1972, milk producers got
together with government officials and set up standards,
agreements. They said that there is no use producing too much
milk if we are not able to use it and if we cannot sell it outside
the country.
They came up with supply management, that some people are
decrying so strongly here in the House. Supply management
requires a farmer to now produce 12 months a year, on a monthly
basis. Our dairy farmer cannot keep the cream and give the whey
to others. He has to produce milk in summer, fall, winter and
spring. Therefore he must manage his herd in such a way that
cows will calve all year long. He can non longer take advantage
of geographical or climatic factors.
In that regard, I would ask my Reform colleague to explain the
second point that his colleague and friend so brilliantly
explained yesterday in this House. The agriculture critic and
member for Vegreville outlined the four points his party's dairy
policy. I would like to have the second point explained further
this afternoon.
I quote: ``Second, Reformers acknowledge that the
agriculture industry, including supply managed sectors, is
moving toward a more competitive market driven system''.
Where can there be any competition if a farmer is told that he has
to produce 1,000 litres of milk for the local dairy, while one of
his neighbours has to produce 1,100 litres, and the other has to
produce 900?
(1545)
Where can there be competition when, for milk of the same
quality, one farmer is paid 47 cents a litre and another 46 cents,
because he is a member of the Liberal Party, the Reform Party or
the Bloc Quebecois? How can producers compete with one
another under such circumstances, if they have to produce milk
12733
of the same quality? I would like my Reform colleague to
explain his view on competition.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for Frontenac for his question.
He began by talking about what farming used to be like back
in the 1960s. While I was not a grown man at that time, I
remember what farming was like. I remember my parents
shipping cream back in those days, not quite the way the hon.
member described it, but it did bring back some memories
hearing his comments.
As the hon. member for Frontenac is aware, agriculture has
changed substantially in the last 35 years. The industry and the
producers are always far ahead of government. It is not
government regulation or legislation that causes progress in
industry, including the agriculture industry.
Whether it be a supply managed industry, a free market
industry or the growing of wheat under the Canadian Wheat
Board, which is in neither of the aforementioned categories, we
have seen dramatic changes in the industry over the last 35 years
as world and domestic conditions have demanded better
operating practices from farmers no matter what the commodity
is that they produce.
The member talked about the need for a consistent supply of
milk over a 12-month period by producers. I understand what he
is saying. He seemed to be indicating that my colleague from
Vegreville was suggesting something that would be in conflict
with that requirement. I was not in the House to hear what my
colleague said yesterday on this issue, but he related to me that
he talked about a need for a more competitive environment.
The hon. member for Frontenac indicated that would pit
producer against producer. Nothing could be farther from the
truth. We are talking about the need to be competitive as a
Canadian industry. We are looking at the industry versus the
needs of the consumers and what consumers expect of the
industry. We are also looking at what will be required both
internationally and interprovincially with regard to the dairy
industry.
For the most part international agreements have already been
signed. We know that Bill C-88 will be before the House very
soon. It deals with internal trade in Canada. There are some real
problems with internal trade, particularly in the dairy industry.
Some things have to be dealt with. Part of that was the cause of
the bickering between the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals
yesterday.
I am sure what my colleague was suggesting and what I would
reiterate is that the industry needs to be competitive. However it
needs to be competitive as a whole industry, not producer
against producer. In this way we can compete in the new climate
under GATT and NAFTA and break down the barriers to internal
trade within Canada so that our agriculture industries and other
industries flourish under that scenario.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to debate Bill C-86, an act to amend the Canadian
Dairy Commission Act, especially as I was invited to do so by
the member for Frontenac.
As the member of Parliament for Matapédia-Matane, a rural
riding, I have several reasons to be greatly interested in
everything that concerns farmers. My interest in agriculture is
not motivated by political or partisan reasons.
(1550)
My region owes its existence primarily to this industry.
Nearly all the villages and towns in my riding were founded by
settlers, who were farmers, of course.
I like to remind people that, at the turn of the century, over 80
per cent of inhabitants of Matapédia-Matane eked out a
miserable existence in the country. They worked from dawn to
dusk, but they were happy. I do not want to wax nostalgic, but I
am one of those who do not deny their past, being very proud of
their origins. Without agriculture, the riding of
Matapédia-Matane would probably have never been
developed. These farmers are responsible for building what we
have here and the best of what we have.
The result of their efforts is that the Lower St. Lawrence now
boasts over 400,000 hectares of farmland and 2,600 agricultural
businesses with sales in the order of $190 million a year. As I
was saying, my contribution to the debate on Bill C-86 is
motivated by several reasons.
The first reason is probably that the farmers in my region, like
those elsewhere in Quebec and Canada, have become real
entrepreneurs and built real businesses over the years. They
have built small, medium-sized and even large businesses, with
all the risks involved. While subsistence farmers at the
beginning of the century did not lead very risky lives, the same
cannot be said of today's farmers who face fiercely competitive
international markets. It is difficult to live beside a giant
neighbour such as the United States of America with its
formidable economic power and its climate, which is much
more suitable than ours, especially in the Gaspé region. Last
week, I went snowmobiling, because there are still two feet of
snow in the sugar bush, so there were not many farmers out in
the fields.
Some farmers now administer thousands of dollars, and many
jobs depend on their economic health and the continued
development of their businesses. Bill C-86 should secure the
future of milk producers for a while. This means that many
farmers in my
12734
riding will enjoy a better future and may even ensure their
succession, something which is particularly difficult in my
region.
Without the farmers, our small communities will not survive.
They were built thanks to the solidarity and the strong will of
ordinary people who, over the years, have become great men and
women, the builders of our country. Bill C-86 is proof that
Quebecers always show solidarity, including with their
neighbours, when necessary and when they do not feel pressured
by the big federal machine, which often blindly imposes its will.
If each region could plan its own development without having
to meet countless standards, we would obviously have a more
prosperous country which would surely work a lot better. If the
federal government did not impose its standards and, instead, let
the provinces decide freely and independently among
themselves, the country that you call Canada would undoubtedly
work a lot better.
(1555)
In any case, when Quebec becomes sovereign, it will show
solidarity with its neighbours. As I said earlier, virtually all the
small villages in my region and my riding were built around
agriculture, and they continue to depend on that industry for
their livelihood. Should agriculture disappear, a very large
number of them would be abandoned overnight. It would be
unfortunate to see a country, which our ancestors worked so hard
to build, slowly disintegrate because people, who have given so
much, have had to leave their regions.
I am also pleased to discuss Bill C-86 because my region is
one of Quebec's major dairy production centres. It took almost
50 years of efforts to get to the enviable position that we,
Quebecers, now hold in that market. Moreover, we invested
large sums of money over the years to diversify, to produce more
finished goods, and to fight effectively against outside
competition. We are used to defending ourselves, and Bill C-68
once again confirms our leadership, our vision and our courage.
Moreover, Bill C-86 contradicts the federalist big names who
wrongly assert that the rest of Canada will reject any agreement
with Quebec, if it were to become sovereign tomorrow. On the
contrary, an economic union is crucial for both parties, and
everybody knows it.
Bill C-86 embodies this principle. Six provinces have signed
an agreement, and others will undoubtedly join in when they
realize that it is in their own interest.
In my area, dairy production alone generates 75 per cent of
farm income and the dairy sector accounts for over 50 per cent of
the farm businesses. The other main sectors are cattle, sheep and
pork. That tells us a lot about the importance of the dairy sector.
Looking at employment, that sector provides over 7,500
permanent jobs, and thousands more seasonal jobs. Forty-eight
per cent of the workers are under 40, which is truly remarkable.
In spite of this, figures for the Matapedia Valley show a 22 per
cent drop in farm acreage between 1981 and 1991. Over the
same period, the number of farms fell from 420 to 285, a 32 per
cent drop.
While many factors can explain these drops, the main one also
applies to other sectors. Raw materials from the regions go to
major cities for processing, and the finished goods are then sold
back to regions. Bill C-86 sets up a national pooling system of
market returns that will help the sale of milk products abroad.
That goal is praiseworthy, because it will enable us to counter
the constant threat of foreign competition.
GATT and NAFTA do not give us much choice. I think we
should also consider the same approach in other areas,
particularly research and development in agriculture, without
any federal involvement. We could research and develop new
farm products that could be processed in the regions.
Specialized small regional businesses could revitalize rural
areas.
(1600)
I congratulate the proponents of the agreement that is
incorporated in Bill C-86 and more particularly Claude Rivard,
the president of the federation of dairy producers, and a resident
of my region of Matapedia Valley. I urge them to go even further
and consider the future of agriculture in regions, including
mine, because strong regions make for a strong country and a
strong Quebec. Our survival and prosperity depend on a strong
and diversified agricultural industry at the regional level.
Thanks to specialized producers evenly and fairly distributed
throughout the country, we will be able to successfully compete
on world markets.
There is no point trying to grow oranges in northern Quebec,
but we sure can try to produce something else. There is no point
trying to produce milk on a large scale on farms that are not
suited to this type of production, but we sure can try our hand at
something else. What I am trying to show through these
examples is that the agreement underlying Bill C-86 is
excellent, and that we should continue in this way. In Quebec,
pooling of our resources is where our great strength lies.
If farming is doing so well in Quebec, it is because we gave
ourselves the means to succeed. Our farmers are independent,
but have set up huge co-ops, pools and marketing boards which
serve them well. Canada should follow suit and have
independent provinces which still feel solidarity with each
other. Unfortunately, the dinosaurs of centralist federalism have
no options to put forward.
We, in Quebec, will make the right choice, just like Quebec
farmers have done recently. A sovereign Quebec will stand
behind its Canadian neighbours. I want to tell you that, in my
12735
rural riding, the people are very proud of this agreement, and I
am particularly proud that one of my constituents, a resident of
Matapédia, is behind this initiative.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments. I will
recognize a member of another party, the hon. member for
Durham.
Mr. Plamondon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced
that I was on my feet before the hon. member, and I thought that
the custom here was to recognize the first member to rise.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is absolutely right,
but as he may already know, it makes for a much more
interesting debate if the Chair gives a member of another party
the opportunity to ask questions or make comments.
So, I recognize the hon. member for Durham.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate the member for Matapédia-Matane for his
dissertation on this bill.
As I listened to the member's speech I was taken aback by
how he used a federal agreement to argue the case of an
independent Quebec. Actually, as I read this piece of legislation
it occurred to me that this is one of the powerful things of a
federal state like Canada, which can actually come to national
agreements in the best interests of all the people of Canada,
including the farmers of Quebec.
The signatories in this agreement are not other independent
countries. They are not states of the United States. In fact they
are people who have agreed to make this arrangement within a
federal state. Indeed, if my memory serves me correctly the
whole concept of pooling and marketing board systems was
created by the federal government in the first place.
(1605 )
Most of the farmers in Canada recognize the importance of
the federal government in the area of marketing and in
establishing national marketing standards. My riding is also a
very important area of milk production, contributing 2 per cent
of the total milk production for the province of Ontario. I can tell
the hon. member that if things were different, if things were as
he would like them to be, the people in my riding would do the
economic thing and start producing more milk to service our
own domestic market, excluding the people of Quebec.
