CONTENTS
Friday, September 22, 1995
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading; and
the amendment 14753
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 14756
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.41 a.m.) 14759
The House resumed at 10.55 a.m. 14759
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 14762
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14762
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 14762
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14763
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14763
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14764
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14764
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14764
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14765
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14765
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14766
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14767
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14768
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14769
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14769
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14769
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 14769
(Motion agreed to.) 14771
Motion for approval of 86th report 14771
(Motion agreed to.) 14771
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading, and
amendment 14771
Division on amendment deferred 14772
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 14778
14753
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, September 22, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
continuing on from my speech which was interrupted by a vote on
Tuesday.
The environment minister claims MMT contributes to sparkplug
failures, in particular a type of sparkplug manufactured by General
Motors. GM claims there were more warranty complaints against
one of its single engine sparkplugs in Canada than in the U.S. and
MMT was to blame. However, studies conducted by the Southwest
Research Institute demonstrate that a short circuit problem occurs
in the brand new plugs and it has nothing to do with MMT. It is also
important to note that GM has since withdrawn the sparkplug in
question from the North American market. Therefore, in short, that
argument does not hold any weight.
What we seem to be missing on this issue are the facts. The
Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute has called for the
environment minister to allow industry to examine MMT and its
impacts in a fact based joint assessment which would be conducted
by PPI and the automakers; in other words, get the two players in
the same room.
Why has the government refused to call for or conduct an
independent technical review? The largest fuel additives testing
program in history conducted over five years for the U.S. EPA
concluded MMT poses no problems for vehicle emission systems.
In addition, the recent decision by the U.S. court of appeals
determined that MMT does not cause or contribute to a failure of
any emission control device or system. The EPA testing program
looked at MMT's effects on catalytic converters, onboard
diagnostic systems, exhaust systems and sparkplugs among a
variety of other factors. The EPA concluded MMT passes the most
critical of tests with a comfortable margin.
As a result of the U.S. EPA testing program, MMT may be
introduced in the U.S. by the fall of 1995. Why then are we banning
it in Canada when the government has stated it wants a uniformity
of standards with the U.S.? The result of the U.S. court decision
alone would be sufficient reason for the government to withdraw
Bill C-94.
We need to look closely at why we are being asked to consider
banning interprovincial trade in MMT. This proposed ban clearly
contradicts Bill C-88 which is intended to remove barriers to
international trade and constitutes unilateral interference into
interprovincial matters. We need to have some solid evidence
before making such a move.
Bill C-94 must be examined more thoroughly by the industry
committee. As it stands we are still left with more questions than
answers. Without any legitimate answer from the government the
bill cannot be justified.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this
debate on the second reading of Bill C-94 and more particularly on
the Reform Party amendment proposed by the member for Calgary
North who does not think we should proceed with Bill C-94, an act
to regulate interprovincial trade and so on. She thinks the bill
should be withdrawn and we should merely refer this issue for
further study before a parliamentary committee. I would like to
speak to that for a moment.
(1005)
Every now and then the Reform Party in its wisdom tells us we
should not procrastinate, delay things, debate them too long, that
we should move on with things. I heard profound speeches from
hon. members of the Reform Party yesterday, at least as profound
as we can get from Reform members, admonishing the government
and all of us, asking us to pass legislation more quickly. What is the
first thing they do? They propose an amendment asking that we not
proceed with this bill.
14754
Let us get to the subject matter of the bill to determine whether
the Reform Party is correct in what it wants. What does the bill do?
The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the import or the
interprovincial trade for commercial purposes of MMT or anything
containing MMT. What does that mean? It means that particular
additive to gasoline would not be permitted.
I suppose the next question is does everyone not use MMT? It is
not used in hardly any country except ours, and I will get into more
specific details in a minute. Could it be that if it is not good enough
for anyone else then perhaps we should consider banning that
product as well?
Some people will say it is used in a variety of countries. The
Ethyl Corporation put an ad in newspapers yesterday or the day
before saying it is used in some countries and gave the examples of
Brazil and New Zealand, I believe. It is used there and let it not be
said it is not used anywhere.
I did not keep the advertisement in question because I thought
the corporation's own sales pitch made the reverse argument of
what it was trying to prove. It was saying it was not true that it was
not used anywhere, that it was not used just about everywhere. I
thought that reinforced the argument most of us believed in.
MMT should be banned for a number of reasons. The product in
question has been known to have effects which are offensive to the
health of people. That is why it was not used in many countries.
That is why it is still not used by most nations. The question we
should ask is does it make it any better if we keep the product? No,
that does not work either.
The hon. member for Bruce-Grey the other day gave us a very
important speech on this issue. He is very knowledgeable in the
area. He taught that subject matter as a teacher and knows much
about it. He told us why the attitude of some people with regard to
this product is totally wrong.
An hon. member: We should get Reform to read it.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, we should get Reform members to read the
speech of the hon. member, although I am sure most members
would want to read all speeches from the hon. member for
Bruce-Grey because they are so very eloquent.
Coming back to the matter in question of MMT, we in this
country use that product. It is an additive to gasoline. It is an octane
enhancer in effect but there are other octane enhancers we can use.
For instance, ethanol can and has been used to provide the same
kind of octane enhancement. I know ethanol cannot be a total
replacement but that in itself along with other initiatives proposed
by the Minister of the Environment assists the agricultural area,
helps to clean up the environment and rids us of the product known
as MMT.
(1010)
[Translation]
I see that the member across from me disagrees; he says that is
wrong. Well if the hon. member thinks so, he may be able to
convince U.S. authorities and all the other jurisdictions in Western
Europe, etc. All those countries are probably wrong while the hon.
member is right. I am sure that many would have different opinions
on this matter.
[English]
People ask whether sparkplugs are affected by MMT. Auto
manufacturers have reported there is a greater incidence of
sparkplug failure in Canada compared with similar product
offerings in the United States. Sparkplug failure and other
problems of that nature which are caused by the use of MMT affect
automobile performance. Cars that do not perform well waste more
gasoline, pollute more and so on; it is a chain reaction.
It is interesting to note that the maintenance schedule which
includes tune ups and so on for the brand of car I drive is
substantially different in Canada from the United States. Why does
a car have to be tuned up less frequently in Minnesota than in
Ontario or Manitoba? There is no logical reason save perhaps what
is used to propel the car is different and maintenance may be
required more in one jurisdiction than the other. We are told
precisely by auto manufacturers in the instance of sparkplug failure
that there is greater wear on sparkplugs and a greater incidence of
failures where MMT is used compared with where it is not.
Mr. Milliken: Why did we not do this years ago?
Mr. Boudria: I do not know. The hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands has put it very eloquently by asking why we did not do
this some time ago because the product was banned in the United
States a long time ago.
[Translation]
I do not know. Of course, for almost a decade, we had a
government that was very much like the Reform Party in front of
us, namely the Tory government, and that probably did not help.
Today, we have the opportunity to right this wrong by adopting
measures to clean up the environment. I know that the former
Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean,
who is a great environmentalist, will want to vote in favour of this
bill, as will all other parliamentarians concerned about cleaning up
our country's environment.
In conclusion, I ask all my colleagues to vote in favour of the bill
tabled by the hon. Minister of the Environment and against the
amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North,
who is once again demonstrating the Reform Party's systematic
14755
and systemic efforts to block any worthwhile initiative aimed at
cleaning up this country's environment.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thank you
for the opportunity to speak to this issue again. I listened to the
members from the opposite side and I am absolutely amazed at the
blatant untruths that are being spewed forth from members
opposite. I have studied this issue very carefully and there is simply
no independent evidence to support the statements we have just
heard being made.
There is all sorts of evidence to support exactly the opposite. The
Canadian Department of Health did studies and concluded there
was absolutely no detrimental effect to the health of Canadians or
anyone else by using MMT. That is simply factual evidence. The
government continues to spew forth studies from the Canadian
Automobile Association which it refuses to release to the public
and so we can neither deny nor verify them. It is simply not true.
(1015)
I fail to understand what is really driving the agenda. We heard
some comments about the ethanol industry and how we should give
the industry a leg up, which I suppose means subsidization of an
industry that cannot compete on an equal playing field. We
certainly do not support that kind of initiative. If the ethanol
industry can exist viably without taxpayer subsidization then good
for it. We wish the industry all the luck.
In speaking with the refiners in Canada that refine and formulate
our gasolines, they assure me that even if MMT were banned
ethanol would not replace MMT as a gasoline additive. The only
thing banning MMT would do would force refiners to be more
intensive in their refining process, to use more crude oil, to refine it
further, causing higher CO2 emissions, higher benzene emissions
and higher sulphur emissions. Again those facts simply do not back
up what is being said.
There was some debate when I spoke the other day on this matter
about whether the minister had met with Ethyl Corporation, the
other side of the issue. I specifically said she has consistently
refused to meet with both sides of the issue to discuss it and to
listen to all the facts. After having spoken on it and after having had
the debate with members opposite I checked to make sure I was
correct. The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute wrote to me. It
also wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment. The letter reads:
I listened with interest to the second reading debate on Bill C-94 and while I
do not agree with your position in this matter, I appreciate your interest in this
subject. I would, however, like to address one issue you raised with the member
from Athabasca, Mr. David Chatters, during the question and comment period
following his speech.
Mr. Chatters quite correctly pointed out that Minister Copps has refused to
meet with representatives of Ethyl. In reply, you stated twice that the minister
met twice with CPPI as a representative of Ethyl, on this issue.
I want to be completely clear on this point. The Canadian Petroleum Products
Institute does not now, nor has it ever, spoken on behalf of Ethyl Canada or
Ethyl Corporation. Ethyl is not a member of CPPI, as membership is limited to
producers and marketers of motor gasoline.
Representatives of Ethyl have met once with the minister's staff and have met
on a few occasions with departmental officials. We have asked for, and been
refused a meeting with the minister.
I would ask that you correct this statement at your earliest opportunity.
Clearly there is a lot of confusion, a lot of misinformation and a
lot of untruth surrounding the issue. The government repeatedly
claims to promote the reduction of interprovincial trade barriers
and to promote trade between the provinces. On the issue the
minister of the environment for Alberta said: ``It is unclear that the
removal of MMT from gasoline has a net environmental benefit.
Alberta favours the design of a suitable binding process to resolve
the dispute in a fair and timely fashion. An open multi-stakeholder
review of the environmental and economic merits of MMT should
be key to the dispute resolution mechanism to credibly solve the
vehicle fuel compatibility issue''.
I have a letter from Michael Shaw, deputy minister of the
environment and resource management for Saskatchewan, to Mel
Cappe, deputy minister of Environment Canada, which reads:
The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association has not convinced
Saskatchewan and the majority of the provinces that there is any evidence to
show that MMT has an adverse effect on the onboard diagnostic systems.
It continues:
We are also concerned with the impact this decision has on the Consumers'
Co-operative Refineries Limited-in Regina. CCRL has advised us that refining
costs will increase in the order of $500,000 annually if MMT is banned. We have
difficulty rationalizing this cost with no identifiable benefits to air quality by
this action.
(1020 )
I have a letter from the minister of the environment for Nova
Scotia, Wayne Adams, which reads:
We have recently expressed concerns to the federal Minister of the
Environment's stated intention to legislate a ban on the use of this additive.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has
established a task force on cleaner vehicles and fuels. The mandate
of this task group includes the development of options for setting
minimum standards for reformulated fuels as a measure to improve
air quality. The assessment will be done in such a way as to provide
a national approach and the continued use of MMT in Canada will
undoubtedly be one of the issues reviewed. The results of an
independent study and the benefits and detriments of MMT would
undoubtedly be considered.
14756
David Wilson, the provincial minister of the environment for
New Brunswick, said: ``It seems there are two opposing views on
the value of MMT to the environment. Perhaps an independent
review is warranted''.
Norman Brandson, Manitoba's deputy minister of the
environment, said:
The potential negative impacts or positive benefits arising from the
continued use of MMT as an additive to unleaded fuels seems to be an issue that
includes comprehension of significant technical information. There needs to be
a resolution that will be in the best interests of the environment and the
consumer, for both the short and long term.