Forty per cent of the industrial milk quota has been allocated
to the province of Quebec. I want to assure the member that the
people in his riding are very much taking advantage of the
federalist system. I would like to bring that to the member's
attention.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that we are
interdependent and that Ontario has a production level of 40 per
cent. It is a fact that one province can reach agreements with
other provinces, but that does not necessarily mean that these
agreements will be overseen by the federal government.
Many agreements have been reached with Ontario, on a
department to department basis, and both provinces have
benefited from then. There were also agreements with New
Brunswick. That is how I see the situation. The day we are
sovereign, we will be able to negotiate our agreements without
having to ask for permission from the head office, the federal
government.
We noted that six provinces came to an agreement, and we
hope that the other provinces will understand, because it is in
their interest to operate with the other provinces. Under such
circumstances, they will be ready to move on their own
initiative, at their own speed. That is how I see things. This is
how the federation should have been operating for a long time,
but this is not the way things turned out.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
start by congratulating my colleague for his remarks. I think it
was very appropriate for him to talk about the contribution of the
people who built his region, Quebec, and several other regions
of Canada. The builders of both our nations, Quebec and
Canada, are mostly farmers.
Agricultural development gave birth to small villages, some
of which later became larger villages and then grew into towns,
small and large. In this context, this historical review seemed
important as part of my colleague's speech. He also used a rather
harsh word to describe the federal government when he talked
about the federal monster.
I want to ask him a question about that. What bothers farmers
and the majority of people in both our nations, Quebec and
Canada, the most is to see the federal government interfering in
areas that are not under its jurisdiction. Whether in health, job
training, environment or agriculture, the federal government
has a tendency to become an administrative monster which
sticks its nose everywhere and does nothing really to favour
regional economic development.
Quebec would like to have a different kind of relationship
with this federal monster. As my colleague mentioned, it would
rather have direct agreements with the provinces. Quebec has a
lot in common with Ontario. It may have less in common with
the western provinces, but it does have strong ties with the
United States. So this new kind of state that Quebec would like
to become would allow it to negotiate directly with any province
that would be willing to make a deal.
12736
Milk is a good example of the economic life of various
regions of the country. Of course, Quebec has a higher
percentage of milk production quotas, with close to 50 per cent.
(1610)
However, if we consider the Alberta beef production for
example, we can see that Quebec buys nearly 75 per cent of the
total production. In that sense, Quebec is a good friend of
Alberta since it is a consumer of some of its products. The same
thing happens when Quebec makes a financial contribution to
the federal state and this federal state distributes the money.
When the federal gives this money to western grain producers so
that they can produce wheat and sell it on the international
market, Quebec is giving back quite a lot to that region of
Canada.
The Quebec population represents 23 to 24 per cent of the
Canadian population. If we were to receive 23 to 24 per cent of
the federal budget for agriculture, we would be getting $800
million more each year. So maybe our quotas are in fact more
generous, but as far as financial fallouts are concerned, and I am
talking here about direct annual statutory programs, we are
losing $800 million a year. This figure does not even include
special programs like those announced in the last budget, the
$1.5 billion for western diversification for example. However,
as announced, Quebec will also suffer cuts of 15 per cent this
year and 15 per cent next year, but I heard nothing about a
financial compensation for our region.
All the special subsidies awarded to western Canada over the
last seven or eight years amount to more than six billion dollars.
Quebec contributed one fourth of that sum through its taxes. We
have thus been extremely generous towards Canadian products
and it would be only fair that, when the time comes to share in
another form of economic activity like milk production, we get a
larger share. By the way, when the system for western wheat was
put in place, sales to China or eastern countries were subsidized
by the federal government. This type of production was a lot
more profitable than milk production. Farmers in that part of the
country were not interested in producing milk.
In other words, if you were a farmer, dairy farming was a job
which paid less and was therefore less attractive. We agreed to
do it, to develop our industry and improve its efficiency. Now
that it is doing well, we are told: ``Maybe you got too much''. I
was surprised by some of the chauvinistic interventions I heard
in this debate, yesterday and again today, especially when my
colleague from Frontenac was giving us market examples,
examples of competition , and also examples from the Reform
Party.
Speaking of the Reform Party, and I will conclude on that, I
would ask my colleague whether he agrees with what I just said,
since he talked about Mr. Claude Rivard, the president of the
Fédération des producteurs de lait who said, and rightly so,
quoting a respected American editorialist, that the system we
presently have is quite exceptional and that the United States
would do well to implement one like it instead of trying to
destroy it.
I fail to understand the attitude of certain Reform members,
when they say: ``Abolish it, let free competition take care of it.
Let us do it the American way''. The most eminent analysts,
however, would tell you that the result of the current American
system is that they are investing 34 cents on the dollar instead of
49 cents as we do in product development in the dairy industry.
Therefore, that would be far from free competition, that
would be abandoning Canada and Quebec to the American
market. Regarding this, Mr. Rivard put it nicely when he quoted
American economists and he is delighted with the agreement
reached between six provinces a short while back at a meeting
with 190 delegates. He is delighted that they voted unanimously
in favour of the agreement. Bill C-86 is a step in the right
direction as far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned. It is also, I
think, what Quebec and Canadian dairy producers have always
wanted. They have a very fair system.
It is acceptable to producers, and very inexpensive for the
federal government when compared with other interventionist
systems, such as the Crow rate, subsidies for western farm
production or the eastern fishery. Yes, it is relatively cheap
compared to other economic policies.
So, when something is not broken, why fix it? Hence, I
congratulate my hon. colleague on his representation and I
would be interested in hearing his remarks regarding my
comments which could only expound on his speech moments
ago.
(1615)
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has described the
situation very well. Over the last 50 years, all of Canada's
agriculture ministers, or almost all, have managed to leave our
farmers increasingly worse off. My colleague gave a brief
description of the situation in Quebec's towns and villages in the
1960s. There were dairies everywhere. Each community
processed its own milk, cream and butter. They were all
self-sufficient, and there was some assistance from the federal
government. Then, the government pulled out almost
completely and left people to fend for themselves.
I am very pleased to see that the provinces today are trying to
go back to the system of 20 or 30 years ago.
The Deputy Speaker: Before giving the floor to the member
for Québec-Est, 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 is the following: the hon. member for Saint
John-Infrastructure.
12737
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I too am very pleased to speak to Bill C-86, at the invitation of
my colleague from Frontenac, not only because he has asked me
to take part in this debate, but also because agriculture is a topic
dear to my heart, although in my riding of Québec-Est there are
no farms as such, just a few retired farmers.
It is of interest to me because I recognize the great importance
of agriculture to the economic health of a country, and in Quebec
we must do everything we can to maintain and strengthen the
agricultural economy, and especially the all-important dairy
sector. And in addition, because Bill C-86 is a good bill.
Finally, the Liberal government has tabled a good bill,
something we do not often see. It is worth mentioning because
the very great majority of bills it has tabled to date have been, if
not terrible, certainly mediocre and second rate. Take the
budget, for instance, which was probably one of the worst
proposals ever tabled in this House, a budget in which
everything was done to protect the rich in this country and make
the poor poorer. One more example of their lack of vision and
understanding. Take the Lobbyists Registration Act, another
rotten piece of legislation. In fact, there are several bills that
have been really disappointing, at a time when the public
expected so much of this government. They have been very
disappointing indeed.
However, Bill C-86 before the House today is a good bill, I
must admit. And maybe it is a good bill because, basically, it
was not so much the government as the farmers themselves that
initiated this legislation. They were the ones to start the ball
rolling. The farmers convinced the government to table this bill.
They did everything they could to ensure that this proposal to
pool resources and dairy production became a reality. I may add
that Quebec farmers and dairy producers were largely
instrumental in getting these proposals off the ground. They
were actively involved in these plans for pooling dairy
production. This is important. We are aware of that.
As was mentioned by other members, there was a problem
with dairy production in Canada. Formerly, $3 per hectolitre
was collected to subsidize exports of dairy products, mainly
butter and powdered milk, which represented about $160
million.
(1620)
The money was used to support the sales and distribution of
these dairy products. Because of the new GATT and NAFTA
agreements, Canada can no longer collect this money, because
according to GATT and NAFTA, for various reasons this is
perceived as money used to support unfair competition.
Canada is eliminating this $3 levy per hectolitre, as a result
milk prices will go down. Moreover, milk production in the six
eastern provinces, except Newfoundland, namely New
Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec,
Ontario, and Manitoba, which account for roughly 80 to 85 per
cent of milk production in Canada, will be pooled and placed
under the authority of one commission, with one price and one
milk.
In the past, there was a difference between fluid milk or
drinking milk and milk used in processing to make dairy
products such as cottage cheese, butter, and powdered milk.
From now on, there will be only one class of milk, one system
and one price. All the quotas will be pooled, which means that
all the provinces which currently have quotas will be able to
retain them. Quebec, which accounts for 48 per cent of the total
milk production, will keep the same production quotas, and so
will Ontario and the other provinces.
This new commission, which hopefully will be able to get
along with the provinces and operate as efficiently as possible,
will have increased powers enabling it to deal with the export of
milk based products. It would also be responsible for pricing and
selling quotas, for instance. Provinces will be allowed to trade
quotas.
However, we must admit that the main advantage of this new
formula is that dairy production risks will be spread among
dairy producers in eastern Canada, and that it will allow them to
share the costs of managing the system. No doubt this will
reduce the administration costs of the system, and we hope it
does.
I will make the point, and it is a point that must be made: dairy
production is very important to Quebec. In fact, the entire
agri-food system is very important. For example, in 1993,
Quebec exported over $1.5 billion worth of natural foodstuffs
and, in 1994, it increased these exports by almost 5 per cent over
the same period in the preceding year.
In 1989, for example, dairy products in Quebec represented
35 per cent of the province's total agricultural revenues and 38
per cent of Canada's dairy revenues.
The dairy industry in Quebec is beyond a doubt one of the
largest industries and therefore it must be preserved and
protected at all cost.
(1625)
Bill C-86 will result in the economic integration of this whole
sector, with milk production being consolidated under a new
Canadian Dairy Commission. This is one way of protecting the
common interests of all the provinces. Dairy producers are
united in protecting themselves and this vital industry.
It must be said that the supply management system,
particularly in the dairy sector, came under a lot of criticism in
the past. The members of the Reform Party said it would be
better to
12738
eliminate the supply management system, because they prefer
free competition.
My colleague for Richelieu pointed out that it was not a good
idea to eliminate the supply management system. On the
contrary, if we compare our system with the American one, we
see that we are well off with our own. My colleague for
Richelieu drew attention to an article by Claude Rivard,
president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait, in which Mr.
Rivard quotes two editorials in Hoard's Dairymen, which is
apparently the Bible of American farmers.
The two editorials in this ``Bible'' noted that dairy producers
had lost production value, in that an increasingly large part of
the market had been taken over by wholesalers, food chains and
supermarkets, to the detriment of farm producers. In other
words, dairy producers in the United States have lost money.
They have become poorer, they have suffered the highs and the
lows of an insufficiently controlled market.
The editorial in Hoard's Dairymen recommended that the
United States develop a system like Canada's, that is, a system
in which supply can be adjusted to suit demand. It pointed out
that the supply management system in Canada is highly
efficient. We know it is.
We know that dairy production is volatile because production
can be easily increased. Without a system to adjust production to
supply, prices would vary significantly. Therefore the supply
management system is a good one. It is better than the one in the
United States and warrants keeping.
Bill C-86 does just that: it makes dairy producers feel safer,
more secure about this system being maintained, now that they
have pooled their resources. This strengthens this branch of the
industry and gives some indication of what lies ahead for them.
This bill clearly shows that, contrary to the fears raised by
certain individuals about quotas going down in value, the supply
management system disappearing or this entire sector declining
in the coming years, the system will be maintained, and I might
add, even after Quebec has become sovereign.
(1630)
We must conclude from this bill that, even after Quebec has
become sovereign, the supply management system will almost
certainly be maintained. That is normal since, as we know, this
bill was developed in response to international agreements such
as NAFTA and GATT. It is an attempt to adjust to these
agreements, which will be maintained after Quebec has become
sovereign.
We know that Quebec as well as Canada will accept the
requirements of both NAFTA and GATT, according to which
there should be no unfair competition and no new tariff barriers
or other barriers like those currently encountered.
Again, this is very reassuring to dairy producers since all
dairy producers, from Nova Scotia to Manitoba, are now
together in the same system. It will certainly be to their
advantage to stick together, not only because this is an excellent
system, a system that will maintain reasonable levels of
production and income for them, but also because it keeps
American producers at bay.
If this system were to disappear tomorrow or be rejected all of
a sudden, then we would obviously have to compete with the
Americans, and our dairy producers might have a hard time
staying in business, in spite of the fact that they may offer higher
quality products than the Americans.
This threat from the U.S. would be quite worrisome for
producers, be they in Manitoba, Quebec or Nova Scotia, if they
did not stick together, if they did not join in this pooling system.
We can even predict that if Manitoba or Ontario decided to opt
out of the pooling system after Quebec achieves sovereignty,
this would create problems not only for that province and for
Quebec but also for all the other provinces. The whole system
could collapse, when it is beneficial to all dairy farmers in all six
provinces.
It would therefore be illogical, even irrational, and certainly
economically harmful to bring down the system being set up
under Bill C-86. This system is beneficial to all dairy farmers
and will be maintained after Quebec achieves sovereignty.
Quebec must achieve sovereignty, and it is in the farmers'
interests to acknowledge that this will be good for the country as
a whole because Quebec will want to repatriate the powers it
needs in other sectors. However, dairy farmers in Quebec will be
allowed to maintain this pooling system, which is beneficial to
them and to their counterparts in other provinces. Upon
achieving sovereignty, Quebec will be able to uphold the
agreements in this sector and those that will be negotiated in
other sectors.
(1635)
In fact, some economists published a report yesterday that
explained that because of GATT and NAFTA, similar
economically sound administrative agreements in other sectors
will be maintained and will continue to exist.
Once again, we have people saying that the end is near, that
new borders will arise, that there will be customs check points
between Quebec and Ontario. This is all purely hypothetical and
just a lot of scaremongering. We know that even Europe has
simple administrative systems that would work in Canada,
between Quebec and Canada, and would not prevent free
circulation of goods and services or alter generally beneficial
agreements that exist now, like the pooling system to be
implemented by Bill C-86.
All this will continue. There is no reason to believe it would
not, and the same applies to other sectors. There is every
indication that this is what will happen. In fact, farmers know
12739
that the federal system here in Ottawa constitutes the greatest
single threat to the agricultural sector. We have said this so often
it has become a-
An hon. member: A truism.
Mr. Marchand: -a truism that Quebec has been treated
unfairly by the federal government. This has been going on for
years. If Quebec really received its fair share, it would have had
as much as $800 million annually. Quebec got a raw deal under
the federal system. In fact, one of the threats to the dairy system,
for instance, is BST.
BST is a major threat, and this is very disturbing. The fact that
they want to introduce BST in Canada is very disturbing indeed.
I think it is totally unacceptable, and all dairy producers should
be up in arms, and consumers as well. Introducing BST in milk,
in this pure product, is almost sacrilege.
This is all very disturbing. I think Quebec is well advised to
get out of the federal system because the system is falling apart
and heavily in debt. Canada has been warned twice during the
past three years. The International Monetary Fund warned
Canada it would have to turn its economy around because it was
teetering on the brink. It seems our public finances are out of
control. It is like a ship sinking in the middle of the ocean, and
people who think the federal system is here to stay should
remember the Titanic.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the hon. member for Québec-Est. He often
performs eloquently on agricultural issues. However he speaks
of a fairy world in which we can have our cake and eat it too.
The member talked about the fear of the American market
system and protecting his own people, the farmers of Quebec,
from the American marketing system. The uniqueness of that is
that America is a nation state. We are not talking about Canada
being a group of 10 nation states; we are talking about Canada
being a federalist state. Perhaps the member has not studied
economic history, but sovereign states basically take care of
their own people first. The concept is the welfare of the people
who live within that country.
(1640)
The GATT negotiation is a way of playing baseball. We are to
play a game and these are the rules. Each team is trying to win.
Each team is trying to be effective. It is an illusion to have a
pooling system, keep all the good things and have a sovereign
state. To argue that we are going to keep the good and do away
with the bad is not how it works in reality. It has not worked in
any country. Sovereign nations will take care of their own
people first.
Farmers in Quebec are the highest per capita income earners
of all farmers in Canada. How could the member argue that they
have been taken advantage of or that they are at a great
disadvantage in the federal system when they are the best off
economically of all farmers in the country?
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Quebec
farmers are disadvantaged. It has been written all over federal
budgets for years. We had proof of that again recently. We are
reducing subsidies to milk producers in Quebec by 30 per cent.
That affects Quebec. It certainly affects Ontario as well.
However it is a known fact that Quebec has never got its share of
federal dollars in terms of agriculture. It has received much less
than its share. There is no doubt about it.
If agriculture in Quebec is strong and well developed it is
because we have good farmers. It is not at all due to the federal
government. We would have had a stronger agriculture sector if
the federal government had acted fairly with Quebec farmers.
It is not a fairy world to speak about the GATT and free trade.
It is obvious that the GATT and free trade with the United States
have rules. They set ways that commercial interests can trade
functions. We know as well that the understanding and trade
relations which exist now, today, tomorrow and every day before
Quebec sovereignty will continue afterward because that is one
of the principles of the GATT. Economic relationships will not
disappear overnight.
My hon. colleague is the one who is dreaming when he thinks
that the GATT has no weight. It is quite the contrary. The
negotiations have weight. The structure that will be put in place
by Bill C-86 will be respected by all other trade bodies, whether
it be the GATT or anything else.
I am not dreaming at all. We are not speaking of any kind of
fairy world when we say the agreements that were taken or will
be taken now will continue after Quebec sovereignty. It is
entirely logical and entirely reasonable. Farmers today are
undertaking the agreements in a very economic, reasonable and
logical way. There is nothing emotional involved. It is in their
best interest and it will be in their best interest after sovereignty.
The milk producers of Manitoba and the milk producers of
Ontario are not interested in United States milk producers
competing with Canada or Quebec. The same reasoning is
applicable elsewhere, like in Quebec and in every other
province. They are not interested in having U.S. competitors
coming into Canada. Besides, free trade does not allow it at the
moment. GATT does not allow it either. It will not allow it after
sovereignty. These agreements go beyond Quebec sovereignty.
These are international agreements.
12740
(1645)
The minute Quebec becomes sovereign, it will belong to
GATT. There is no reason to even deny that Quebec will belong
to GATT. We are living in a civilized world here. We are living in
a civilized world where people respect each other and respect
agreements that are signed in a reasonable way. Some people are
less civilized than others, certainly. Some people also see
problems where there are no. problems. They create fear but
there are no foundations to those fears.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. With apologies for
not recognizing him earlier, the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, no
apology is necessary. The mistake was at our end but
nevertheless it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-86.
Talking specifically to the bill, this is an act to amend the
Canadian Dairy Commission Act. The purpose of the bill is to
amend the act to provide for the replacement of the existing
system of levies with a system of pooling market returns from
different classes of milk. The idea of this bill is to bring that levy
system into alignment with Canada's international trade
agreements.
I am the first one to admit that I do not know a tremendous
amount about milk production. I am certainly a milk consumer. I
go to the 7-Eleven and buy milk. I put it on my cereal and am
happy to drink it, but I have only milked a cow once in my life.
Apparently it is all in the wrists, but I had very little luck with
that.
I will speak a little on the idea of trade. I will also talk a little
from my perspective as somebody who comes from a rural
constituency about the obvious need to be sensitive to the farm
community and the agricultural community while at the same
time recognizing the realities out there.
Certainly the reality today in this country and around the
world is that we are moving more and more toward free trade.
My hon. friend from Québec-Est has just spoken at length about
how Quebec is a sovereign country, and if it should ever become
a sovereign country, heaven forbid, how it would somehow turn
the tide against free trade or be a hold out to free trade. It would
protect itself from free trade as though free trade were like a
cafeteria where you could pick and choose the agreements you
wanted to make.
Of course, that is unrealistic. It took around 100 countries to
get a GATT agreement. I remind my hon. friend from
Québec-Est and my friends in the Bloc that coming up in the
year 2000, which is not very far away now, we are going to see
another round of negotiations where undoubtedly tariffs will
continue to fall. More and more pressure will be put on Canada
and countries like ours that have supply management systems.
We are eventually going to have to open up.
I also point out to my hon. friend that under the NAFTA
agreement and certainly under any new NAFTA agreements that
would come as a result of allowing countries like Chile and other
Latin American countries in, we are going to have to see things
open up.
Although I am somewhat sympathetic and I have heard from
my friends about how supply management has served Quebec
well in the past, particularly individual farmers, I can
completely understand how important agriculture is to a
province and to a country. It does not only produce agricultural
commodities but it also produces a lifestyle. It produces income
and people with fine character. That is very important and I
believe in that.
We are doing people a disservice if we are not straight with
them, if we do not tell them what the reality is. The reality is free
trade is coming our way and the best thing we can do now is to
begin to make adjustments so that we can survive in that free
trade environment.
(1650 )
Yesterday I watched on television as members of the Bloc and
members of the government debated back and forth about
whether or not Quebec was going to stay in Canada, what it
would be like if it was outside of Canada and so on.
People must remember that there is a third option. We do not
have to settle for status quo federalism, which not only the
people in Quebec are upset about, but also the people in the west.
The people in my constituency of Medicine Hat are very upset
with it.
We do not have to settle for sovereignty. In fact, I understand
my Bloc friends are moving away from sovereignty. Pretty soon,
who knows, maybe they will be committed federalists the way
they are moving around here.
An hon. member: They voted for the pension.
Mr. Solberg: They did vote for the MP pension. That is
notable. They are quite happy to take those Canadian dollars
when it comes to pension plans.
There is a third option. It is important for dairy farmers in
Quebec and all over the country to note that. Because only when
we consider the third option can we make the argument that
Canadian dairy farmers can still have a viable industry down the
road. They need not fear the American juggernaut because there
are ways to make dairy farmers in Canada competitive so they
can not only survive, but can thrive in the free market
environment.
Let me talk for a moment about that third option. Canadians
have been telling us that one of the biggest issues of concern to
them is the debt and the deficit. The government has taken some
baby steps to deal with that but those steps will not be adequate.