It would be much preferred that this issue could be resolved directly between
the industries involved (the manufacturer of vehicles and those providing the
fuels for those vehicles).
I would hardly deem that as support for the initiative from the
provinces.
Again we go back to the statements that are being made on the
issue continually from the opposite side of the House. Again I
reiterate that I cannot understand what is driving the agenda
because the evidence is so clear and indisputably against what the
government has been saying on the issue.
The Minister of the Environment said:
Some companies have indicated that, rather than accept the possibility of
increased warranty repair costs, they may disconnect OBDs or reduce vehicle
warranty coverage unless steps are taken to remove MMT from unleaded
gasolines in Canada.
That simply is not a valid statement. In blaming MMT for the
onboard diagnostic problems the automakers have not disclosed
that the automobile industry has experienced substantial technical
difficulties in complying with the onboard diagnostic II
requirements in the U.S. where MMT is not currently being used
and has not been used for 18 years. It is not MMT that is causing
problems with the onboard diagnostic equipment. It is simply that
the technology has not been perfected and developed to the point
where it is reliable.
Another statement by the minister reads that removing MMT
``will ensure that the most up to date equipment used to reduce air
pollution with will not be jeopardized by components in the fuel''.
That comes from the Environment Canada news release on May
19, 1995 and is simply not true. The automakers are blaming MMT
for onboard diagnostic problems with certification that I spoke
about before. The government has blindly accepted that argument
without any studies or without any facts, or at least without any
independent studies of the auto making industry.
The next statement reads: ``The automobile industry is
convinced that MMT has an adverse effect on the operation of
vehicle emission control components including sophisticated
onboard diagnostic systems''. That statement is also from an
Environment Canada news release May 19, 1995. It continues:
``The automobile manufacturers have failed to demonstrate any
adverse effects related to MMT and have not disclosed onboard II
certification problems in the U.S. Most of the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association information on onboard computers has
been previously rejected by both the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. court of appeals''.
Before the end of the year MMT will again be used in the United
States, which would mean that if we are to achieve formulation
compatibility between the two countries, as was the wish of the
Minister of Industry, we would then be required to leave MMT in
the formulation rather than remove it.
If one cares to look at the evidence-and it does not seem to be
very important in the debate that is taking place-there simply is
no strong independent evidence that MMT has caused any of the
problems we spoke about.
(1025 )
It is very important that we step back, take another look and do
some independent studies in the time we have before the product is
again released in the U.S. to verify this argument one way or the
other. That is a reasonable request and one based on the evidence
before us.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, following the Reform
member from Athabasca, he should check his facts because when
he refers to factual statements by the New Brunswick environment
minister he should at least get his name straight.
[Translation]
The federal government took a decisive step to protect the
environment, jobs and consumers and to ensure Canada remains a
leader in automotive technology.
[English]
Bill C-94 will prohibit the import and interprovincial trade of
MMT, a manganese based fuel additive manufactured in the United
States. The proposed bill, to be known as the manganese based fuel
additives act, will come into effect 60 days after it gains assent.
[Translation]
Only in Canada is MMT added to unleaded gasoline. The United
States banned MMT from their unleaded gas in 1978. Bulgaria and
Argentina are the only other countries interested in using it. Why is
MMT not used in a larger number of countries? Because MMT
impedes the functioning of emission control devices on modern
cars and trucks.
Environment Canada has received and reviewed many studies on
the effects of MMT on this kind of system. I agree with Ford,
Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Mazda,
14757
Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, Saab, Lada, Jaguar, Land
Rover and Hyundai, who all say that MMT impairs the operation of
state-of-the-art onboard diagnostic systems, or OBD systems,
where the vehicle's emission control device is located.
[English]
These systems are extremely important for the environment.
They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle's emission control
and for alerting the driver to malfunctions. They ensure that the
clean burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed.
They ensure that automobiles are properly maintained, resulting in
decreased tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy.
In other words, it is one more important tool to help us address
air pollution, including smog and climate change.
[Translation]
The government will not let MMT prevent the Canadian
automotive industry from designing vehicles that are much less
polluting. Our environment and Canadian consumers deserve that
the best emission control systems be used.
[English]
Yet the Ethyl Corporation, the manufacturer of MMT, and its
subsidiary Ethyl Canada refute the vehicle industry allegation
about the ill effects of MMT on the vehicle emission control
systems and make a counterclaim that MMT is environmentally
beneficial.
What is certain is that our efforts to reduce motor vehicle
pollution can no longer be addressed by just the petroleum
industry, the auto industry or the federal government. Progress at
reducing vehicle pollution requires simultaneous action by all. The
petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the
composition and properties of the fuels the engines burn.
The auto industry needs to keep making improvement in vehicle
emission control technologies such as those offered through
onboard diagnostic systems. The government needs to take
decisive action such as Bill C-94, which removes a major obstacle
to the introduction of these technologies.
(1030 )
However, our strategy to reduce vehicle pollution goes beyond
just taking action against MMT. The federal government is doing
its part because we know that automobiles are a major contributor
to climate change and urban smog as well as some toxic pollutants
like benzene.
In a recently released task force report done by Canada's deputy
ministers of the environment, it is noted that even with the
improvements in emissions technology, vehicles are still the
largest contributors to air pollution. On a national basis gasoline
and diesel powered vehicles still contribute some 60 per cent of
carbon monoxide emissions, 35 per cent of nitrous oxide
emissions, or smog, 25 per cent of hydrocarbon emissions and 20
per cent of carbon dioxide emissions.
The report stresses the need I talked about earlier to proceed on
all fronts simultaneously. It states: ``Vehicle technology and fuel
composition, although two separate industry sectors, must be
treated as an integrated system in the development of policies and
programs in order to successfully reduce emissions from motor
vehicles''. This is good advice. It should complement our work in
preparing a comprehensive motor vehicle emissions control
strategy which includes the adoption of more stringent vehicle
exhaust emission standards. To meet these standards we are
counting on integrating improvements achieved in emissions
control technologies and fuels.
Clearly we cannot hope to meet these standards without the kind
of action we are taking against MMT in Bill C-94. It is not an
action of impatience. Since 1985 the federal government has
waited for the automotive and petroleum industries to resolve the
situation without legislation. It was not resolved. The time for
waiting is over. It is now time for the government to act.
[Translation]
The government will not wait any longer and risk compromising
federal vehicle emission programs just because both sides cannot
come to an agreement. The government will not sit back while auto
manufacturers take standard diagnostic systems on 1996 models
off line or refuse to have them covered under car warranties
because of the damage caused by MMT.
[English]
It is decision time. Last October the Minister of the Environment
urged both industries to voluntarily resolve the issue of MMT in
Canada by the end of 1994, otherwise the government would take
action. This deadline was subsequently extended into February of
this year to review automobile and petroleum industry proposals.
The MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute. Its outcome can
affect the vehicle emissions program that we are putting into place
and in the long term it could also negatively impact the automobile
sector.
A successful resolution of the MMT issue will ensure that
environmental benefits are realized with the use of the most
advanced emissions control technologies. It will ensure that
Canadians are offered the same warranty coverage as in the United
States. It will ensure Canadian motor vehicle emissions control
programs do not diverge from those in the United States. This
means Canadians continue to benefit from the cost and
technological advantages of a North American harmonized fleet. It
means Canada's auto sector will maintain its competitiveness.
14758
I know some have expressed concern with our plan to prohibit
the use of MMT in Canadian gasoline given a recent U.S. court
decision to grant Ethyl a waiver to use MMT in unleaded gasoline
sold in the United States. However, let it be perfectly clear that
MMT still cannot be used in unleaded gasoline in the U.S.
Let us move ahead. Let us do it because we need new emission
control technologies like the onboard diagnostic system.
[Translation]
We will not tolerate that Canadian consumers be denied access to
the same pollution control technologies as their American
counterparts because gasoline in the U.S. does not contain MMT.
(1035)
We will not allow such a discrepancy to exist between Canadian
and American vehicles.
The Deputy Speaker: I am terribly sorry, but time has run out.
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the motion moved by my colleague from Calgary North is
a logical one, a motion of practical sense.
I encourage members of the House to listen carefully to the
debate. The motion is realistic and I urge the House to adopt it
when it comes to a vote which I assume will be on Monday.
The title given the bill does not sound like one that should be
sponsored by an environment minister. Bill C-94 is an act to
regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.
Why is the Minister of the Environment so keen on the passage
of the bill? When one sees something this discordant it usually
plays out in the end, when all the documentation is finally exposed,
that a short term political deal has been struck. Someone has the
inside track and then much puffery is used to hide the intent.
The bill presented by the environment minister has nothing to do
with helping clean up the environment. Consequently one has to
ask what is really going on here. Few believe the minister, yet she
proceeds with justifications. It is embarrassing to watch.
In theory one would expect that a minister of the environment
would have little in common with car makers. After all, cars are the
leading cause of smog. I suppose that when we look at where the
minister resides the notion becomes a little clearer. Hamilton East
is right in the heartland of auto makers central.
Not long ago officials from the Department of the Environment
came to my office to explain the background of the bill. When they
were asked what impact the bill would have toward helping the
environment they had to admit it was slim to none and at best
maybe only indirectly.
Some time ago I received an explanation of the onboard
diagnostic systems that are said to sometimes not work when MMT
is included in gasoline. According to the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association the 1996 cars are to be equipped with
the latest technology but because MMT is still in Canadian fuel
they simply unplug the sensor lights for the systems.
Canadians need to picture this. Canada's environment minister is
banning the use of a fuel additive because a little part on a car is
said to create a premature warning light to go on. Where is the
national environmental concern here?
I am not disputing that onboard diagnostic systems may be
beneficial. Politicians hoped they would make car pollution
equipment more reliable so they ordered manufacturers to put them
on. Consumers sure did not ask for it and the reluctant car makers
also balked.
Car makers kicked back and designed a scheme to blame
someone else for their technical failures and shortcomings and
their unwillingness to pay. Let us be clear: OBDs do not regulate or
control emission systems, neither do they clean anything. I think
some people are assuming these devices will reduce pollution from
our environment. It is just adding warning lights, or as we used to
say idiot lights, on the dashboard that signal that the existing
pollution controls are normal.
Imagine it, idiot lights for cars are a legislative priority of the
Minister of the Environment. The minister likes lights on her
dashboard, so she brings a $1 billion disruption to the Canadian
petroleum industry to get a little lighted colour in her driving
experience. When the public absorbs what the minister is doing I
know what they will want to do to her lights.
In the United States the Environmental Protection Agency
placed a moratorium on MMT in 1978. It was a raw deal by some
American politicians and regulators that will eventually be
corrected in the courts. So far the United States court of appeals
found that the EPA did not have the evidence to prove that MMT
should not be used.
Banning MMT in Canada is not an environmental issue.
However it could very easily have been had Health Canada found it
harmful but it did not. It could not, no matter how hard it tried. In
fact Health Canada on December 6, 1994 issued a report entitled
``Risk Assessment for the Combustive Products of MMT''. It
reported: ``All analyses indicate that the combustion products of
MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the
Canadian population''.
14759
I am sure the minister would have liked to put the substance
on the listed schedule under the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act to please her friends, except Health Canada got in
the way and made an unfavourable ruling.
(1040 )
If the minister could have banned MMT under CEPA she would
not have needed this legislation. If the environment minister cannot
prove this bill will directly affect the environment then I say this
should not be an environmental bill.
The Minister of the Environment is telling Canadians the
removal of MMT will significantly improve the quality of our
environment. That is wrong, very wrong. The removal of MMT
will increase nitrous oxide or NOx emissions by 20 per cent. That
is why MMT is used. It is there to make gas burn cleaner, to help
the environment. In case Canadians do not know what NOx creates,
it is smog.
The Deputy Speaker: The sitting must be suspended until we
find out what is going on.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.41 a.m.)
_______________
[
Translation]
The House resumed at 10.55 a.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, as you probably know,
there seems to be a problem in the basement.
[English]
The alarm system began. We have an extremely good alarm
system, so we are all safe.
The hon. member has four minutes left in his intervention.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, constituents of Hamilton East should
know their MP has created legislation that will increase smog over
Hamilton. The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute recently
made a claim that removing MMT would be the equivalent of
adding over one million additional cars to Canadian roads. That is
what this environment minister is doing.
It is said that the onboard diagnostic sensors are put in cars
essentially for consumer protection. Industry Canada's role is to
protect, assist and support consumers' interests. It would only
make sense this bill be made an industry bill and dealt with in a
more technical light. If the bill is industrial rather than
environmental, it should then go to the appropriate standing
committee.
Further, the problem addressed in this bill is essentially a
commercial dispute between two industries, the automobile
manufacturers and the petroleum refiners. It is about who pays to
reach the next level. The Minister of the Environment really has no
business stepping into the fray of this marketplace decision and the
deals and the manoeuvres going on in another country.
Last year the minister was pressured by the MVMA and
therefore found a way to make the issue an environmental bill.
Apparently representatives from General Motors, Ford and
Chrysler met with the Minister of the Environment to discuss the
banning of MMT. They told her that if MMT was still in gasoline in
August 1995, a time when all new models would be released, they
would do one of three things: raise the price of each automobile by
$3,000; void sections of their car warranties; and/or close down
some high technology Canadian manufacturing units. She could
not because Reformers were here, and they did not do what they
threatened to do because they lied in the first place.
The minister did not know and for that matter probably did not
care what effects MMT had on the environment. She knew the
MVMA have tremendous power. When they said jump, she asked
how high.
Our motion is to change the wording of the bill so it reads that
the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on
Industry. The House has heard the Minister of Industry rise on
questions related to the issue. He realizes that it is closely
associated with his department. However, the industry minister did
not take it on because it was too embarrassing a proposal.
The Minister of Industry has said he wants a uniformity of
standards between the U.S. and Canada. He stated in the House on
April 25, 1995 that ``it is crucial that we have uniformity of
standards. The efforts we have put into trying to ensure there was a
voluntary agreement between the two sectors has been well placed,
but finally governments have to decide''.
The Minister of Industry wants our fuel to be the same as it is for
various parts of the United States. He wants some uniformity. He
may not have to wait very long. The United States is set to have the
American MMT prohibition lifted some time before Christmas of
this year. However, the Minister of the Environment is too
committed down a certain path to thoughtfully do what is right. She
is on a direct course to please her friends, play with her Canada,
and leave us with all the bills.
All members of the House are honourable enough to evaluate
what is really going on here. The Liberal backbenchers know what
is going on. If there were ever a time to blow the whistle on the
boss, it will be on Monday when we have a vote on the motion
moved by my colleague from Calgary North. It is eminently
sensible and appropriate to send this bill to the industry committee.
The Speaker: It being 11 a.m., pursuant to the standing order we
will now hear statements by members.
>
14760
14760
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the interim agreement just signed at the United Nations between
Greece and FYROM, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
meets two key international issues raised by the Greek government:
removal from FYROM's flag of Alexander the Great's star and
removal from FYROM's constitution of apparent irredentist claims
on Greek territory.
FYROM's name, a principal barrier to normalization of relations
and co-operation between the two states, is agreed as a subject for
further negotiation.
Canada's policy of non-recognition of FYROM until these issues
should be resolved has contributed positively to the diplomatic
negotiations now under way and should be maintained until a full,
binding legal agreement is achieved, probably at the end of
October.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after announcing
that it would eliminate 10,000 jobs between now and 1997, Bell
Canada refuses to use the voluntary departures of 328 telephone
operators in Quebec to avoid having to lay off 100 other
employees.
Bell Canada justifies its decision by pointing to the stiff
competition which it must face since the CRTC forced the company
to end its monopoly.
We can understand that Bell Canada must remain a profitable
venture; however, it must not do so at the expense of many families
and without any consideration for the economic survival of several
Quebec and Ontario regions, which are severely affected by the
company's decision.
While all of this is going on, the Minister of Labour remains
silent. She does not do anything to reduce the negative impact of
that situation on the families concerned. The centralizing approach
of the federal government is now being copied by large companies
and that is unacceptable.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers have been held up, held down,
sand bagged, walked on, sat on, flattened out and squeezed by our
income tax system and by the GST.
Every year Revenue Canada makes sure that as taxpayers we are
inspected, suspected, audited, examined and re-examined to the
point that we do not know who we are, where we are or why we stay
here at all. All we know is that as taxpayers we are supposed to
have an inexhaustible supply of money for every whim that suits
high brow Liberals but not brow beaten Canadians.
Taxpayers are tired of being held up, hung up, robbed and darn
near ruined by excessive taxation in this country. Many families are
hanging on now fearful for what happens next. Our message to
them and all Canadians consists of two simple words: flat tax.
For all those who have cussed, discussed and boycotted our
convoluted Income Tax Act we say hang on. A simple, visible and
fair tax system is on its way; so too is a Reform government for
Canada.
The Speaker: I think we will have to put him down as a doubtful
supporter of the tax system.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what is
happening to Canada's finest?
Most Canadians were shocked to learn that the RCMP had joined
with Disney in an effort to promote both of their images at home
and abroad. However, what about the picture in today's Globe and
Mail: six scarlet clad Mounties at the New York Stock Exchange on
Wall Street, rented by a private oil company to promote its new
stock listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
The company also planned to use these rented Mounties to
generate more publicity for its stock by having them chauffeur late
night talk show host David Letterman to his studio. However this
was nixed at the last minute, not by the RCMP but by Actors Equity
which claims the Mounties were not professional actors.
Is the RCMP now renting out members of the force to raise much
needed budget funds or is it spending time back in Canada fighting
crime? While its members are on Wall Street they are not fighting
crime in Canada which is their mandate.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to announce the Fraser River has been
proposed as the first candidate for protection under British
Columbia's proposed heritage rivers program. This program will
promote greater management of B.C.'s vital waterways and
protection of B.C.'s finest salmon rivers.
14761
A five member board will nominate approximately 20 rivers for
protection under heritage status. Among the nominees are the
Adams, Babine, Blackwater, Cowichan, Skagit, Similkameen and
Stikine Rivers. All nominees are considered exceptional and are
in need of heritage protection.
Due to its economic, historic, recreational and environmental
significance the Fraser River is considered the jewel of the system.
In the U.S. 33 states have already adopted such a program. I am
pleased to announce that British Columbia will be the first
Canadian province that has adopted its own heritage river system.
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently members of the Reform Party have been telling
us they have all the answers for Atlantic Canada.
In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants I am proud to say the
government's policies are not holding people back as the Reform
Party would claim. Instead, our commitment to youth, our
emphasis on training and our focus on helping small business have
all helped to create real opportunities and jobs.
It is time the Reform Party came clean with its plans for Canada.
The complete dismantling of our social programs, the end of
universal health care and the elimination of equalization payments
to the provinces are all examples of that party's true national
agenda.
The people of Nova Scotia recognize the Reform Party's slash
and burn agenda for what it really is: simplistic and clearly out of
touch with the views of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I realize
the referendum will be conducted in Quebec by Quebecers. That is
as it should be. Such activity is one of the privileges of our
wonderful Confederation.
[Translation]
As the member representing the riding of Peterborough, I want
to say something to my fellow citizens from Quebec. An
overwhelming majority of my constituents want Quebec to remain
part of Canada. Several of us have French as their mother tongue,
while others attend French immersion schools. As well, some, like
me, studied in the «belle province» and have children who were
born in Quebec.
These examples clearly show the many strong links which unite
us. Please stay with us.
* * *
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
government is trying to intimidate federal public servants in
Quebec who want to actively participate in the referendum
campaign. In a letter to all his employees, the deputy minister for
Treasury Board warns federal public servants in Quebec to think
twice about the nature of their employment before making public
statements.
Federal union officials are unanimous in denouncing this barely
veiled threat because, notwithstanding the Liberal government's
will to gag federal public servants, the Supreme Court recognized
that they have the right to freely express their views during election
or referendum campaigns.
Since when does the government threaten its employees with
losing their job if they exercise their right to speak freely? As we
saw earlier this week, the government is once again about to
sacrifice the rights and freedoms of Quebecers for the sake of
Canadian unity.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal members while in opposition complained day after day
about patronage appointments of the previous government. Mr.
Speaker, I want you to know that times have not changed. The
justice minister has continued the tradition by appointing to the
Court of Queen's Bench 11 party hacks, bagmen and party
supporters to have a turn feeding snout deep at the taxpayers'
expense.
The Liberals promised in their infamous red book to end
patronage. Canadians should know the only symbol their colour red
stands for is the continuing debt and the colour of baloney. The
Liberal justice system of social engineering and blaming society
for the actions of criminals will continue with these appointments.
The Liberal attitude of finding everyone wrong but special interests
crying discrimination will continue because of these appointments.
Let the Liberals feed their faithful while they can. The trough
will be sealed after the next election.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 13 the Ottawa Lynx Triple A baseball team won the
Governor's Cup of the international league. Thanks to their great
team effort the Lynx beat the Norfolk Tides four to nothing, thus
winning the best of five series three games to one. Norfolk with the
14762
best record during the regular season was the favourite team
coming into post-season play; however, the Montreal Expos farm
team peaked at the right time and took the championship.
Since its creation the prospects for the Lynx have been rather
encouraging. In the first year the team set a new Attendance record
for the league.
The September 13 game which brought the championship to
Canada stretched over four hours and twenty-seven minutes,
including two rain delays, yet the 9,000 plus fans gathered at the
Ottawa stadium never lost faith in their team.
(1110 )
On behalf of all the baseball fans in Ottawa-Vanier and in
Ottawa-Carleton, I offer my most sincere congratulations to the
Ottawa Lynx, to their manager, their president and owner, Mr.
Howard Darwin and Jim Durrell, the former mayor of Ottawa.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in the House today to pay tribute to the women and men who work
in the police, fire, water rescue and ambulance services in
Bruce-Grey. On September 24 the Reverend Christopher Pratt
will conduct a special service at St. George's Anglican Church in
Owen Sound honouring those hard working, well trained and
dedicated people.
I am sure hon. members of the House share the admiration and
respect I feel toward the people in Bruce-Grey whose jobs often
take them into high risk situations.
I join the congregation, the members and the people of
Bruce-Grey in giving a hearty thank you to those courageous
individuals for their contribution toward safer communities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the yes side laid out the foundations for the
sovereign country Quebecers are being called upon to build for
themselves. Echoing the many demands expressed during the
commissions on the future of Quebec, the aim of the sovereignty
team plan is to breathe a new dynamism into Quebec society once it
possesses all of the powers vested in a sovereign people.
``Our Hearts in Our Work'' is a second quiet revolution. Because
a sovereign Quebec will be able to use all of the means available to
sovereign states, it will find original solutions to the numerous
problems facing us.
Choosing the no side means choosing immobility. We are sure
that Quebecers will say no to immobility and yes to change.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the ministers of health met in Victoria this week to
supposedly save medicare but instead they chose to sling insults at
each other. All the while Canada's health care system continued its
decline with increasing waiting lists, rationing of essential health
care services and the massive exodus of expensive and highly
trained professional staff.
We all care about medicare and want to see it continue. However
an aging population, expensive technologies and an economic
crisis have all combined to make medicare as we know it
unsustainable. We must look at other new ways to preserve the
intent of medicare which will ensure that all Canadians regardless
of their income have essential health care services covered in a
timely fashion.
The public does not accept the flawed logic of this government
which prevents it from gaining access to medical services of their
choice. All Canadians must be free to have medicare and a choice
to ensure that the health care needs of all Canadians is met.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec separatists did not take long to react to
a study published yesterday on the credit rating of an independent
Quebec. The study, which is on the whole very positive for those
who are promoting independence for Quebec, remains
conspicuously silent on several important aspects of the question,
as pointed out by Michel Van de Walle in his business column in
the
Journal de Montréal.
Another issue our separatist friends have tried to dodge arises
from the confusion around the author of the report. The firm of
Payne Webner, whose name was associated with the report, said in
a press release last Wednesday that it neither sponsored it nor
endorses its conclusions.