The reason that should be a concern to dairy farmers and
anybody who is in business is that with every day that goes by,
we go another $90 million to $100 million in the hole. Eventual-
12741
ly we have to pay interest on that. Of course taxes have to go up
to keep paying the interest on the debt and deficit. Every second
that goes by we go in the hole another $1,036. It is $90 million to
$100 million a day. Now our total debt is $551 billion and
climbing.
One thing that must happen in order to make dairy farmers
around the country competitive is we have to balance the budget.
We have asked the government over and over again to the point
where some people have become weary of it, but it is an
important issue. We have asked the government to tell us when it
will balance the budget. It has refused to do that. By refusing to
do that it sends a very negative message which also hurts dairy
farmers and anybody who is in business. The government sends
a message to the markets that it is not prepared to deal with the
problem seriously. Thus we have high interest rates which again
penalize particularly people in the agriculture industry.
Before Canadian agriculture can be competitive with farmers
around the world, we have to get those interest rates down. Right
now there is an approximate 3 per cent differential with the
United States. That is a huge competitive advantage for the
United States. We have to beat that down.
If we can get a hold on the deficit and the debt we will slay two
dragons. We will slay the dragon of high interest rates and the
dragon of high taxes, which make it very difficult to do business
in the country and compete internationally.
That is the option Reform is offering. It is one that the federal
government certainly has not talked about. Of course, our Bloc
friends would just as soon be out of the country so they have not
really offered any constructive ideas for dealing with the debt
and the deficit.
While we are on the subject, Reform has also talked about the
need to pass language and cultural issues down to the provinces.
That would solve a lot of concerns people in Quebec have about
confederation and federalism as it is today. We are sensitive to
the fact they wish to preserve their language and culture. Reform
agrees with that. We believe there can be a way of
accommodating the desire of provinces to have control over
language and culture in a large country such as Canada where
there are many different interests.
There are many other things we could talk about and many
other arguments we could make for our vision of federalism. I
hope those two address specifically some of the concerns that
Quebec dairy farmers would have about competing more in a
free trade environment.
One thing that is going to be happening in the near future and
which the government has talked about is the need to expand the
NAFTA.
(1655 )
The talk is that Chile will become involved very quickly in
NAFTA. When that happens there are many people who suspect
that the Americans will argue for more of an opening up of some
of the protection we now provide for supply management. If that
happens, if government is committed to expanding the NAFTA
agreement as it says it is, there must be some accommodation to
some of our trading partners to open these things up. Frankly, I
would be surprised if the government denied that it was going to
have to open things up a little bit more.
Setting that aside for a moment, we have already talked a bit
about the GATT agreement which will be renegotiated in a few
years time and undoubtedly tariffs will be coming down more.
Given that reality, I say to my Bloc friends across the way that
they are doing the dairy farmers in their own province a great
disservice by telling them, leading them on and making them
think that there is some way we can preserve the status quo. Well
there is no way.
The best example of that, which my friend from
Kindersley-Lloydminster pointed to earlier on, is what
happened when the government made changes to the WGTA.
People out west are saying: ``Yes, WGTA is coming to an end.
We do not have a problem with that, but it would be nice if we
could have had a little notice. It would have been nice if we
could have made some of the changes that we needed to make to
the transportation system so that we could compete in that free
market environment''.
On the one hand, we are moving away from the free market
environment by dumping the WGTA, which is fine, but on the
other hand, the transportation system is still not responsive to a
free market environment. Unfortunately, in the next year or so at
least and probably three years, farmers in the west are going to
be caught in that situation. That is unfair and really reflects poor
planning on behalf of the government. It hurts people. I believe
many farmers in the west may have to go out of business because
of that very poor planning on behalf of the government.
Let us not repeat that mistake now by permitting dairy
farmers across the country to think that somehow we can hold on
to the status quo. The fact is that free trade is coming.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, I do not
know a lot about the production of milk but I do know a little bit
about the consumption of it. I want to address some of the
comments the member for Québec-Est made with respect to
how this benefits dairy farmers.
I remind my hon. friend that there has to be a balance here.
Consumers need to be considered when we talk about these
things. When my friend talks about how dairy farmers in the
United States are suffering and this that and the other thing, he
should know that consumers are benefiting by the fact that there
12742
is that competition. If anyone doubts that, they need only cross
the border and look at the difference in the price of cheese,
butter or milk compared to Canadian prices.
I do not think the difference in those prices has to be the
difference in profit margin between Canada and the U.S. If we
could get our act together by getting our own input costs down, I
think our own dairy people can be extremely productive and
profitable. However, the key is for us to deal with that debt and
deficit.
When consumers have more money in their pockets by virtue
of lower prices for things like milk, butter and cheese, they can
also buy more of them. However, when they are very expensive
because supply management builds in what I think we would
regard as some inefficiencies, then people are a little bit more
squeezed when it comes to buying groceries and they just cannot
buy the same quantities they would be able to buy otherwise.
That is something I would like my friend from Québec-Est to
consider.
I talked a little bit about the debt and the deficit and the need
to offer a third option. One of the things that came up yesterday
in debate between the Liberals and the Bloc was the whole idea
of the status quo federalism versus separation.
(1700 )
One of the things happening lately with the Bloc Quebecois
and the Parti Quebecois is they have been sending out signs that
they are moving more toward the idea of sovereignty association
and who knows what now. There has been a lot of talk about their
having all kinds of internal problems and about some people
being perhaps more committed to federalism than they would
like us to believe.
We would like to offer a chance to our friends in the Bloc
Quebecois to take the extra step, come a little closer and
consider Reform's vision of a decentralized Canada in which
provinces will have their rights respected under the
Constitution, in which we absolutely and completely support
their rights to make some of the decisions that affect their
well-being but on the other hand still allow them to remain part
of one country and have more control of some of the things
important to them in terms of international trade by virtue of the
fact that they are part of one big country. They are not tiny
countries among 150 in the world. They are part of Canada.
Canada carries tremendous weight by virtue of its reputation and
its size in terms of its economy.
We encourage our friends to consider this when they are
talking about international trade. Obviously when we have more
trade in the world because of a larger economy we will be able to
make better agreements. We encourage our friends in the Bloc to
think about that as well.
Any time the government brings forward legislation which
brings rules and regulations in line with international
agreements it is a step in the right direction. There are still some
provinces concerned about the bill. We respect that.
I encourage the government and members of the Bloc
Quebecois to continue to move toward agreements that
recognize the reality that we must have free trade. It is where
everyone is heading.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the hon. member.
He talked about competition. He envied the American
agricultural system and its milk producers. In Canada milk
producers are better compensated than their American
counterparts.
Even so, the top 10 per cent of dairy producers only receive
about 5 per cent return on their invested capital. Clearly from a
business operation Canadian farmers are far from being
wealthy. The hon. member is speaking about emulating a system
that will make Canadian farmers far poorer than that.
It is interesting that we have had both the Bloc and Reform
members on their feet today speaking about the same system.
They are talking about decentralizing, weakening the federal
system.
The NAFTA and the GATT have already weakened the federal
government's ability to exercise economic policy within our
borders. By decentralizing even further and allocating more
powers to the provinces there is a point at which there would be
nothing left. That is what both of these parties basically want to
do. I am very happy to belong to the governing party which
understands the need for national standards and national policy.
We are debating a pooling agreement which draws to our
attention the importance of a federal system with provinces and
the federal government setting national standards, in this case
for the pooling of milk.
(1705 )
It has the possibility of being downloaded to the provinces by
certain authorities. At the same time it is establishing national
standards. I believe some of my colleagues in the Reform Party
would do the reverse. They would have each province make its
own agricultural policy as it affected them.
I would like the hon. member to address whether they are in
favour of a supply managed system Canada or an American free
market system with lower incomes to farmers than in the
Canadian system.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked the
wrong question. He asked if we are in favour of supply
management as if that is a long term option. The hon. member
should be
12743
completely up front with his own constituents, the people of his
province and the people of Quebec. He must know that although
the government fought against NAFTA it has signed on to it. It
said it did not really believe in the whole thing but it has signed
on to it. He must know supply management as it exists today is
not a long term option.
We are moving toward free trade so there is no point in pining
in some sentimental way for the way things used to be 20 years
ago. Tariffs are dropping every year. Ultimately we will see a
situation, since the government signed the agreement, in which
dairy producers will have to compete more on a premarket basis.
Let us not complain about the way things are and how they
used to be. Instead, let us get ourselves ready. The best way to do
that is to get rid of the taxes. The hon. member talked about the
American system. The one thing I admire about the United
States is it has been able to hold its taxes down which gives it a
tremendous trade advantage.
We will be in the hole $32 billion this year. By the end of the
government's term it will be over $100 billion. The Liberals are
adding to it when they reap huge rewards through their MP
pensions, but that is another debate.
The point is we have to get a handle on the debt and deficit so
we can get the taxes down so dairy producers and all business
people will be competitive. Let us not be sentimental about the
past. The past is past. Let the dead bury the dead; let us get on
with the future and start making the changes we have to make in
order to be competitive.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see that the Liberals are anxiously waiting
for my comments. I hope I will not disappoint them.
I am very pleased to take part in this debate for two specific
reasons. First, there is the importance of agriculture for the
economy of my riding and my region of Estrie, the Eastern
Townships. However, I also want to discuss certain arguments
raised during this debate on Bill C-86, particularly this idea
that, according to our federalist colleagues, once Quebec
becomes sovereign, it would be impossible to preserve any form
of agreement between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
First, I want to point out that the Eastern Toownships, where I
come from, and particularly the riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, which I represent here,
produce 2.6 million hectolitres of milk every year. This
translates into net annual revenues of over $130 million for
producers.
(1710)
Dairy producers in the riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead alone provide 1.2 million
hectolitres of milk per year, which amounts to more than $60
million in net revenues. Roughly 50 per cent of the milk
produced in the Eastern Townships comes from the riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. Although I did not make an in
depth study of the location of producers in my riding, I would
say that three quarters of the production comes from the
Coaticook region, which is known, not only locally, but
throughout Quebec and even Canada, as the top milk producing
region.
Each year, the beautiful city of Coaticook holds its dairy
festival. This event is an opportunity to fully recognize the
importance of that industry in my region and in my riding. It is
also an opportunity for our fellow citizens to celebrate, to meet,
and basically to enjoy the fruits of their labour. This is one of the
reasons why I really wanted to take part in this debate.
I said a moment ago that I wanted to focus more on the
relations between states, or to put it another way, between
economic partners in the Canadian economic union, rather than
on the actual substance of Bill C-86. My colleague from
Frontenac, the Bloc Quebecois agriculture critic, has brilliantly,
as always, explained why the Bloc Quebecois supported this
bill.
He is very familiar with the subject, with all aspects of the
bill, and was able to substantiate his arguments, unlike the
Liberal members opposite, of course, and our colleagues in the
Reform Party, who would like to see a system of free enterprise,
with no constraints whatsoever, a sort of no holds barred
capitalism really, such as we had a number of years ago, and
such as can still be found in some parts of the United States.
Often our Liberal and Reform colleagues, and the member for
Kingston and the Islands is a good example, use the word
``separation'' when speaking about the sovereignty of Quebec.
Mr. Milliken: That is what it is.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): The
Liberal party, the Liberal government, which is using our taxes
to conduct all sorts of opinion polls, saw that using the word
``separation'' worked to their advantage, because it struck fear
into the hearts of Quebecers, and could lead to a ``no'' in the
referendum.
(1715)
When people look more closely at what sovereignists are
saying, when they take the time to really listen to what they have
to say, they see right away that the sovereignist message is one
of openness, of self-confidence.
To put it briefly, what sovereignists want is for us to be able to
look after our own affairs in Quebec, to be able to make our own
decisions about the kind of society we wish to build, the kind of
12744
society we wish to live in, and to be able to determine, on the
basis of our needs, our interests and our values, what we want to
share with our neighbours and with which of our neighbours we
want to do business. That is what Quebec sovereignty would
mean.
Let me give you a few examples. During Canada's 1988
election campaign on free trade, one of the strongest proponents
of the free trade agreement with the U.S. was Bernard Landry,
who is now Quebec's Deputy Premier.
I would say that he spoke up in just about every forum. He was
then a staunch ally of the Conservative Party, arguing that it was
necessary, not only preferable but essential, for the economy of
Quebec and Canada as a whole to expand our markets and sell
more products to the Americans, the U.S. being our closest
neighbour.
This was acknowledged by then Prime Minister Mulroney,
who, on several occasions, used the example given by Bernard
Landry to say what a decisive role it played in that election
campaign. Well, Mr. Landry is a convinced and convincing
sovereignist, an active politician who, for more than 30
years-without adding years to his real age-, has been
defending this theory with brilliance and eloquence.
A few days ago, at a fundraiser for the Parti Quebecois in
Montreal, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, told business
people, and I quote: ``We may be a small country in terms of
population, but we are successful, fulfilled and wealthier''. Mr.
Parizeau did not give any examples, but he could have
mentioned Norway, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland, small
countries whose populations are roughly the same as Quebec's.
Mr. Parizeau went on to say, ``We may have a small population
and still be a prosperous, wealthy society, on one basic
condition: that we have access to large markets without ever
giving up our identity''.
That is what was said by the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau,
whom our Liberal friends call a separatist. In fact, Mr. Parizeau
said this: ``What I personally want for my people, my nation, is
for us to decide to take our collective future into our own hands
and decide what we want to share with others''. Like all
sovereignists, he acknowledged the need to have as open a
market as possible.
(1720)
In that sense, Quebec sets a fine example with this Bill C-86
before us, since it was based on the Quebec model that the
agreement was entered into by all the provinces, and I repeat the
provinces, because all the federal government has to do is pass
legislation in the House of Commons recognizing this de facto
situation. It is a good thing that the federal government is not
involved; it would only make matters worse.
So, based on the Quebec model, it is possible to enter into
agreements with our Canadian, American and international
partners, as it is recognized that this kind of decision must arise
from mutual interests and have something in it for everyone
involved.
I want to stress that Bill C-86 is an excellent example. Six
provinces have already approved the agreement, while three
others still have reservations. We are letting them think it over.
That is what co-operation is about. That is what I call openness.
Why impose one's views on everyone else? Give people a
chance to change their mind. We have to be open to the world.
That is what Quebec sovereignty means.
In the minutes remaining, I would like to address government
intervention and its negative impact on the economy in general,
and the agricultural industry in particular, seeing that the debate
is on agriculture.
I shall refer to an article published in La terre de chez nous,
which, I should point out to our colleagues opposite, is not the
Bloc's official newspaper. It really belongs to the agricultural
community and provides farmers with information on what is
happening in their region and elsewhere in the industry.
In the latest edition of La terre de chez nous, for the week of
May 11 to 17, 1995, editor in chief Claude Lafleur quoted an
example of inconsistent and harmful interference on the part of
the federal government based on the implementation of the
finance minister's budget that we have been debating in this
House these the past few months. What example is that? I urge
my Liberal colleagues to pay close attention to what Mr. Lafleur
said, as it contradicts what their little red book says.
What did Mr. Lafleur say? The president of La terre de chez
nous told the agricultural industry that it should expect the worst
from the finance minister's budget, adding that it was a real
Pandora's box, that new harmful effects were discovered every
day, and that it would probably never end, unless, of course,
Quebec decided to assume full authority.
Mr. Lafleur also had this to say: ``Indeed, this is not the last of
the bad news coming from the Martin budget. For example, the
federal government just announced that it was withdrawing
from the agricultural employment services program''. That
comment was made in reference to the red book. The Liberals
were elected under false pretenses in 1993, when they
campaigned with their red book and insisted on the importance
of creating jobs.
(1725)
But what are they doing now that they are in office? They axe
agricultural employment services, a successful program which
has been in place for over 20 years. During the last year, the
minister-whom I once called the minister of human resources
impoverishment, but whose title really is Minister of Human
Resources Development-asked the UPA to reach an agreement
with his department to ensure the maintenance of these agricul-
12745
tural employment services, which provide farmers with a
qualified manpower when they need it.
Only a few months ago, the minister said: ``We have an
agreement with the UPA in Quebec to keep these services
going''. Then in the Martin budget, the government decides to
axe this program. It will be cut by 20 per cent in 1995-96, 40 per
cent in 1996-97 and dropped altogether in 1997-98. This
example does not come from the Bloc Quebecois or the
separatist Minister of Agriculture in Quebec but from the editor
in chief of La Terre de chez nous, Claude Lafleur, whose
integrity is well known and whose objective approach to the
issues can certainly not be faulted by our Liberal friends.
That is a very real example of the Liberal government's
negative impact on agriculture. I will conclude, Mr. Speaker,
since you are signalling I have only two minutes left. I would
like to ask for more time, but I know it is no use trying since I
would not get unanimous consent. So I will simply ask them to
come back next time, and maybe some day they will understand.
In concluding, I would like to comment on what was said by
the hon. member for Medicine Hat who expressed so well and so
consistently the Reform Party's position on trade between
regions and between countries. Reform Party members want to
see a return to a genuinely free market without government
constraints. The hon. member for Medicine Hat said that, if we
want a more open market, which is what sovereignists want as
well, as I said earlier, we cannot have a supply management
system.
I simply want to say the hon. member is mistaken. Supply
management is a way to deal with domestic problems. Its role is
not to regulate international trade or trade between regions. So
we can have a supply management system, and still open our
borders to international trade.
_____________________________________________
12745
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from May 16, 1995, consideration of the
motion 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.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to the
order adopted on Tuesday, May 16, 1995, the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion by
Mr. McClelland at second reading of Bill C-319.
Call in the members.
[English]
Before the taking of the vote:
The Deputy Speaker: The division will be taken row by row,
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the motion to the back of the Chamber. Then those in favour
of the motion on the other side of the House will do the same.
[Translation]
Those opposed will then be recorded in the same order.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
(Division No. 223)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Alcock
Assad
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bevilacqua
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Cannis
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Cummins
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Easter
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Keyes
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Maloney
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Rideout
Ringma
Robichaud
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Tobin
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Wood
Young -117
12746
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Allmand
Assadourian
Asselin
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bélisle
Caccia
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dubé
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Finlay
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Mercier
Ménard
Nault
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Reed
Regan
Sauvageau
Solberg
Taylor
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Wayne-67
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bouchard
Brien
Cauchon
Daviault
Duceppe
Dupuy
Gaffney
Gauthier (Roberval)
Jacob
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marchi
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunez
Ouellet
Parrish
Paré
Peterson
Pomerleau
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1755)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent in the House to revert to Government Orders for the
purpose of disposing of Bill C-86, which was under debate
before the interruption. I think there is consent in the House to
complete that bill right now without further debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
12746
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-86, an act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, the bill stands referred to
the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 o'clock, the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed in today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
12746
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate
steps to initiate a royal commission of inquiry into the Air-India disaster of
June 23, 1985 which claimed the lives of 329 people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, June 23, 1995 will be the 10th
anniversary of what is and was the worst mass murder ever in
Canadian history. Three hundred and twenty-nine people lost
their lives on board Air-India flight 182 while over the coast of
Ireland.
The flight originated in Vancouver. Of the deceased, 280 were
Canadians, 80 of whom were children. In the 10 years since the
tragedy, a royal commission of inquiry has not been held. There
has been no parliamentary inquiry whatsoever into this terrorist
act.
I remind hon. members there was an inquiry in Ireland. There
was another inquiry in India. Notwithstanding that over 280
people on board were Canadians, the Mulroney administration
refused to initiate a royal commission of inquiry.
12747
It is essential an inquiry take place in order for the people of
Canada, the people of the world, to understand exactly what
transpired both before and after the tragedy on June 23, 1985.
There is evidence to suggest the Government of Canada in the
months before June 1985 was warned there could be or would be
a serious act of terrorism by Sikh extremists in Canada.
June 1985 marked the first anniversary of the storming of the
Sikh holy temple at Amritsar. The Indian government stormed
the most holy place in June of that year and a number of people
were killed. As a result Sikh extremists worldwide were
suspected of planning retaliatory measures to seek revenge.
The government of India, aware that the first anniversary was
coming up, gave a specific warning to the Government of
Canada and in particular to the foreign affairs department, at
that time headed by Joe Clark, that there could be an act of
terrorism.
Notwithstanding the advanced warnings, there was absolutely
no enhanced security for this flight. The X-ray machinery that
would examine the luggage boarded on to the ill-fated flight
broke down and instead of the bells and whistles going off the
luggage was simply loaded on to the plane and scanned with a
hand scanner.
In view of the warnings given to the Government of Canada,
the luggage should have been more thoroughly searched by hand
or they should have waited until proper machinery was in place.
(1805 )
During the weeks preceding the disaster the Prime Minister of
India was scheduled to visit the United States. The American
authorities were able to uncover a plot to assassinate Rajiv
Ghandi at the time. It was determined there was a link between
those alleged to have conspired to assassinate the Indian Prime
Minister and a Sikh extremist group in British Columbia.
The security intelligence service, our secret service, was
monitoring the activity of Sikh extremists in Canada,
particularly in British Columbia. Not only was it trailing a prime
suspect in the Air-India and the Narita bombing acts of
terrorism, it also tapped their telephone lines.
In the weeks preceding the Air-India disaster CSIS agents
actually saw the two prime suspects detonate a bomb in the
woods outside of Duncan, British Columbia. Notwithstanding
this information and in spite of the fact that they were actually
listening in on telephone conversations, they discontinued the
surveillance on these two individuals. Why did they do that?
They assumed these people were constructing bombs to be used
in acts of terrorism outside of Canada. Why did they not take
action on the wiretap evidence they had? The evidence obtained
was in the Punjabi language. There was no Punjabi speaking
CSIS agent to translate this information. The information
received as a result of these interceptions could very well have
led the police to foil this act of terrorism.
In my view the Government of Canada of the day was grossly
negligent. Is it any wonder the government was subsequently
party to a settlement with the families of the victims? It
contributed an estimated $20 million to a compensation fund for
the families of the murder victims, and that was also a big secret.
If there was no negligence on the part of the Government of
Canada, why did it contribute to the compensation fund?
There are many very disturbing unanswered questions in this
tragedy. To put this tragic act of terrorism into perspective, this
was and continues to be today the most hideous act of aviation
terrorism ever. The Pan Am Lockerbie terrorist act took a
significant number of lives but nowhere near the number in the
Air-India disaster. It was the worst mass murder in Canadian
history.
That is the backdrop and when we look at the involvement of
the various government agencies we have to ask whether the
response of the Government of Canada was adequate in the
circumstances.