What, more accurately, should be referred to as the Albert
Gordon study fails to clarify satisfactorily a question that is
extremely complex. We can imagine that after a very difficult week
like this one, Quebec separatists needed a new set of rose-coloured
glasses.
14763
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Action démocratique du Québec must be
starting to wonder what he is doing in Quebec's separatist
coalition. In today's
Le Soleil published in Quebec City, we read
that half the executive of Mario Dumont's riding association intend
to vote No in the next referendum.
Members of the association are deeply divided on the policies of
their party, and some, including Rémi Dumont, and I quote, ``are
disappointed in the ADQ's decision to vote for sovereignty''. Rémi
Dumont added that he would work for the No side.
(1115)
This development, which is astonishing to say the least, should
remind the ADQ's young leader that the Quebecers who supported
him in the last election may want more powers for Quebec, but they
want those powers within a united Canada.
_____________________________________________
14763
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on two occasions-December 8, 1994 and March 27,
1995-in response to questions by the official opposition, the
Prime Minister stated in this House that he never met promoter
Jack Matthews in order to discuss the privatization of the Pearson
airport and has denied soliciting a contribution of $25,000 to his
campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party.
Testifying last night in the Senate investigation of the Pearson
scandal, Mr. Matthews stated under oath that he indeed met the
Prime Minister in late 1989 or in early 1990, that discussions did
indeed concern the privatization of Pearson airport and that the
future leader of the Liberal Party asked him for a $25,000
campaign contribution.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In the face of this sworn
testimony, will the Prime Minister continue in his denial or does he
intend to change his version of the facts?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I continue in my denial. Particularly because the meeting
was held on April 14, 1989 in the company of a lawyer, who
testified under oath and kept notes in his files and because we
discussed with Mr. Matthews the possibility of building a head
office for Transport Canada on property in Ottawa.
There was absolutely no discussion of Pearson airport and, what
is more, I have never solicited funds from anyone during my
political career. People were solicited by my supporters. He has got
it mixed up again; he has the date wrong and everything. Mr.
LaBarge has testified that he had no interest in it and that he is a
lawyer. He testified very clearly confirming my version that we
discussed the Transport Canada building and nothing else and that,
at that point in time-April 1989-the then leader of the Liberal
Party was still in office and had not yet resigned. I therefore have
nothing to add to what I have said in this House.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in March 1994, as he did today, the Prime Minister relied
on corroboration from his former colleague, lawyer Paul LaBarge,
who also denied what Mr. Matthews said. Mr. LaBarge testified
under oath yesterday as well before the Senate committee
maintaining his denial.
However, this morning's Globe and Mail reported obtaining a
copy of the tape of last January's telephone call in which Mr.
LaBarge contradicted his testimony of yesterday and confirmed
Mr. Matthews statements. I quote the following passage from this
morning's Globe and Mail:
[English]
``Mr. LaBarge confirms that the meeting took place just before
Mr. Chrétien launched his bid for the Liberal leadership and that
campaign contributions were discussed''.
[Translation]
My question is for the Prime Minister. Given this recording in
which Mr. LaBarge himself confirms Mr. Matthew's sworn
testimony, will the Prime Minister, who has now been twice
contradicted, acknowledge that his credibility is seriously in
doubt?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I met with Mr. Matthews in the circumstances I described
to this House in April 1989. We discussed the Transport Canada
building, which, at that time, was the subject of various proposals
the government wanted. I was a lawyer. I gave my opinion on
whether they were following the right procedure and on the
chances of successfully obtaining the contract. It was in April
1989, as has been confirmed by Mr. LaBarge, who had it in his
notes. And about the telephone call that was recorded without Mr.
LaBarge's knowledge, I really do not know. All I know is that the
dates are confirmed in the file in the office of the firm of lawyers I
belonged to.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, apart from the fact that Mr. Matthews was under oath and
runs the risk of facing very serious consequences for perjury, there
is the fact that the Prime Minister can no longer use Mr. LaBarge's
testimony as his support, because Mr. LaBarge contradicted him-
14764
self in the tape the Globe and Mail obtained, as it reported this
morning, and this is very serious, Mr. Speaker.
(1120)
So, if the Prime Minister is so sure of the truth of his words, why
does he not go and repeat them under oath before the Senate
committee of inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am the Prime Minister of Canada at the moment. I repeat
that I was not a member of Parliament at the time, I was a lawyer,
and we discussed the proposal for the Department of Transport
building.
There was no question of an election campaign at that point, and
all those who know me know very well that I have never solicited
funds on my own behalf for my election campaigns and that the
facts are very clear in this regard. I give my word that I never
discussed the Toronto airport with this man, who is having
considerable difficulty himself remembering the dates and
everything. I am not going to take the time to analyze all the many
contradictions in his testimony.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, of course
the Prime Minister's opinion commands respect. However, in this
case it has been formally contradicted by a Canadian citizen
speaking under oath and by a taped conservation.
In the circumstances, would the Prime Minister not consider it
would be most advisable for him to agree to testify under oath in
order to clear up this matter? Would the Prime Minister agree with
the importance of such a step?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when a minister rises in the House and gives his word, that
is generally good enough for hon. members.
Especially since according to one of his claims, he received a
call from someone who is now one of my collaborators, Mr.
Goldenberg, who allegedly also asked him for a contribution. Mr.
Goldenberg has asked him, through his lawyers, to withdraw what
he said. He never met Mr. Matthews and never spoke to him on the
telephone.
Mr. Matthews will have to face charges before the courts, since
Mr. Goldenberg has instructed his lawyers to start legal
proceedings against Mr. Matthews if he does not withdraw his
statement.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know it is
customary, and indeed we do respect the word of a member in this
House. However, the Prime Minister is no doubt aware that the
parliamentary immunity, the legal immunity a member enjoys
when he speaks in this House implies that when a citizen testifies
under oath or a member agrees to testify under oath outside this
House, the impact is far greater, because there are major legal
consequences.
In the circumstances, why should the Prime Minister, who
knows the value of a sworn statement, leave any doubts as to his
version of the facts and his integrity, considering he was formally
contradicted by an individual who was speaking under oath and
may face certain consequences? What this individual said is
confirmed by a tape recording.
Why should the Prime Minister be willing to leave these doubts
in people's minds, when he has the convenient option of appearing
before a Senate committee, being sworn like an ordinary citizen
and repeating his statement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am going by the precedents in this House for testimony
by prime ministers. If you want to bring a Bible here, I will swear
on the Bible in front of the entire country. Bring the Bible. I will
swear on the Bible. I have no objection.
Mr. Speaker, do you have a Bible? I will swear on the Bible right
now. If the hon. member will not respect a parliamentary tradition
that says that when a member rises in this House, his word is as
good as his oath, bring me a Bible and I will swear on the Bible, in
English and in French.
* * *
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the odour surrounding the cancellation of the Pearson
airport contract continues to get worse. The government is now
planning to use the taxpayers' money to buy its way out of a mess it
created. It claims it will be an arm's length purchase by the greater
Toronto airport authority, but what private sector lender provides
175 per cent financing?
The Prime Minister continuously slams the actions of the former
Tory government but continues to practise the same old style
politics that blurs any distinction between the lines of the two old
parties of the past.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he admit that this
questionable deal is nothing more than an effort to buy his way out
of an embarrassing problem and with taxpayers' money?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows from his experience with the transport
committee how important the policy of local airport authority and
privatization of local airports is to the government. He knows that
many communities other than Toronto are also engaged in a
process of negotiation with the federal government to follow on the
example of other cities that have taken local control of their own
airports. This is a policy that enables local communities not only to
improve their own airports but to take responsibility for ensuring
that they use them as economic development tools. That is
something that will benefit the travellers, the businesses of the
14765
Toronto area, as it will, I hope, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Halifax, and the
other airport cities that are engaged in these negotiations.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government has claimed in the past that failure
to pass Bill C-22 has inhibited its ability to resolve the problem.
The truth is it has no plan.
The current Liberal course of action is costing 4,700 jobs, $72
million in tax revenues, leaves Pearson with a potential passenger
shortfall of two million passengers a year, and has caused Air
Canada to look at a $525 million expenditure, which it can ill
afford, to prop up its operation in terminal two. The government
still has not provided any kind of plan.
Will the government not agree this is nothing more than an
attempt to get out of a mess that is ever worsening, particularly in
light of the Prime Minister's former law partner softening his
refutal of the accusations that have been made?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a mess here, and it started 10 days before the last election.
I can recall very clearly how explicit it was during the election
campaign that a government days before an election did not have
the moral authority or parliamentary authority to commit the
Government of Canada to a transaction of the magnitude and
importance of this one. This was not in any doubt whatsoever.
The fact that the government of the day went ahead and signed
this transaction is the exact and only cause of the mess that
surrounds Pearson airport today.
If the hon. member would tell his friends in the Senate to get on
with completing Bill C-22, we could get on with the work at
Pearson airport.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, two years have gone by since the Liberals formed the
government. There is no injunction against the government by the
Pearson consortium to stop any plan of action by the Liberals. They
simply do not have one.
If the government is planning to use $800 million to compensate
Claridge's partners, why is it paying this money only to the
Bronfman controlled company and expecting them to bail the
government out of its Pearson mess? Obviously the cheaper they do
it the more money for them.
Will the Prime Minister admit the obvious? He is playing the
same old game of Liberal patronage that he accuses the Tories of
playing.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the best advice I can give the hon. member is to heed the
comments of the Conservative chairman of the committee that is
examining Bill C-22, who said yesterday, and I quote: ``You can
carry this as far as you want, but it has got nothing to do with this
committee. If you think I am trying to protect the Prime Minister's
reputation, my credentials as a Conservative are one hell of a lot
stronger and of a longer term than any other member here''. The
Conservative chairman of the committee says that the Prime
Minister's reputation is not the issue here. We know the issue here
is getting on with the work at Pearson airport.
(1130)
Why is it that the Reform Party continues to support a
transaction that was entered into by a Conservative government
lacking the responsibility and authority to do it? I do not
understand that. Maybe he can explain it one day.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister, just now, tried to hide behind parliamentary
tradition. However, no parliamentary tradition places anyone in
this House above the law.
The Prime Minister has called for a Bible; there are Bibles in the
Senate. Let him go to the Senate and borrow the very Bible Mr.
Matthews used when he swore his oath. What is he waiting for to
go to the Senate, like any other Canadian, to swear an oath and
answer questions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the chairman of the committee himself told me this had
nothing to do with the issue. The chairman, a Conservative senator,
told us that they do not want to ask the Prime Minister to appear,
and will not do so.
No one has asked me to appear there. I stand here in this House
to say clearly what I know. If the hon. member has any courage, let
him accuse me specifically of lying to this House, and let his seat in
this House hang in the balance as a consequence.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of respecting the institutions of Parliament, as
well as respecting democracy in general, as for the referendum vote
in Quebec, the Prime Minister ought to begin by respecting the
traditions of this House, and behave like any other Canadian.
Once again, I ask what he is waiting for to go to the Senate to
testify, to shed light on this whole matter which, it would appear,
shows Conservatives and Liberals to be two peas in a pod, as they
both have helped themselves freely to the taxpayers' money.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) Mr. Speaker,
at this very moment, I am testifying before the House of
Commons. I have said all that I have to say on this matter, and I
14766
have given dates which have been confirmed by the legal firm
where I used to work. I had one meeting with that man-
Mr. Bouchard: That is not true.
Ms. Copps: Lucien, are you willing to bet your seat on that?
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): That is absolutely true. I
declare that we never spoke about the Toronto airport at that time.
The meeting concerned the Matthews group's plan regarding the
offer they wanted to make to the government with respect to the
Department of Transport headquarters.
[English]
There were a lot of bids going on at the time in Ottawa
competing for this building that has never been built. They came to
ask me if the procedures they were following were the proper ones
to maximize their chances of winning the bid.
I told them what was positive in their bids, in my judgment, and
what was not positive. Eventually nobody won the bid because the
building was never built.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
after witnessing question period this week Canadians are now
familiar with the government's public unity strategy. However, out
of sight of the cameras the Liberals are practising a different
strategy, namely appeasement through the election process at
committees.
After 14 meetings this week it has become clear the Liberals
have formed some sort of alliance with the Bloc in what can only
be concluded is an effort to appease the party which would tear our
country apart, in the vain hope that it will lead to unity in our time.
Will the government House leader bring forward a notice of
motion to amend the standing orders to ensure the election of
committee officers by secret ballot?
The Speaker: May I please suggest to hon. members that your
Speaker is listening to virtually every word that is said in the
questions.
(1135 )
Many times in the preambles, which if you will permit me to say
are getting longer, it seems, you are leading to a point where we are
in committees. When we get to the question it has to be quite
precise.
I ask you, please do not put your Speaker in a position that I have
to rule out of order before we get to the question. I would ask you to
please consider those preambles because they are, for me at least
here in the chair, somewhat misleading.
I will permit the question because the question is in order.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whatever happens in committee is
the responsibility of members of the committee.
The member is also a member of the House procedure
committee. If they wish to change the rules they can ask the
member sitting in the committee to advance that proposition and
the committee on House procedure will look into it.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are not talking about internal committee procedures but the
responsibility of the House with regard to House rules.
If we look at the figures of the 34th Parliament, the third party
received no less than 11 vice-chairs or even chairs. It is hard to
believe that the Mulroney Tories would have a greater sense of fair
play than the Liberals, especially when the now minister of
immigration said in 1987: ``The secret ballot offers members of
Parliament an opportunity to do what is right for this country''-
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to put his question now.
Mr. Ringma: My question, Mr. Speaker, is again for the
government House leader. Will he agree to introduce at least a
resolution allowing for the election of committee officers by secret
ballot during the life of this Parliament?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for the House
procedures committee.
The hon. member is a member of that committee. He should go
to the committee of which he is a member and make that
proposition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the chairman of the No committee, Daniel Johnson, stated
in 1992: ``Federalism is deeply flawed because of federal
duplication, which is costing us a fortune. It is the main reason for
the $30 billion deficit''. Yesterday, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs admitted that the Privy Council had
conducted studies on duplication, which the government decided to
keep confidential.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Given the substantial waste linked to duplication, why does the
government refuse to release these studies?
14767
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 reason why I did not admit that we were conducting
studies on duplication is because we are not. What I said is that
we were doing analyses of the current situation and that the
purpose of these analyses is to give advice to the decision makers,
that is to say, the ministers.
I would point out to the opposition that similar analyses done for
the Executive Council of the Quebec Government are not made
public either, since they give confidential advice to the decision
makers. There is an essential difference between such analyses,
which are exempted under the Access to Information Act, and
studies done by research institutes like the INRS, which are meant
to be published so that the public can have a better idea of what
independence would entail. That is something they are hiding,
whereas we are not hiding what we have.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we will get back to this on Monday but in the meantime I
would like to ask the minister why he is being so secretive about
studies showing the cost and extent of overlap and duplication, if
not because they prove that the federal system simply does not
work?
(1140)
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, I will use the very figures quoted by the opposition. At
one point during his debate with Daniel Johnson, Mr. Parizeau
mentioned that duplication cost $3 billion. He was contradicted by
his own advisers, who said at the time that it may have amounted to
$250 million.
Some hon. members: That is wrong.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Parizeau quoted a $30 billion figure in his
studies, saying that duplication had led to a $30 billion deficit.
These figures are wrong and totally unbelievable. These figures
have been refuted by many of the studies done by Mr. Le Hir and
should not be used if the opposition wants to preserve a minimum
of credibility.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The minister continues to adhere to the myth that if medicare
ain't broke don't fix it. Yet it is broken and there is a growing
chorus from across Canada that wants a change to fix it. This
chorus includes provincial governments and ministers of health
from across Canada, including British Columbia and Quebec. This
chorus includes health care workers, including doctors and nurses
and the public whose very lives may be at risk.
To date the minister has introduced only two pieces of legislation
in the last two years in Ottawa. Will the minister be introducing any
legislation to address this growing need, in fact the demand for
change?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
to date the Canada Health Act has been extremely flexible in
allowing for change within different provinces. To say that the
system is broken is to exaggerate. I would rather say that the
system needs changing. Technology is with us. I am working with
the provinces and I will continue to work with them.
I think that the Canada Health Act, which works well for
Canadians, should stay in place and continue to protect the rights of
Canadians to first class medical care, regardless of whether or not
they can afford to pay extra.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's answer once again reflects a blindness to
reality, to the facts.
Let me focus on the breakdown of the system. Two examples
may suffice. In my home province of British Columbia it takes over
seven weeks, almost two months, to get an appointment with a
specialist. It takes 27 weeks on average to receive cardiovascular
surgery, almost seven months.
When will the minister show that she values the well-being and
the lives of Canadians above her blind loyalty to outdated
legislation? When will the minister first admit and then act on an
obviously unsustainable health care system?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am always a little surprised to hear members opposite say how
things are in British Columbia. The officials and the minister of
health for British Columbia are extremely supportive of the Canada
Health Act.
They have brought in their own health act, which mirrors the
principles of the Canada Health Act, to ensure that British
Columbians will continue to have the best health care policies and
the best health care programs available for them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Last
spring, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justified a
substantial increase in the Privy Council's budget by saying that
this increase was intended for the most part to pay for studies to be
conducted in order to reduce duplication and overlap.
14768
Could the minister tell us how many studies on duplication and
overlap between Ottawa and the provinces have been conducted
by the Privy Council since spring?
(1145)
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, I have had my answers to the questions put to me in
February dug out. What I said at the time is this: We presently have
action plans with eight provinces and two territories to reduce
duplication. During the past year, we signed with the provinces and
territories 64 agreements, which have been made public. We
therefore have no objection to letting the opposition admire these
fine pieces of work. Eight of these agreements were concluded with
Quebec before September 12, 1994, and none since, obviously. We
continue to use moneys in such a way as to reduce duplication and
overlap. That is not just talk, that is what we are doing.
This was my answer. We use taxpayers' money to make the
federal government more efficient. We do so in co-operation with
the provinces when they want to co-operate, but since the Parti
Quebecois came into office, no co-operation has been forthcoming
on its part and, unfortunately, it failed to help make services more
efficient in the province.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
does the minister explain that some studies conducted by the Privy
Council, notably by Stéphane Dion, Lorne Nystrom, a candidate in
the NDP leadership race, Michelle Tisseyre, a former Liberal
candidate, and Maurice Pinard, a professor at McGill University,
cannot be released as requested under the Access to Information
Act?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Again,
Mr. Speaker, at the meeting of the standing committee, I not only
provided the complete list of those involved in making analyses,
but I also explained what they had worked on.
Analyses were carried out for ministers to advise them on the
current situation. Again, the opposition is trying not to shed light
on the Le Hir studies because they were kept secret, but the Access
to Information Act clearly states that analyses carried out for
decision makers are confidential and therefore not covered by the
act.
The opposition is trying to create a diversion to avoid disclosing
that they themselves commissioned studies that were meant to be
published, studies conducted by an institute in order to use its-and
that is why the opposition-
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Canadians are concerned about the increasing amount of
government debt held by foreign investors. In the 1995 budget the
Minister of Finance indicated he would explore options to make
Canada savings bonds more attractive. Can the minister tell us
what he is doing to allow Canadians to get control of our foreign
debt and what are those options?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Dauphin-Swan River has shown a great interest in this, so perhaps
it is not entirely a coincidence that she would ask me this question
on the day that I am announcing the 1995 issue of Canada savings
bonds which will feature our new RRSP option.
An hon. member: Good timing.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate her
on what is undoubtedly a coincidence.
This new option will allow investors to register their Canada
savings bonds directly in the form of an RRSP without needing a
self-directed plan. There are no purchase fees. As well, the new
bonds will have competitive interest rates guaranteed for the next
three years and, if the occasion requires, it the interest rates will be
increased.
[Translation]
The new issue will be released by Tuesday, October 10, and will
be available until November 1. I strongly suggest that all members,
particularly those across the floor, purchase these bonds.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made passing reference to
Albertans as being the fortunate fat cats of confederation; an
attitude which led to the hated national energy program.
(1150 )
The Prime Minister should know that Albertans have contributed
around $140 billion to confederation over the last 30 years. Last
year alone they contributed $2 billion. Next year the government
will transfer approximately $475 million less to Alberta.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is it right for the
Government of Canada to significantly reduce funding for pro-
14769
grams that are the constitutional responsibility of the provinces, at
the same time insisting on setting all the rules for the delivery of
those programs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are still contributing a lot of money to those programs.
It is the consensus in the House of Commons and in all the
provinces, including a lot of the people living in Alberta, that
medicare should be the same for the rich and the poor. That is clear
in my mind.
I campaigned in Alberta for medicare and I will keep doing it
because it is the one element in our social programs that the people
believe in the most. They do not want to be subjected to the
pressures that existed before: better services for the rich, second
class services for the poor and the risk of losing everything when
you are sick.
The best system is Canadian medicare. It is the same for the
people of Alberta, the people of Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario
and British Columbia.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the reality of the situation is he who pays the piper calls
the tune.
At the recently concluded conference of health ministers, all of
the provinces and their health ministers were on one side of the
issue and the federal Minister of Health was on the other side. The
provinces and all Canadians want to resolve this issue. The only
consultation taking place between the federal government and the
provinces has been a letter stating that October 15 is the deadline.
Will the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Health to be
flexible on the deadline so that the provinces and all of the
stakeholders involved in health care and the delivery of health care,
which is under serious pressure, are able to come around the table
and solve the problem without artificially imposed deadlines?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member said all provincial ministers are in
agreement to more or less dismantle medicare and that is not true.
Yesterday the minister of health for Quebec said the universality
we are proposing is the best. He said if you start to accept some
private clinics, that is the crack in the dam and he was opposed to
doing that.
Do not affirm that everybody is against the policy of the
government. The great majority of provincial governments want to
keep medicare as it is.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Gordon Capital, the Toronto firm which employed the
Prime Minister from 1986 to 1990, was appointed to head the trust
responsible for liquidating the majority of the Petro-Canada shares
held by the government. For its trouble, Gordon Capital and its
associates will pocket commissions in excess of $65 million, the
highest amount ever paid in Canada for such a transaction.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Was the Prime Minister
involved in any way, shape or form in the decision to appoint his
former employer to head the coordinators responsible for the sale
of Petro-Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
was not involved in that decision, which was made following a
recommendation by the Department of Finance and the Department
of Energy. This was done following an open bid to most brokers in
Canada, as well as in the United States, I might add.
I should mention that the commission was not high; in fact, it
was one of the lowest ever paid for such a transaction in Canada. It
is obvious why Gordon was involved. We had the option of either
selling on the open market or of arranging a block purchase, and
Gordon Capital happens to be an expert when it comes to block
purchases.
(1155)
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, after the blatant patronage in the case of Power
DirecTv, the acquisition of MCA by Seagram and the Pearson
airport deal, which is still under scrutiny, how can the Prime
Minister explain the payment of tens of millions to his former
employer?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is
absolutely ridiculous and laughable. First, some 15 other firms in
Canada were involved. It must be pointed out that the margin
between Gordon and the others was one of the narrowest ever seen
for this type of transaction.
In fact, the member should congratulate the government. That
was the best privatization process ever accomplished by any
western government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I
have learned that a Sea King helicopter crashed Wednesday night
in Piopolis, Quebec. The crash was due to a transmission failure.
I had trouble getting this information from the Department of
National Defence. I wonder if the minister will confirm this
14770
incident and will he tell the House why it is a secret when one of
our aging Sea King helicopters goes down?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly
not a secret. It is very unfortunate. The pilots felt as a result of a
warning light coming on that indicated transmission trouble that
they should make an emergency landing. That is quite publicly
known. I cannot understand why the hon. member has had
difficulty getting information on this.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in my recent visit to Shearwater I found out that the
Sea King helicopter requires 25 hours of maintenance for each one
hour of flying time. This definitely speaks to the serious situation
the Sea King is in right now.