Following the act of terrorism in June 1985, the security
intelligence service erased two-thirds of the tapes it had
gathered in the months leading up to the tragedy and in the
several years that followed. It says it was done inadvertently,
that there were no regulations in place to maintain that evidence,
that there was nothing on those tapes to assist in the criminal
investigation. A transcript was never taken of those tapes.
(1810 )
If one is dealing with the worst mass murder in Canadian
history, why would one not preserve every last piece of evidence
the authorities were able to uncover or to gather in the
investigation?
There is no doubt in my mind there was a cover-up. The
Mulroney administration refused to initiate an inquiry because
it was trying to cover up the actions of agencies of the
Government of Canada for which it was responsible. The Prime
Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of
Transport and the solicitor general of the day were all ultimately
responsible for the gross negligence on the part of individuals
within that administration.
The erasing of the tapes is further evidence they were trying to
destroy evidence that could prove the security intelligence
service and the RCMP were grossly negligent. Not only did they
erase tapes, but false affidavits were sworn. Members of CSIS
broke the law by swearing false affidavits in order to convince a
judge to issue warrants to wire tap the telephone conversations
12748
of numerous individuals subsequent to the disaster. The security
intelligence service started to panic. The RCMP started to panic
realizing what it had done or what it had failed to do. Then it
deliberately misled the court into issuing warrants.
Those people have not been held accountable. There has never
been an inquiry to look into the actions of the agencies of the
Government of Canada.
Throughout the last 10 years the government and the previous
administration have continually maintained criminal
investigation is ongoing. That is the excuse the RCMP has put
forward over the years. It is a lame excuse. According to press
reports today the criminal investigation is virtually
non-existent.
There are two people working part time on the worst mass
murder in Canadian history. If the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police does not have the evidence in order to secure a conviction
after 10 years, surely at some point it has to say the investigation
is concluded and it cannot move any further.
As I indicated, I believe there are reasons. The RCMP or
certain individuals within the RCMP and the security
intelligence service do not want a royal commission of inquiry.
There is also an international element to this tragedy, not only
because it was an Air-India plane blown up, not only because of
the involvement of Sikh extremists, but also because there is
evidence suspects involved in the bombing of Air-India were
trained in the United States in Alabama. The operator of the
soldier of fortune training school in Alabama, Frank Camper,
has indicated Sikh extremists were trained at his mercenary
training school.
One would think that if the RCMP was doing its work it would
personally interview Mr. Camper and others who might have
evidence in the United States. The FBI refused to allow the
RCMP to investigate or question Mr. Camper or others in the
United States. Why would the Government of the United States
and the FBI refuse to co-operate with Canadian authorities with
respect to this matter?
(1815 )
The theory put forward, with evidence, by a number of people
in Canada and abroad is that the American government, the
Pakistani government and the Indian government knew that Sikh
extremists were being trained; that the Pakistani government
facilitates the training of Sikh extremists abroad; that the
American government needed the co-operation of President Zia
of the Pakistani government at the time to ensure that Pakistan
could continue to be used as a conduit, as a route, for arms for
the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
There is evidence to suggest that there was pressure by
foreign governments, in particular the American government,
the Indian government and the Pakistani government, on the
Canadian government not to hold a royal commission of inquiry
because of the international implications of what happened.
Notwithstanding the alleged involvement of other
governments or the connection with other governments and
other foreign nationals, this government has an obligation to the
families of the victims to ensure that those responsible are
brought to justice. If there is insufficient evidence to bring those
people to justice then the answers to all the disturbing questions
must be answered. The only way to do that is through a royal
commission of inquiry.
I believe that the government has a strong suspicion and in
fact knows who was responsible for the Air-India disaster that
killed 329 people. It lacks the evidence to secure a conviction.
There is not the will to initiate a royal commission of inquiry.
The reason I say the government is aware of who is responsible
is because there has been a conviction in the case of the Narita
bombing.
If you recall, Mr. Speaker, 52 minutes before the Air-India
flight was blown out of the skies over Ireland, a bomb went off at
the Narita airport in Tokyo. The CP flight originated in Canada.
It landed in Tokyo. The baggage handlers were removing the
luggage from the CP flight to an Air-India flight that was about
to leave for Bombay when a bomb exploded and two baggage
handlers were killed.
As a result of the meticulous investigation on the part of
Japanese authorities, an individual by the name of Inderjit Singh
Reyat was convicted and is now incarcerated in Canada for that
crime. Mr. Reyat and Talwinder Singh Parmar were arrested in
the Air-India disaster but were released after a preliminary
inquiry in British Columbia.
There was a connection. There is no doubt that those
responsible for the Narita bombing were also responsible for the
Air-India act of terrorism, the Air-India mass murder. Yet we
are unable to secure a conviction.
I have asked previous solicitors general about this. The
Government of Canada has never offered a reward for
information leading to the arrest and conviction of those
responsible for the Air-India disaster. That act of terrorism was
not the act of a single person. It was a conspiracy and several
people were involved.
Why has the government refused over the years to offer a
reward, whether it is $1 million or $2 million or $5 million? If
the Government of Canada is able to pay the family of Clifford
Olson $100,000 to locate the bodies of his victims, surely it can
offer a substantial reward to close the final chapter on this ugly
episode in Canadian history. However, for some reason a reward
has not been offered.
12749
(1820)
In conclusion, there is no doubt in my mind that the Mulroney
administration was party to a cover-up. As well, there is no
doubt in my mind that the present administration will do the
right thing and call a royal commission of inquiry before the
10th anniversary on June 23. The reason I say that is because the
Prime Minister, two years ago, while leader of the opposition,
wrote in a letter:
We will continue to press the government to create a royal commission to
look into the Air-India disaster.
I have every reason to believe that the Prime Minister will
honour his word and a royal commission of inquiry will be
appointed. However, I would still like to see the House take a
stand on the issue.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. member
for Bellechasse, I would like to indicate that this is a very
important issue to a number of members here tonight. I wonder
whether members would agree to share their time.
Would that be agreeable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like
my colleague from Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I
listened to the hon. member for York South-Weston present his
motion M-293 regarding the Air India tragedy of June 23, 1985,
with great interest.
To demonstrate just how lightly the government of the time
took this tragedy, in which 329 travellers, 280 of which were
Canadians, most of them of Indian origin, I would mention that
the Mulroney government's first gesture was to send its
condolences to the Republic of India. That is indicative of how
the case was handled. It also helps to understand how the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service carried out its
investigation or, more exactly, did not carry out the
investigation.
It is clear, and the hon. member for York South-Weston
mentioned this during his representation, that the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service's approach to the investigation is
questionable. The attitude of the RCMP, which apparently put a
lid on its own investigation and only assigned staff to the effort
part-time, is as questionable as that of CSIS.
Given the scope of this tragedy, 329 deaths as was mentioned
earlier-the biggest mass slaughter in the air ever to have been
executed at that time-it is obvious that we should go back and
take a better look at this case.
Is the royal commission of inquiry requested by the hon.
member for York South-Weston the ideal solution? Maybe not.
Obviously, ten years after the fact, we will not be able to
interview the victims of the tragedy. Obviously, parallel
investigations were carried out by organizations in other
countries. It may be wise to pool all of the knowledge collected.
Nevertheless, the very serious allegations made about CSIS,
while not meriting a royal commission of inquiry, certainly
should be looked into by the sub-committee on national
security.
It would appear that this sub-committee, which is comprised
of parliamentarians and would cost taxpayers nothing, contrary
to a royal commission of inquiry, is the appropriate body to
study the way the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
handled this and other cases, where its work has left to be
desired. I think it is high time we cleaned up the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service.
(1825)
That is why, given all of the investigations that have already
been done, since it is highly improbable that the exact causes of
the tragedy will ever be found and since almost all avenues of
inquiry have already been exhausted, I am of the opinion that
creating a royal commission of inquiry would be a waste of
money. However, I am in favour of a parliamentary review of the
way in which the Canadian Security Intelligence Service carried
out its investigation into the matter.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for
York South-Weston for bringing this motion to the floor of the
House.
The timing is most appropriate. In just over one month's time
it will be the 10th anniversary of the bombing of Air-India flight
182. It is with full confidence that I use the word bombing and
not accident or incident or any other marginal term. What
happened to Air-India flight 182 was an act of terrorism, an act
of cold blooded murder and an act of cowardice.
Unfortunately no one has been brought to trial in this case yet.
If my hon. colleague is accurate and others are involved, it is
only a matter of proof that they have not been brought to court, I
would like to stress, yet.
The member for York South-Weston seems to be of the
opinion that charges will never be laid in this case so let us move
on to a royal commission. If this was the case, I would have no
problem in providing my unconditional support to the call for a
royal commission.
However, I believe that the member for York South-Weston
may be a little premature in his assumption that charges will
never be laid. On April 4, when Commissioner Murray of the
RCMP appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs, I asked him if he was opposed to a judicial inquiry
into the Air-India bombing. His response was:
We are not at all opposed to having a judicial inquiry. Our only concern was to
undertake the judicial inquiry while the investigation was still active-The
12750
investigation is still active-I have made a commitment to the Solicitor General
that when we reach a point where we feel that we are at an impasse, I will at that
time come forward and indicate so. But we have not reached that point. The
investigation is still optimistically being pursued.
I accept the word of the commissioner. I hope that this
commissioner will make an intense effort in the near future to
advance the investigation or to accept that the investigation is
over and the time has come to move on. But until that time the
question is, will a royal commission affect any subsequent
criminal proceedings?
Again the member for York South-Weston is impeccable in
his timing. Less than two weeks ago the Supreme Court of
Canada handed down its decision on the holding of a public
inquiry into the Westray coal mine disaster at the same time that
criminal proceedings are under way.
The decision in that case was that the court should be most
hesitant to interfere with interests of holding a public inquiry.
However, the court limited its decision specifically to the
Westray case and would not speculate on other cases.
For example, the supreme court pointed out that the Westray
criminal case was being tried in front of a judge alone. As well,
the court believed that the commissioner of any public inquiry
would not compel the accused to testify at the inquiry until the
criminal case was concluded. Thus some significant
considerations have to be resolved before a royal commission
into the Air-India bombing is conducted.
Do we want to sacrifice any subsequent criminal charges for
the sake of holding a royal commission today? I think not. This
is where a royal commission would create a great many
problems.
In the Westray decision the supreme court recognized the
protection of the charter to any potentially accused. They could
be compelled to testify in front of the royal commission but their
testimony could not be used at the trial. That is a given.
What would cause even greater problems in pursuing criminal
charges against those responsible for bombing Air-India is the
difficulty created by the derivative evidence.
(1830 )
This means that if any new information comes out at the royal
commission, at a subsequent criminal proceeding the defence
could claim that the crown was only able to proceed with
charges with the evidence that was a result of compulsory
incriminating testimony and therefore the evidence would not
be admissible.
In addition, in the Westray case the court ruled that the
testimony of the accused must not be published and the report of
the inquiry must remain confidential to ensure that any accused
received a fair opportunity at trial.
The whole point of a royal commission should be to bring the
truth about Air-India to light, and this could not be done if the
evidence could not be published. Our first priority must be to
bring those responsible for the Air-India bombing to trial.