I can make my supplementary question very simple and I would
like to make it direct because the children serving our country are
literally falling out of the sky. How many other crashes must there
be before the government takes action to replace the Sea King?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know very
well these helicopters are old and we know very well the
parliamentary committee of which the hon. member was a
participant recommended they be replaced. This is a matter the
government said was to be pursued in the white paper. On the other
hand, it does not want us to spend money.
It is a matter for consideration. Since the armoured personnel
carrier contract is now en route we will look at the helicopters. In
the meantime these helicopters are certified to fly until the year
2000. They are perfectly safe. I have been on them many times. If
the hon. member would like to go for a ride I would welcome
giving him one.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
Yesterday we launched the $2 coin. We also know the $2 coin
will cause some problems, some concerns, some inconvenience
and also some expense to certain sectors of our economy. What is
the minister prepared to do to minimize the problems for the new
coin?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the unexpected but yet timely question relating to the
$2 coin.
The member is quite right. Yesterday we unveiled the design of
the new $2 coin which is a polar bear. Some of the young people
have referred to it as ``the bear''. We hope to be able to work with
the various small and medium size businesses to make the
transition as smooth as possible.
The rationale for the decision was a result of the budget of the
Minister of Finance. It clearly set out that by changing from the $2
note to the $2 coin we will save the taxpayers of Canada in excess
of $250 million.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
One year ago I tabled a petition that called for the government to
regulate tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act. The minister's
response at that time was that tobacco could not be made safe and
therefore could not come under that act.
Given the Supreme Court ruling, what are the government's
plans to amend or replace the Tobacco Products Control Act and to
deal with the situation as a result of the Supreme Court ruling?
(1200 )
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will take guidance from the decision of the Supreme Court. It is
absolutely essential.
We would rather not have to spend another seven years before
the courts. That in effect is what has happened. We spent seven
years and twenty-one days, to be exact.
It is very important, following the guidance of this decision, that
we take the steps available to us and go as far as possible and as
quickly as possible, because many people are dying as a direct
result of tobacco products. We have to do everything in our power,
especially to stop young people from starting up and having access
to those tobacco products.
_____________________________________________
14770
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 two
petitions.
14771
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 86th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the
associate membership of committees. If the House gives its
consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I believe there will be unanimous consent for
the following motion. I move:
That the following members be added to the list of associate members of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Mr. Assad, Mr. McGuire,
Mr. Duhamel.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I propose, again seconded by the
Chief Government Whip, that the 86th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled in the House
today be adopted.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured
once again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 and
present a petition on behalf of my constituents, to be specific, the
agricultural sector of my constituency, who are upset with the
proposed closing of the agricultural employment services offices.
They are petitioning the government to review this and give
consideration to not doing this, because it is against what was in the
red book, which stated ``Jobs, jobs, jobs''. This is a branch funded
by the government that is creating jobs. Without it, employment
and employees in the agricultural sector will be hurt.
(1205)
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present three petitions to the House today from the
residents of Surrey North and other residents of Canada.
The first two petitions draw to the attention of the House the
inadequacy of Bill C-68, the proposed gun legislation, toward the
solving of violent crime. These petitioners are requesting that
Parliament call on the attorney general to bring in a bill that would
address violent crime.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): The third
petition, Mr. Speaker, raises concern regarding the standards of
training and education of aircraft maintenance engineers. These
petitioners are praying that the minister would leave the existing
legislation alone for the licensing of aircraft maintenance
engineers.
[Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure of submitting a petition on behalf of the residents
of Vancouver.
[English]
The petition concerns the issue of sexual orientation. The
petitioners state that discrimination based on one's sexual
orientation is real and hurtful and contravenes the Canadian
charter, and further that all forms of families based on financial and
emotional interdependency are meaningful and important to the
social well-being of this country.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to amend all
legislation that discriminates against homosexuals and to recognize
all relationships of mutual love, support, and dependency.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
14771
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-94,
an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
14772
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the
recorded division stands deferred until Monday, September 25, at
the ordinary hour of adjournment.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find the consent
of the House to call it 1.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to call it 1.30
p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
14772
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ask Canada Post
Corporation to integrate into its development plan a strategy promoting the
local development of regions and municipalities in Quebec and Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting to rise today in
this House on this motion, especially as the minister responsible
for Canada Post Corporation announced, a few weeks ago, that a
committee would carry out an in depth review of the corporation.
(1210)
A while ago, I presented the motion which is on today's Order
Paper and through which I want the House to convey to this
committee that, from now on, Canada Post Corporation should
integrate into its development plan a strategy promoting the local
development of regions and municipalities in Quebec and Canada.
We must say that, in this area, things were not too great in the
past.
Under the previous federal government, the reform of Canada
Post Corporation was entirely and exclusively focused on cutting
costs, regardless of the impact on the rural and urban communities
affected by post office closures. I would even venture to say that
this strategy was part of what brought down upon the government
the wrath of the public and caused its demise in the fall of 1993.
I also believe that it resulted in the moratorium banning post
office closures which has been in effect since the fall of 1993.
However, to this day, the government has made no effort to correct
past mistakes. Take, for instance, the village of Saint-Clément, in
my riding, where the post office was closed against the will of 100
per cent of the population who clearly proved that it wanted and
needed a post office. The previous government turned a deaf ear
and so did the current one, arguing that the moratorium did not
cover the previous government's mistakes, and that the case was
closed.
Now it seems the review committee, which will examine the
mandate of Canada Post Corporation, will be open to public
complaints concerning postal services so it is important that we
give that committee the opportunity to hear the opinion of
Quebecers and Canadians on the operations of the corporation and
on its contribution to the local development in every region of the
country.
Today, we can ask ourselves, as did the committee on rural
development in Canada after a thorough examination of the post
office issue: Is it possible to modernize Canada Post Corporation
and prepare it for the twenty first century? Could we not adopt a
new approach, a new form of marketing for postal services and not
a defensive attitude like the one which led to the closing of many
post offices, not because the clientele was decreasing, but because
the post master was retiring? Such measures were totally absurd
and it was written quite clearly in the mandate of Canada Post
Corporation. It caused some ludicrous situations. Today there are
post masters in post offices where clients are few while certain very
busy post offices have been closed.
So we really must seize this opportunity given us by the review
committee soon to be created. I sincerely hope this committee will
be in place very soon. It is important because we should be
announcing next week that the review committee will be
operational and will review all the issues concerning Canada Post
Corporation.
Rural development is not the only issue, there are many other
aspects but my motion deals precisely with the local development
of rural regions.
14773
I would like to give a very concrete example of that. In the riding
of Rimouski-Témiscouata, the village of Saint-Honoré played the
game and agreed, four or five years ago, to have its post office
closed and the mandate given to a corner store owner.
This owner has now realized that this activity was not profitable
at all and he wants to give up that responsibility. That village is
now facing the situation where, in February 1996, it will not have
any postal service, because the post office will have been closed
and sold. With a short term vision, it was thought that giving the
mandate to a corner store for a minimal amount was a good idea,
but we now find ourselves in a very serious situation because,
according to its current act, Canada Post Corporation is responsible
for ensuring mail delivery all across Canada, which will not be
done in that area.
(1215)
There is no real solution on the table. In rural areas, there is often
one corner store or one grocery store for every village or
municipality, and there may not be much choice but to move the
post office many kilometres away. It is not a very interesting
prospect at all.
So I think it would be important to look at the postal service not
only from a humane perspective-what the moratorium has
achieved is very important and I think we must recognize the effect
it has had-but also in terms of its future. Would it not be possible
to compel Post Canada Corporation to say in its development plan
what it intends to do in terms of the information highway, for
instance, in our villages? Would it not be a good idea to have, in
each of our municipalities, an information highway service point
which could be used by the local population?
For example, I can see that in a farming area, where farmers
need to know about the latest technology, programs, trade
opportunities and information in the field. We may not have yet
reached the stage where every farmer has access to the information
highway. Canada Post could maybe run some pilot projects to
ensure that our municipalities are cut off from the rest of society as
little as possible.
Post offices could also provide a fax service. Not everyone can
afford to pay $100 or $200 for a fax machine, least of all the people
who do not use them very often. Let us take, for example, a senior
citizen who suddenly runs into trouble with a department, because
a technical document went missing. We cannot expect that citizen
to have a fax machine at home, but we could provide such a service
through the post offices. This could prove interesting.
Another interesting service the post offices could provide is
access to the terminals of Human Resources Development Canada.
We are not saying that we are against the current centralization of
employment centres, but that is not the issue I want to address
because we do think that the centralization process is worthwhile. I
think that when people are looking for jobs, they must be able to
deal with persons.
However, if the workforce is maintained at its current level, we
could add several service points to give access to a program the
Department of Human Resources Development is already offering.
In order to do so, Canada Post would have to say: ``Because of our
corporate image and because of the benefits this would entail for
individual citizens, we would be ready, as a department, to sell you
this equipment''. Like they are doing actually. Right now, the
installation of these terminals costs about $5000. Canada Post
could buy quite a few of these terminals, even though it would
mean that it would have to inject several million dollars in this
project, but it would give all our citizens access to this information.
You have to remember that Human Resources Development
Canada does not provide only job search programs. It also deals
with our senior citizens and the pension systems. There is a lot of
room for improvement in this area and I think Canada Post should
be forced by this House, and by the committee considering this
issue, to see that its business plan look at ways not only to provide
postal services for less money, but also to do something to improve
things at the information level.
Let me give you an example, Sweden has decided to decentralize
the processing of income tax returns. Instead of having large
processing centres clustered in a single region like we do in
Canada, they can have income tax returns from one area processed
at the other end of the country in a decentralized way, thanks to
computer technology, so that, in every town, people can have a job
and work without leaving their community. Thus, the nation's
territory can be better used, and a fairer distribution of income is
fostered.
I think it is much better to keep regions alive through job
transfers than through transfer payments, and people could stay in
their own communities. That kind of development is possible with
a network like that of Canada Post.
Something else must be taken into account. We should avoid any
unwarranted competition. Let me give an example. In my own
riding, at the time of the year when income tax returns are
processed, Canada Post came up with a pilot project that allowed a
bank to sell RRSPs in a given town to residents of the area. That
kind of competition was unwarranted because there was a caisse
populaire in the town, and it had made investments in capital and
salaries so that it could to be located right on the spot year-round.
(1220)
But the bank, thanks to a profitable contract, did not have to pay
back the whole investment and did not have to contribute to rental
costs of the place, at least not at 100 per cent. That was unfair
14774
competition. This, in my opinion, should be looked into
thoroughly.
I think we should also emphasize the need for public debate and
hearings on this issue. Right now, a coalition of private couriers is
making representations to have the Canada Post's mandate revised
so that they can market their own services in densely populated
areas like Montreal, Quebec City, Vancouver, Toronto and all cities
with a large enough population. A private company might be able
to provide services at a lower cost than the Canada Post
Corporation.
The provision of these services must not result in a reduction of
services in other regions. If Canada Post suddenly becomes
responsible for providing postal services in sparsely populated
areas and the private company gets to serve all the profitable areas,
we will have an unacceptable situation which, in the medium term,
will lead to the disappearance of postal services in many places.
I think that there is a need for public debate, for public hearings,
and maybe that is what the Conservatives should have done first
before carrying out their reform. They should have asked people
what kind of postal services they wanted. It would help everybody
understand what the real issues are. Closing a single post office
may not look so tragic, but in our rural communities, given the way
development is going, it is often a sign that other services are about
to disappear, like the school and even the church.
We must find a way to ensure the development of those
communities. There may have been some mistakes but, in general,
people who founded parishes and helped them grow invested a lot
of time and energy in those communities. We should ensure that, in
the future, services will be maintained to promote the development,
and not the disappearance, of local communities.
This seems important to me; it will be a golden opportunity to
see how important the development of local communities is to the
government. Is the government really willing to do something
interesting in this area?