I know that my colleague for York South-Weston is
concerned about the way both the RCMP and CSIS have handled
the investigation of this terrorist act. And there should be a
cause for concern. I have no doubt that when the evidence of
how these two agencies handled their investigation comes to
light, it will be apparent that mistakes were made.
Who will ultimately be held accountable for these mistakes?
Most of the senior management who were in place at CSIS and
the RCMP have retired. There is concern that the whole truth
may never come out. But when it comes to choosing between
pointing fingers at those responsible for some of the mistakes at
CSIS and the RCMP or bringing the individuals who are
responsible for the worst mass murder in Canadian history to
justice, I am afraid there is no comparison. Bringing to trial
those responsible for the bombing has to take priority.
To get back to the motion before us today, if there is any way a
royal commission could be held without jeopardizing the
crown's ability to bring those murderers to trial, I would fully
support such a call. Let us put the speculation to rest and give
everyone involved in the case the opportunity to give their
testimony. I am sure that many investigators at both CSIS and
the RCMP would love to have the opportunity to provide their
versions of the event.
Let us give the families of the victims an opportunity to
finally hear what happened to their loved ones. Let us give the
Canadian public the truth about what happened with the
bombing of Air India. We should be told what the Canadian
government was doing in regard to this issue prior to the
bombing. Could it have been prevented? We should be told
about the subsequent investigation. Did a turf war between the
RCMP and CSIS impede a proper investigation?
The member for York South-Weston is absolutely correct:
all this information must be made public and a royal
commission or a judicial inquiry should occur. The only
question is the timing.
The first and foremost concern on this issue must be that those
individuals involved in the cowardly bombing of Air-India must
be brought to justice. If a royal commission will not interfere or
jeopardize a criminal trial, then we should proceed immediately.
However, if it is likely that this royal commission would provide
these mass murderers with a technicality to escape conviction, I
am afraid the commission should wait.
12751
While it is important that we ensure that the bombing of
Air-India flight 182 is never forgotten, we owe it to the victims
and their families that those responsible are brought to justice.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton is going to share his 10-minute slot with one
of his colleagues.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the agreement was that I would share remainder time.
I am pleased to rise today to discuss private member's Motion
No. 293. Ten years after, we cannot adequately acknowledge the
suffering of those left behind, but we can look to the changes in
our air travel safety that have occurred as a result of this very
tragic event.
Immediately following the disaster, the interdepartmental
committee on security and intelligence was instructed to study
and report on airport and airline security in Canada. The
recommendations stemming from this report have been
implemented, resulting in significant improvements to aviation
security in Canada.
New air carrier and airport security regulations have been
introduced, which establish high minimum standards. These
regulations are under constant review and adjustment to respond
to the changing situation.
Monitoring and inspection of airport and air carrier security
measures have been greatly increased. Also, more stringent
security controls on passengers, carry-on baggage, checked
baggage, cargo and mail have been introduced on international
flights. Air carriers are prohibited from carrying the baggage of
persons not on board the aircraft.
(1835 )
The range of enforcement mechanisms has also been
strengthened with the introduction in 1989 of the designated
provisions regulations, which is an administrative monetary
penalty scheme. These regulations were amended in 1993,
increasing the number of punishable aviation security
regulatory offences and the size of maximum penalties that can
be levied.
Additional X-ray detection equipment and explosive vapour
detectors have been put into service. A training program for
security screening personnel and their trainers has been
developed and implemented by Transport Canada. Courses are
regularly scheduled. Internal security training programs for
Transport Canada security inspectors and other aviation security
specialists are also in place.
In addition, new measures have been implemented that
require air carriers operating in Canada to carry out a program of
initial and annual recurrent crew member aviation security
training. All persons employed at major airports who have
access to restricted areas must undergo a security assessment to
ensure they do not pose a threat to the security of civil aviation.
In 1994 new security standards were legislated for airport
restricted area pass systems, which improved the ability of the
government and airport operators to ensure that people in
restricted areas of Canada's airports have a need and a right to be
there.
Transport Canada has been actively pursuing stronger
security provisions and bilateral air transport agreements with
other countries to ensure that implementation of Canada's high
aviation security standards is a mandatory condition for foreign
air carrier operations in our country.
I would like to point out that in addition to these
enhancements Canada has in place a three-level alert and
response system to ensure appropriate security measures are
taken in response to specific threats. I understand this system
was fully updated in 1992 and is under constant review and fine
tuning to ensure it responds effectively to changing
circumstances.
In conclusion, the Air-India disaster has been the subject of
exhaustive examination by the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, Transport
Canada, the Solicitor General of Canada, and the police
investigation is ongoing.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the
motion by the hon. member for York South-Weston.
The hon. member is correct: it is high time for a royal
commission of inquiry into the Air-India disaster. For too long
the Sikh community has lived under a great shadow of suspicion
created by the media reports that someone from the Canadian
Sikh community may have been responsible for the deaths of
329 people.
Responsibility for the crash has been attributed to a number of
groups. Accusations have been made that U.S. intelligence
agencies withheld vital information from RCMP investigators.
There are real questions about how much the RCMP and the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service knew.
The only clear fact is that on June 23, 1985, Air India flight
182 exploded over the Atlantic Ocean near Cork, Ireland. All
329 people aboard the plane lost their lives, including 280
Canadians. Most were of East Indian origin; some were Sikh
families.
This was the worst mass murder in Canadian history. Yet 10
years later no one has been prosecuted in Canada for bombing
the plane. Ten years later, the families are still waiting for
answers. Ten years later, the Canadian Sikh community is still
waiting to find out who was really responsible. We still have far
too many questions and not enough answers.
12752
Regardless of who placed the bomb, regardless of their
motives, it is imperative they be brought to justice. I ask the
Canadian government to initiate a royal commission of inquiry
into the disaster as soon as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for North Vancouver
has very kindly offered to give up his normal rotation in the
party line. Therefore the hon. member for Brampton has the
floor.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
most Canadians Friday, June 23, 1995 will be a day like any
other. Parents will get up, have breakfast with their children,
take them off to school and go off to work just as they would any
other day.
(1840 )
However, for the families and friends of those Canadians who
lost their lives aboard Air-India flight 182 exactly 10 years ago
to the day, June 23 will be a day filled with remembrance and
sorrow. It will be a day to reflect on the memories of loved ones
lost in the blink of an eye, of entire families and children who
never had a chance to grow up, children who never had the
chance to experience the many joys and expressions of life.
There is nothing we can do to bring them back, but we must
honour their memory and we must do all we can to ease the
suffering of their families and friends. That is why we must
properly investigate this terrible tragedy. That is why it is
imperative that we conduct a royal commission into the most
horrific mass murder in this nation's history. This is a
commitment members of the Liberal caucus made while in
opposition, and it is a commitment we must honour now that we
are in power.
While in opposition, members of the Liberal caucus watched
in horror as the then Prime Minister of Canada, upon learning of
the tragedy, contacted the Prime Minister of India to offer his
condolences on the issue. In doing so, the Prime Minister sent
the message that this terrible tragedy was being mourned
primarily by the citizens of India. This was the wrong message
to send. These were Canadians.
That inquiries have been undertaken by foreign governments
on this matter in the absence of an inquiry by the Government of
Canada is cause for embarrassment to all members of this
House.
Previous governments repeatedly turned down requests for a
royal commission on the grounds that the matter was still under
investigation and that it might prejudice the ongoing RCMP
investigation. I believe that this rationale can no longer be
invoked in good conscience.
A story in this morning's Globe and Mail states that the
10-year old RCMP investigation is winding down and that only
two or three officers are working on this case on a part time
basis. The cost of this investigation to date is in the order of $20
million. Ten years and $20 million later, we have still not solved
this horrible crime.
There is another reason that came to mind as I was listening to
my hon. colleague speak. We have heard about extremists from
different groups of people being blamed, suspicions passed on to
these groups. I have heard from many sources that this group of
people did it. When I hear today the Sikh population being
mentioned, it brings a great deal of pain to me. This only
increases the misunderstanding of a community. To cast
aspersions upon this group of people is an absolute sin. We must
have a royal commission to remove this scar that has formed on
this nation's history by failing to respond to the cries for
answers from the families and friends of those who perished
aboard Air-India flight 182.
We can begin by voting in favour of this motion today. Given
the importance of this issue for all Canadians, I move that this
motion be declared votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that this
matter be declared a votable one?
An hon. member: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: The nay having been given, the
member still has the floor. She might wish to continue. If not, we
will now go to the hon. member for North Vancouver and then
we will close with the honourable parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
just take a few minutes as well.
In looking at this whole situation of the Air-India crash, I
know that it has been dragging on now for 10 years, as other
members have said. It is really getting to the point where we
have to start asking questions about whether it has gone on long
enough and how long do we allow the police investigation to
keep going and winding down.
My colleague from Reform has pointed out some of the
technical difficulties that are involved in starting a royal
commission when there is still an RCMP investigation under
way. That is an important consideration. However, we are 10
years downstream and many of the people who were involved in
the RCMP are already retired. We have a situation where one of
the major suspects is already dead, killed in a gun battle with
Indian police in India.
(1845 )
According to a newspaper article in the Ottawa Citizen on
April 14, 1994 another suspect, Mr. Manjit Singh, also known as
Lal Singh, is in prison in India. We have two there. A third
person who may have been a suspect was arrested the same day
for the bombing which killed baggage handlers at Narita airport.
The evidence is fast disappearing. In the meantime we have
spent about $20 million, yet we still have all the families of the
12753
victims who lost their loved ones in this crash wondering what
really happened and whether there was a cover-up.
My colleague who proposed the motion asked what happened.
Was there a cover-up? What is the truth behind the crash of the
Air-India flight? On balance, weighing the questions, weighing
the technicalities, weighing the length of time it has taken and
weighing the amount of money spent so far, I would have to
support the member in his motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate
steps to initiate a royal commission of inquiry into the Air-India disaster of
June 23, 1985 which claimed the lives of 329 people.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
let me congratulate the hon. member for bringing forward this
long delayed motion. June 23 will mark the 10th yearly
observance of the largest mass murder in Canadian history and
the most tragic incident in the history of aviation, the bombing
of Air-India flight 182.
On June 23, 1985, without warning, 329 innocent passengers
were blown out of the sky. They were all killed instantly. There
were no survivors. On flight 182, 295 passengers were Canadian
and 82 of the passengers were children.
For the past 10 years the victims' families have suffered
tremendous grief and endured great pain in virtual silence. They
have waited patiently for the killers of their loved ones to be
brought to justice and they have looked for answers. To date they
have had none.
Air-India's explosion was not an accident; it was a planned
and deliberate cold blooded act of violence that took the lives of
329 innocent passengers. It was an act of terrorism.
One decade is an eternity. For the surviving family members
the past 10 years have been filled with hollow birthdays, empty
anniversaries and missed graduations.
As a compassionate and caring society, as a country that has
been built on the tenets of justice, fairness and equality, and as a
country that believes in the due process of law, we cannot
continue to ask these families to wait any longer. As Canadian
citizens they deserve justice. For the sake of the victims and
their families justice must be served.
There are two tragedies for these families. First, there is the
horrific loss of innocent life. In some cases whole families were
lost. In some cases one family member remains while the rest of
the family was on the plane. I remember watching a vivid scene
where a father wept out loud when he had lost his wife and his
two children. As someone who has three children, I can imagine
the nightmare that he will have to go through for the rest of his
life. We need to give that person and all the other people some
answers. It was a horrific loss of life. Second, 10 years after the
bombing and $20 million later the murderers are still at large.