As a final argument, I will broach another aspect of this issue. In
the partnership proposed to Quebecers in the referendum
campaign, four or five priority areas are clearly mentioned, such as
the monetary union, the movement of people as well as various
areas in which there could be an agreement between governments,
and Canada Post is one of those areas.
I think the committee that will be given responsibility for these
studies, which will not be sitting tomorrow morning but probably
after October 30, should plan to study this sort of situation so that,
in the future as part of the cooperation to be established between
Quebec and Canada after a Yes, it is clear that there are advantages
for both sides in agreeing and ensuring the service functions
properly.
The entire network of post offices in Quebec and Canada has
been paid for by all taxpayers, and will therefore form part of the
debt allocation. This may be one of the issues we consider
important, one that is included within the agreement, which makes
provision very properly for a set of issues to be covered under the
partnership, and this one strikes me as important.
(1225)
In conclusion, the letter carrier unions, postmasters, rural
communities and private messenger services are asking that this
study be as public as possible, so we are sure we do not end up with
a monopoly or making decisions that have an impact over a number
of years in the future without the community being consulted. I
think the public should be informed on this.
When Canada Post will be forced by Parliament to integrate into
its development plan a strategy promoting the local development of
regions and municipalities in Quebec and Canada, it will know that
it is part of its mandate and it will be able to take it into account in
its decisions and to avoid the mess of three or four years ago in this
sector.
This will make it possible to correct at last significant errors that
are still with us today, symbolic mistakes such as the decision
concerning the Saint-Clément post office and the one concerning
Saint-Honoré and other such examples throughout Quebec and
Canada that I gave today. Canada Post must become a corporation
that is as modern all over Quebec and Canada as it is in Ottawa
where it gave itself great facilities. It is a corporation whose clients
want to know what services they will get and how good these
services will be. I believe that is part of the challenges Quebec and
Canada will be facing in the 21th century. Let us seize this
opportunity.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
motion proposed by the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is rather strange. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ask Canada Post
Corporation to integrate into its development plan a strategy promoting the
local development of regions and municipalities in Quebec and Canada.
I say strange because Canada Post Corporation is already
promoting the local development of regions and municipalities in
Quebec and Canada. Canada Post is everywhere. For instance,
there are now over 18,370 retail outlets where one can buy stamps
and other products as well as postal services. In Quebec, there are
3,451 outlets. Over 75 per cent of these are presently owned by the
private sector. Many of them are found in drugstores, convenience
stores, etc. In fact, over 2,000 of these retail postal outlets are
managed by small and medium businesses who gain not only from
14775
the revenues generated, but also from the increased flow of clients
in their stores.
For the information of the members, I want to briefly recall the
historical background of Canada Post Corporation. Organized
postal services in Canada began in 1693, when the government of
New France paid Pedro da Silva to take some letters from Montreal
to Quebec. In 1755, the government opened the first post office in
Halifax. The development of postal services followed that of the
transportation network. Postal communications are closely linked
with the history of Canada. For 300 years, postal communications
helped Canadians keep in touch with each other, reduced distances
and thus promoted the exchange of information and distribution of
goods.
[English]
Today Canada Post Corporation delivers 46 million pieces of
mail each business day, which are processed through 23 major mail
plants and several other facilities, to nearly 12.3 million addresses
in Canada and forwards mail to virtually every country in the
world. Clearly what we see is Canada Post contributing to a
fundamental part of Canadian life.
(1230 )
In June of 1994 the Canada Post Corporation declared that the
new corporation is in business to serve. This is no mere slogan.
Canada Post has established it as a new way of life. It is a
philosophy the corporation wants to permeate every decision it
makes at every level. CPC is transforming itself from an operations
based organization asking the customers to meet its requirements
to one that will go the extra mile to satisfy customers and meet
their needs.
[Translation]
This motion addresses development. The Canada Post
Corporation knows a good deal about development. This past year
CPC has focussed particular attention on improving and expanding
its services to small business. It is aware of just how important
small and medium size businesses are to the economic growth of
the country. The central focus of its new approach is a program of
services to business. It now has two business centres, one in
Calgary and one in London. These are one stop resource centres,
where customers can obtain a variety of information on postal
products and services, and Canada Post staff can help businesses to
expand by providing owners with a full range of communications
and distribution solutions.
Another example of Canada Post Corporation's commitment to
small and medium size business is the fact that it has made
preferential rates available to small volume mailers-some
members may be aware that special rates were, until very recently,
reserved in theory for those with a heavy volume of mail. That is
what I call development.
[English]
Canada Post is a dynamic commercial crown corporation which
competes with the open market throughout Canada. Due to this
dynamism, Canada Post's competitors, for example the Canadian
Courier Association, have frequently charged Canada Post with
unfair business practices. Why? It is simple: they cannot compete.
The allegations of cross subsidization are not true, and some
recent media reports have even supported the association's
proposal that a federal regulatory body be established to oversee
the operations of Canada Post. However, hon. members should
know that independent quasi-judicial bodies have examined the
charges, and the charges of cross subsidization cannot be sustained,
whether they are aimed at Canada Post's priority courier service or
at the corporation's purchase of a controlling interest in Purolator
courier.
The CCA has never produced any evidence to support its cross
subsidization allegations. The Standing Committee on Government
Operations, the Bureau of Competition Policy, and the National
Transportation Agency have all examined the issue. They have
never been substantiated. For example, with regard to Canada
Post's purchase of Purolator courier, in which no public funding
was involved, the director of the competition bureau concluded in
November 1993 that ``there are no grounds at this time to believe
that cross subsidization has occurred or would occur post-merger
with Purolator, which would likely result in a substantial lessening
or prevention of competition in the marketplace''.
[Translation]
The CCA claims Canada Post Corporation is in unfair
competition with CCA members, through a monopoly on what it
calls a considerable portion of its business. But it is more than one
hundred years since Parliament enacted legislation assigning this
exclusive privilege in order to guarantee all Canadians will pay the
same prices to have a letter delivered within the country. Canada
Post is in business to serve all Canadians and exclusive privilege is
the only way Parliament could guarantee all citizens access to
universal postal service from coast to coast.
The independent review concluded that Canada Post is not
abusing that exclusive privilege. Is the CCA implying that
Parliament erred when it gave a monopoly to this fundamental
element of Canadian life?
(1235)
[English]
Some may question Canada Post's ability to survive in the age of
the information highway. The corporation is quite aware that the
evolution of new communications technologies such as E-mail,
14776
facsimile, data transmissions, and electronic funds transfers will
impact the outlook of Canada Post's traditional mail services.
The postal service recognizes the move toward electronic
transmission of information and it has developed a number of value
added electronic services, which combined with an unmatched
infrastructure will allow the corporation to provide all Canadians
with the services they will need as Canada heads into the 21st
century.
The corporation is no stranger to technological developments in
the communications industry. Canada Post has been involved for
years in electronic messaging and it continues to develop new
services for the future.
[Translation]
The motion before the House today asks Canada Post
Corporation to promote local development. I know of no better way
to do this than through the literacy campaign. Canada Post works
closely with literacy groups throughout Canada. It launched a
reading game to encourage reading among school children. This
game is now part of the curriculum in Newfoundland and New
Brunswick, and in Winnipeg. It developed a series of videos to
raise motivation and awareness.
[English]
The Canada Post Corporation does not need to further, through
more regulations, a strategy promoting the local development of
regions and municipalities in Quebec and Canada. Why not? It is is
simple: it has already done so.
Canada Post recognizes that it plays an important role in the
social and economic fabric of Canadian life. Although the member
for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is well intentioned, I cannot
support the motion that is before the House.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address the motion put forward by the member from the
Bloc regarding Canada Post.
Motion 403 proposes the government ask Canada Post
Corporation to integrate into its development plan a strategy
promoting the local development of regions and municipalities in
Quebec and in Canada. I have several concerns regarding this
motion.
The first issue that needs to be addressed is the wording of the
motion, as I find it quite confusing. This motion addresses Quebec
and Canada separately, which does not make sense when Quebec is
a province within Canada. I fully recognize that we are facing a
referendum in Quebec regarding separation. However, the last time
I checked Quebec was still a part of Canada. Perhaps legislative
counsel could iron out this obvious oversight and clarify the
wording so that it simply refers to Canada. Then all provinces will
be included using that definition.
Besides the wording of the motion, it is somewhat confusing as
to why this motion is being proposed by a separatist in the first
place. Canada Post is a Canadian corporation set up to serve
Canadians. If the member is so keen on pushing the separatist
agenda, why the interest in a Canadian crown corporation? The
member simply cannot have it both ways. Surely he does not
expect to separate from Canada and then take the crown
corporation with him. A separate Quebec will obviously run its
own postal system, not one subsidized by the rest of Canada.
Canada Post serves Canada, and that includes all the provinces
within its borders, nothing more and nothing less.
I also have problems with the fundamental intent of this motion,
which suggests that Canada Post be used to prop up declining
regions and municipalities. Given that Canada Post is a money
losing venture, how does the member propose that it be used to
build municipalities and regions? It does not make any sense.
Canada Post's mandate is to best serve the postal needs of
Canadians. Getting a letter quickly and as inexpensively as
possible from one area of the country to the other should be the
primary concern.
(1240)
Canada Post is a basic service and must fulfil its role as
independently as possible, without reliance on government
subsidies or unwanted interference.
In 1981 Canada Post Corporation was created and given a
mandate that included achieving self-sufficiency while acting at
arm's length from the government. At that time Canada Post faced
economic uncertainty and was losing $600 million a year. Canada
Post has turned its business around in the last 12 years, but there is
still plenty of work to be done.
This past year Canada Post lost $70 million, the third loss in five
years. Canada Post was forced to increase its stamp price by two
cents this year because it claimed to be in such financial trouble.
Given that Canada Post is running a deficit, the corporation needs
to focus its energy as much as possible on its basic mandate:
delivering mail quickly and at the lowest cost.
If Canada Post cannot run its own business, how can we expect it
to promote regional development? This smacks of old style, pork
barrel politics: full speed ahead and to heck with the costs.
It is fundamental that post offices must be established on a basis
of need for service. Location should be selected on the basis of
where they will best meet the needs of the local residents, not for
buying votes from a town or rewarding political supporters.
14777
Regional development ideas went down with the Titanic, so why
are we trying to refloat them here? With any crown corporation,
taxpayers need to know that they are getting their money's worth.
They want good service and fair prices, not another bloated
bureaucracy with a fuzzy mandate incorporating regional
development.
We know we have problems with our crown corporations.
Canadians need to be assured that their tax dollars are being spent
wisely. They want an open, efficient postal system, because
Canadians are frustrated with poorly run corporations that ignore
their primary role.
A point that particularly frustrates me with current legislation is
that I cannot go back to my constituents with any assurances
because crown corporations like Canada Post are exempt from
access to information inquiries. Why is it that when crown
corporations are supported by taxpayers they are at the same time
protected by a cloak of secrecy that cannot be accessed under
freedom of information? Canada Post has a monopoly on mail
delivery, but it refuses to open its books to the public for fear of
competition.
Questions have been raised again and again regarding Canada
Post competition against other courier services. The Canadian
Courier Association has accused Canada Post of using its exclusive
mail revenues to subsidize its courier services, yet we cannot find
out the answer because the corporation is protected from access to
information. Business is complaining that Canada Post has an
unfair advantage with its courier services and that they are forcing
private enterprise out of business. However, the real story never
sees the light of day because the answers are hidden behind this
shield of secrecy.
Canada Post claims to have had an independent study done by
KPMG to review the matter. Where is the study? We have not seen
it. Canada Post refuses to release it. Canada Post protection from
public scrutiny only raises more questions.
Questions have been raised about Canada Post's granting of
contracts. Bidding for advertising mail services, for example, is
obscured and potential bid players are raising questions about the
procedures for bidding for services. For example, if a bidder has
tendered the lowest bid he or she may not get the contract. The
reasons for choosing one bidder over another are completely
obscured and there is no way for an individual to find out where
their bid sat compared to the others. Exemption from access to
information prevents individuals from reviewing the results of any
particular contract.
Given that the post office monopoly is under the umbrella of the
patronage king himself, the public works minister, it is high time
that Canadians were allowed to look into the books and practices of
Canada Post. Already we have caught the minister responsible for
this crown corporation with his hands in the cookie jar, handing out
post office leases to his political supporters in Nova Scotia.
(1245 )
How many other instances of political patronage are there
wrapped up in this corporation? Canadians want to know. It is high
time the government came clean and put an end to the old style
practices within our crown corporations.
Canada Post, like all crown corporations and government
agencies, must be accountable. That is first and foremost. Services
need to protected and functions run as cost effectively as possible
with the least likelihood of incurring public debt.
The government should move Canada Post out of the subsidized
role of courier service and ad mail delivery and limit it to what it
was designed to do in the first place, pick up and deliver mail.
I cannot support the motion to allow Canada Post to become
involved in regional development because it would be a poor
business decision and is simply contrary to the primary role of
Canada Post.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak to the motion moved by my colleague that
the Canada Post Corporation include in its strategic development
plans a local development perspective.
We have so often seen the negative impact that closing post
offices has had on small communities in Quebec and Canada. The
present government is very much aware of this and a few months
ago, asked the Canada Post Corporation to set a moratorium on
closing post offices in rural areas.
Considering the role played by the Canada Post Corporation in
these small communities, I think it was a wise move on the part of
the government and, furthermore, I think the Canada Post
Corporation's review committee, to be appointed by the
corporation, would do well and, in fact, should ensure that the
corporation's development plans include a special focus on the
development of local communities and that postal services
continue to play the role they had played so far in these
communities.
After expressing my support for this motion, I think I should
comment on what was said by my two colleagues, the Liberal
member and the member for the Reform Party. I think it is a good
indication of the present situation in Canada and the problems we
have.
First the hon. member for the Liberal Party said everything is
fine at the Canada Post Corporation. The corporation is
streamlining its operations, making a profit and introducing a
number of programs, including literacy programs which, as far as I
can see, would be used by the Canada Post Corporation to develop
local communities. It is not quite enough in my view.
14778
We then heard the hon. member for the Reform Party launch
his party's customary attack on crown corporations, government
services in general. According to him, the Canada Post
Corporation's sole responsibility is to deliver the mail. Whether
this is done by the Canada Post Corporation, a private corporation,
an American corporation or whoever, the only responsibility of
Canada Post is to deliver the mail.
This attitude has become increasingly widespread in this
country, and I think it has a destabilizing influence on Canada as a
country and on Quebec as the country I hope it will become. We
can draw a parallel with what happened to the railways.
The railroads, which were among the major institutions of this
country, have been abandoned. They did not believe in railroads,
they invested in transportation companies, which were allowed to
use heavier trucks that were then subjected to fewer inspections,
hence the increase in the number of accidents and in the level of
danger on our highways. In some areas of Canada, highways have
been almost completely destroyed because they are now used to
carry loads which ought to be moved by rail.
(1250)
Meanwhile, the rail system is being dismantled. There is also the
whole issue of telecommunications. We see in Quebec, and I
believe it is also the case in Ontario, very serious problems caused
by the fact that Bell Canada is presently restructuring its services
on the basis of new technologies and a new personnel management
policy.
This company is cutting jobs in order to withstand competition.
This situation was caused by the fact that two or three years ago the
CRTC allowed American companies, and I underline it did so
despite opposition from Quebec, to compete with Bell Canada here
in Canada. As a result, one of the most profitable companies in
Canada, one with annual profits in the order of $900 million, or
nearly $1 billion, was forced to compete by adopting its
competitors' methods, including new technologies, lower prices
and layoffs. In Quebec, this represents 4,000 out of 10,000 jobs.
This company, which made an important contribution to the
political and economic life of Canada and Quebec, is currently
being restructured. In addition to CN, Canada Post and
telecommunications, our friends in the Reform Party are talking
about privatizing hospitals. There is also talk about privatizing
prisons in New Brunswick. If we go on like this, we will eventually
find ourselves with a territorial entity called Canada, where there
will be no government services, where the law of the jungle will
prevail, where a bunch of small companies will compete without
taking national imperatives into account in their business
strategies.
A country, be it Canada or Quebec, cannot simply set its sights
on globalization and set competition and the lowest costs as its
goals. History shows that a country is created out of a sense of
solidarity, a sense of nationhood. What is being shown here in this
House, especially by our Reform colleagues, is that we are altering
this concept of nationhood, of government services that has
evolved over the centuries.
I think that by focussing on short term profits we are dismantling
democratic countries, bona fide countries which made sure they
could provide services to people and settle their land. I think that
many of our fellow citizens, in Quebec and my region in particular,
are becoming aware of this ill effect of new political ideas that
came out of the blue in the early 70s. I think that in striving to
restructure certain processes and change the way we do things as
nations we are in fact destroying our countries.
I think that we will have to pay close attention to all this
dismantling in our regions. Last week-end, more than 700 people
gathered in my region. These municipal council members and
representatives from various organizations were attending a
general assembly to let people know that we want to continue to
exist as a region. It is not true that our region will be shut down just
because some banker, business leader or finance minister got the
notion that we are no longer profitable.
We have settled this area. We have built communities and we
want these communities to continue to exist. At a time when new
ways of doing things are promoted, we can do as fine a job in
Jonquière as in Montreal running a company or establishing a
telephone service with real people to man the phones. I believe
things can be done just as well in Montreal, Toronto, Jonquière,
Chicoutimi or Roberval.
(1255)
Citizens are realizing that, under the guise of putting into
practice economic theories the fruits of which have never been
reaped by the population, the structure of the country is being
pulled apart to the extent that we no longer form communities, we
no longer are citizens of a country; we have become mere
consumers and investors.
I believe we must rise slightly above this vision of life and we, in
this House, must look at things from a loftier plane and be able to
tell our fellow citizens that we are heading in a direction that will
ultimately transform us into vibrant countries, be it Canada or
Quebec, which will be increasingly prosperous and fair with their
citizens.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the motion of
our Bloc Quebecois colleague concerning the preservation of
postal services in the regions.
14779
I believe the government of Canada has reacted very well since
the Liberals took office. It declared a moratorium on local post
office closures. Of course, this applies to Quebec as well as to
the rest of Canada.
What I found particularly interesting, in the motion as well as in
the comments of the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup,
is that he seems to recognize the important role the federal
government has to play in regional economic development. When
listening to the speeches of these sovereignists, I felt that these
unique centres of Canadian visibility had to be preserved in small
communities all over the vast regions of Quebec. I thought it was a
bit odd to hear these people say, on the one hand, that Canada does
not work and that the only way Quebec can get whatever it deserves
is by separating but then, on the other hand, that this House should
maintain postal services as they are. This is very interesting. I feel
it emphasizes how important the role of the federal government is
and how much the Canadian government is welcome in what we
call remote areas, in rural areas of Canada.
I think we are about to reach a turning point in our history, not on
a political level, because Quebec still wants to be part of the
Canadian federation, but on an administrative level, if you wish,
for postal services in Canada.
During the last few years, we have seen the emergence of
computers, modems, fax machines, and a whole new
telecommunications technology. Thanks to all kinds of
technologies, regions and above all the self-employed workers of
these regions will be able to better communicate with the outside
world.
Quebec does not need sovereignty, separation or independence
to develop its rural regions. Services are in place, we have offices
and the expertise necessary to meet the needs of the population, the
business people and the students, to help them in their regional
economic development rojects.
For the last 30 years, Quebecers, especially in the rural regions,
where I come from, have always asked for further decentralization
of federal government services and especially of provincial
services.
Nevertheless, I must tell you this. Nothing prevents the province
or the federal government, as things now stand, from
decentralizing services. Obviously, 30 years ago, it was impossible
to do that, for the simple reason that the new technologies did not
exist in 1960.
(1300)
Governments, businesses and social services in Quebec,
particularly in remote areas, will be able to create some form of
partnership and set up service points to serve local communities. If
I understand the logic of the Bloc Quebecois, of the separatists,
these service points designed to promote regional economy should
naturally be located around the post offices of the Canadian
government.
It is quite something to hear the opposition say that the regions
have a future, provided that post offices remain open in small
communities throughout Quebec and Canada.
We could do more. We have other departments. For example, the
department responsible for science and technology recently
announced a new service designed to make Internet more
accessible to Canadians.
Last April, in Carleton-sur-Mer, in my riding of Bonaventure, I
held an information session with officials of Science and
Technology Canada, in co-operation with Québec Téléphone, as
well as various other people involved in the region's
socio-economic development. We came to the conclusion that, for
example, the federal government has the means and the programs
to establish this Internet network throughout Quebec.
Unfortunately, few municipalities and provincial organizations
answered the call. This is sad. We have the tools and the moneys to
create this new synergy and promote regional economic
development.
Efforts are being made and we must forge ahead and find
partners. Above all, we must convince school boards. We must
convince CEGEPs, hospitals, as well as social services of all kinds,
particularly those which fall under provincial jurisdiction, so as to
ensure a better partnership and set up new ways of communicating
with the rest of the world.
I believe that regions in Quebec and in Canada will prosper
thanks to new technologies. It would certainly be possible to
establish videoconference centres in those Canada Post buildings in
order to give residents of those regions an opportunity to take
courses or to communicate with people outside Canada.
I think that Canada Post has a new social role on top of its
economic role. It must discover new technologies and encourage
people to use those technologies in order to take care of their own
economic development at the local level.
The Canadian postal service has quite a history. As mentioned by
the parliamentary secretary a few moments ago, I think that the
postal service has played a glorious role in Canada over the last 300
years. Now, because of the new technology and because of the
reality of today's world, we have to find different markets for our
products and different ways to provide our services. I think that our
postal service is a bit like the PTT in France, which offers a wide
range of services to its clients.
Today's clients are not necessarily in office buildings in
Montreal or in other large cities. Teleworking is becoming more
and more popular. For example, there is a new trend emerging in
the
14780
United States where people are leaving the cities and even the
suburbs for small communities of 1,000 residents or less.
(1305)
With today's technology, it is possible for, let us say, a
translator-or an engineer, an architect, etc.-to work out of a
small community somewhere in Quebec. If educated people, who
often come from remote areas themselves, decide to go back to
those regions, we have to ensure the presence of the federal
government and its many services.
I see that we are running out of time, but I must tell you that I am
very happy to hear the Bloc Quebecois say that this basic service
provided by the government of Canada is still welcome in the
regions and also that we must maintain this federal service to have
an even more glorious future.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time, but I will make a few
comments about Canada Post.
I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, as being one of the Liberal
members of Parliament who withdrew from the MP pension plan.
You are to be acknowledged for that effort on behalf of Canadian
taxpayers. You certainly have my personal congratulations as
another MP who absented himself from the MP pension plan. We
are in different parties but we share a kinship in opting out of the
MP pension plan.
I find it really strange, really odd that there is a private members'
motion before the House from a separatist suggesting that we
somehow change a federal crown corporation. That is an irony and
a bit of hypocrisy, if I am allowed to say that.
Twenty-five per cent of the population of Canada resides in the
province of Quebec. If this member were a member in a separate
Quebec, would he be putting forward such a motion to use the
postal service of Quebec, a separate entity, for municipal
development within his province? I suspect that his motives are not
entirely pure and noble in putting the motion before us today.
I believe Canada Post should be put to more public scrutiny and
exposed to competition.
I have been approached by many competitors of Canada Post
who would like to get into the flyer business but find they cannot
compete with Canada Post, not because they are not competitive
but because Canada Post is subsidizing third class mail with first
class delivery.
In New Zealand the first class postal rates have decreased and we
have seen our rates go up. I believe the motive is to put competitors
out of business. That is wrong and Canada Post should be
scrutinized for the effort to squelch the competition unfairly.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to
Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
* * *
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: This is a matter of importance. It is my
duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the
representation, namely, Mr. Rompkey, member for the electoral
district of Labrador, by resignation effective September 21, 1995.
[Translation]
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act,
a warrant has been addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer for the
issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.
[English]
It being 1.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 1.10 p.m.)