While in opposition we called for a royal commission. We
promised the families of Air-India victims that justice would be
served. We committed ourselves to finding the perpetrators of
this brutal crime.
(1850 )
Today, nearly 10 years since the bombing, no charges have
been laid. During the first two years there were up to 75 officers
on the investigation. Today only one officer is dedicated to
investigating this savage crime on a part time basis.
I want to re-emphasize that we do not know. People have not
been brought to justice. I know some members have said perhaps
it was one group or person. In Canada we are innocent until
proven guilty. We need to bring the guilty to justice because we
do not know. There are books written on the subject because
there are so many questions and people do not know. That is one
of the reasons we need a royal commission.
After reading the Security Intelligence Review Committee's
report I have many concerns about the existing investigation
into the Air-India disaster. CSIS has admitted that prior to the
bombing of Air-India it did not regard the threat of violence
stemming from extremist groups to be very serious. Few
resources were allotted to the investigation.
Translators were not found. There is lots of evidence that
CSIS simply bungled up and we need to know why. We need to
know what the reasons were. At the time of the bombing CSIS
was in its infancy. Its role and areas of jurisdiction were still
being defined.
While there was a healthy spirit of co-operation between the
two investigating parties differences emerged between the
RCMP and CSIS after the bombing of flight 182 in terms of their
responsibilities, jurisdiction and methods of evidence collection
and retention.
I quote from the SIRC report:
One former senior officer told us that while the role was well understood by
senior personnel, he was concerned that some CSIS investigators would
conduct their inquiries as though they were criminal investigators and would
compete with the RCMP to solve this case-
Once again I quote from the report:
We saw no early instructions from CSIS headquarters that attempted to
clarify the CSIS mandate vis-à-vis the RCMP criminal investigation or which
set out CSIS policy regarding the sharing of information and intelligence with
the RCMP. We consider this to be an unfortunate oversight on the part of
senior management.
We need to know what took place between CSIS and the
RCMP. We need to have better information, and the royal
inquiry will give us that information. We need to know why 159
of the 210 audio tapes with recordings of wiretapped conversa-
12754
tions were erased. Many of these tapes were never heard.
Translations were delayed or were not completed and significant
backlogs of unprocessed tapes were commonplace. These issues
were raised by SIRC in its report.
In accordance with established policies CSIS had already
erased three-quarters of the 200 or so audio tapes of the
principal targets, conversations before the disaster, so these
were not available to the RCMP for its requested examination.
Given the number of inaccuracies, errors and oversights,
given the absence of clear direction and a clear delineation of
roles and the chain of command, it is difficult to see how CSIS
could have done justice to the investigation.
The government has stated that the results of the investigation
into the bombing of flight 182 are inconclusive. If they are
inconclusive we need to know why. This is a Canadian tragedy. I
do not think in any other situation government would not react.
Any other government would have reacted. We have seen that in
other governments. Why have we not reacted? We need to
respond and have a royal commission to look into the matter.
Given this conclusion I believe it is in the best interest of
justice to launch a royal commission of inquiry. There is
precedence for such an inquiry. I refer my colleagues to past
catastrophes, namely the Ocean Ranger tragedy and the Hinton
rail disaster.
The issue is justice, justice for the 329 innocent victims of
this aviation disaster, justice that has not yet been served. On
April 13, 1994 former RCMP Commissioner Norm Inkster
stated to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
``It was my hope that before I retired from the RCMP I could
appear before this committee and say the Air-India case was
solved. Tragically, this is not yet the case''.
(1855)
We cannot bring back the innocent Canadians who lost their
lives. We cannot make their families whole again. We cannot
bring back their smiles or laughter but we can bring those left
behind some peace of mind. We can bring the criminals who
have inflicted this ceaseless pain to justice.
I believe we are on the right track. It is clear from the level of
active co-operation between the RCMP and CSIS that a real
desire to solve this crime does exist. It is also evident from the
continuing investigation that this tragedy has not been forgotten
and that the Liberal government intends to keep its word. Our
new solicitor general has stated the appointment of a royal
commission is under active consideration.
In light of the SIRC report, the continued anguish of the
victims' families and the ever growing price tag on this
inconclusive investigation, I strongly recommend we launch a
royal commission of inquiry.
Once again, given the importance of this issue for all
Canadians, I move the motion be declared votable.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary
would be aware that he needs unanimous consent to make the
matter votable.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it was the parliamentary
secretary to the solicitor general who denied that the matter be
allowed to proceed. I wish he would have the courage to stand up
and defend his position.
Notwithstanding, I ask the Chair to seek unanimous consent
that the subject matter of this motion be referred to a
parliamentary committee. I ask the parliamentary secretary to
consider that.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
mover of the motion. Is there unanimous consent that the subject
matter of the motion be referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs?
An hon. member: No.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to support the motion before the House presented by my
hon. colleague. It is on behalf of the 329 people who were killed,
on behalf of the 280 Canadians, and on behalf of their families
tragically and instantaneously hit that I would like to see justice
done.
We need a royal commission because if a train full of
Canadians on Canadian territory were blown up we would find
immediate justice. These Canadians cannot be brought back. We
must find justice for them because they are silent.
The Liberal Party is known for being a compassionate party.
Its members believe in justice and feel they have to ask for
justice on behalf of the many communities of Canada, especially
for the Sikh communities.
Vancouver East has a lot of immigrants; 45 per cent is made
up of new immigrants. Some belong to the Sikh community.
When I was elected I made a promise to fight on their behalf.
Some of these communities do not have much of a voice and it is
entirely up to us, to the government, to the members of the
House to speak on their behalf. We were put here to do that.
In this tragic instance when no justice seems to have been
served, when we value ourselves as those who speak about
justice and human rights, we have to intercede on behalf of those
who cannot speak.
12755
(1900 )
I would like to see a royal commission struck to look into this
accident. It took too long. We cannot let this go again. I would
also like to move that this motion be votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Once again a motion has been made
that the matter be a votable one. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I will give the hon. member for York
South-Weston one minute if he wants to close the debate.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in the closing of the debate, I
want to remind the House that several members have stood up,
all of them Liberal members of Parliament, asking that this
motion be votable.
I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to consider a point of privilege.
This is private members' business. On several occasions there
was one member, the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor
general, who withheld his consent to having this matter voted
upon. He has not spoken today and I do not know why he has not.
Perhaps he does not have any worthwhile submissions to make
today.
However, I would suggest that as the parliamentary secretary
to the solicitor general, he does not have the right to interfere in
private members' business. If his withholding of unanimous
consent is as an individual member, then that is one thing, but if
he is interfering on the part of the Government of Canada, I
would submit that is improper. The Prime Minister and the
government has committed itself to the integrity of the private
members' business. If private members' business is in fact to
remain private, allowing free votes on behalf of private
members, then the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor
general should keep his nose out of private members' business.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Is there
unanimous consent to let the parliamentary secretary reply as a
point of order?
Some hon. members: No.
An hon. member: It was a point of privilege.
The Deputy Speaker: It does not matter whether it is
privilege or a point of order, the time has expired and there is not
unanimous consent to go over the time. Therefore, the time
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business
has now expired. Pursuant Standing Order 96, the order is
dropped from the Order Paper.
12755
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the opportunity to pursue a question I asked the Minister of
Transport in this House last week about the port of Belledune in
New Brunswick.
I asked the minister to explain to this House how he justified
giving a $5.8 million grant to the port of Belledune after saying
that he was ``not prepared to put a cent into Belledune as far as a
grant or anything like that is concerned, any more than I would
put into the port of Saint John or anywhere else''.
The minister gave an answer but it was not to my question. I
was pleased to hear him say that he would consider forgiving the
loan to the port of Saint John, but not surprisingly he
flip-flopped on that promise once the cameras were off.
It is not just troubling that the minister continually goes back
on his word but that he gave the port of Belledune almost $6
million when we have yet to see a plan on how the port intends to
pay back its $20 million loan it has received.
Furthermore, the minister has failed to explain why the
government is spending over $25 million on new berthage and
cargo sheds in a town bordering the minister's home riding when
there is excess capacity at the port of Saint John and the port of
Dalhousie which is only 32 kilometres away. As the minister has
stated, once the port of Belledune and the expansion takes place,
the port of Dalhousie is out of business.
The House will understand my questioning the minister's
motivations for this grant to Belledune in light of some of the
decisions made by this government.
Just recently there have been hearings on the privatization of
the pilotage authority of our harbour pilots. I ask again, is this
because the port of Belledune does not need the harbour pilots
and the port of Saint John does?
For example, in February we learned of a decision by public
works to borrow $12 million to build a new office complex in the
riding of the Indian affairs minister, even though the office
building vacancy rate is 18.2 per cent in Sault Ste. Marie and
despite the fact that a less expensive option of buying and
retrofitting existing office space could save $5 to $6.5 million
for the taxpayers of Canada.
Now the minister of public works and the Nova Scotia
transportation minister have inexplicably diverted $26 million
of the federal strategic highway improvement program, known
12756
as SHIP, funds designated for Nova Scotia highway 104, death
valley, toward the fleur-de-lis tourist trail in their ridings.
The SHIP agreement states that projects undertaken are to be
part of the national highway system. The fleur-de-lis does not
meet this criterion and everyone knows it. Death valley is an
example, just as Belledune is an example, of blatant,
unapologetic, pork barrelling with no thought to fiscal
responsibility.
The Saint John Port Corporation told the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Transport on March 16, 1995 that
``there is an overcapacity in Canadian ports with too much
underutilization of infrastructure and the federal government as
the shareholder of the port is competing against itself''.
Once again I ask the Minister of Transport to explain why he
is pouring millions of dollars into expanding the port of
Belledune when existing ports in New Brunswick are
underutilized.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate but as usual this
member has it all wrong and misrepresents the facts.
The proposed marine terminal at Belledune represents an
unprecedented partnership between federal, provincial and
various municipal governments. All three levels of government
working in concert will be putting funds into this project.
If the member were concerned about the future of marine
transportation in Atlantic Canada, she would be supporting this
unique collaboration. It is interesting to note the following
comments from Paul Doiron, general manager of Logistec
Stevedoring that operates the Rodney terminal. He said he did
not expect that development of the terminal of Belledune on the
north shore would offer threatening competition to Logistec.
He then said that Forterm operates the largest forest products
terminal on the eastern seaboard and is in the top eight or nine
forest products terminals in the world. That will not change.
``We will be able to compete just as we have for over 16 years,''
he said.
It is sad to note that the member wants to deny the people in
this region the right to seek a loan from the federal government
when she had no trouble supporting a request that the federal
government write off a loan for the port of Saint John.
I would be interested to discover whether the hon. member
opposite during her reign as mayor ever gave the port of Saint
John money toward its operations. Perhaps if she had, the port
would not be in this fix today.
It seems that I have to remind the former mayor that members
should be reminded that Belledune and Saint John are in the
same province and that the entire province will benefit from the
increased economic activity.
The mayors and people of the municipalities surrounding
Belledune are putting their money up front to support their
region and the entire marine industry. They should be
applauded, not hindered, and this member should be supporting
New Brunswick, not voting against it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.08 p.m.)