CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 16, 1994
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 2350
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 2350
ORAL QUESTIONS PERIOD
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2353
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2353
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2353
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2354
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2354
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2355
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2355
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2355
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2355
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2356
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2356
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 2357
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 2357
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2359
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2359
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2361
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 2362
Bill C-17. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 2364
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2365
Bill C-225. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 2365
Motion for concurrence in 11th report 2365
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 2366
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 2367
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 2371
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2376
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 2377
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2378
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2378
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2381
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 44; Nays, 204. 2384
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 54; Nays, 191 2385
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 2386
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 96; Nays, 149 2386
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2390
2349
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 16, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
express my concerns to the House regarding the proposed
changes to the electoral boundaries and in particular to those
changes which would affect the ridings in northern Ontario.
The present proposal calls for the elimination of two seats in
northern Ontario. It is my view that this would lead to a further
erosion of the voice of northerners in Parliament. It would
reinforce the image that northern Ontario is a sparsely populated
hinterland whose concerns and aspirations really do not need to
be heard.
In realigning these boundaries the commission formulated all
its changes based on population levels alone. Certainly this is
not the most comprehensive method which could be used for
such an important undertaking.
Northern Ontario encompasses two-thirds of the province and
is home for a significant number of French, English and native
Canadians. Our region is as diverse as any other region in
Canada. Therefore it should have electoral boundaries which
encapsulate those regional enclaves which share many of the
same economic, geographic and cultural characteristics.
I believe that if these new boundaries are accepted they will
not only weaken the voice of northerners-
The Speaker: Order. The member is a bit over. The hon.
member for Chambly.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, I am especially
proud to announce to this House the launching of the fourth
national ``mountain, river and village'' competition, which will
be held in my riding of Chambly.
Many painters from all regions of Quebec, from Ontario and
from the United States will take part in this competitive
exhibition, which just three years ago was only local. Two
hundred and fifty paintings will be selected for the exhibition,
which will be held from September 23 to 27.
I join our association of popular painters, the town of
Mont-Saint-Hilaire and all of Quebec in encouraging Quebec's
artistic potential, following the example of Ozias Leduc and
Paul-Émile Borduas, who were born in the region.
I therefore invite you to see this outstanding exhibition of
works by our painters and to share their talent and their vision of
the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, between
January and November of last year 193 women and 278 children
took refuge in the Camrose Women's Shelter in my riding and
home town. The number of women and children coming through
the doors of this shelter and many others throughout Canada has
been increasing yearly.
Last year the former Tory government commissioned a report
on violence against women. The report listed a number of
recommendations, one of which is a zero tolerance policy,
violence is not accepted in any case.
As this is the International Year of the Family we all need to
put a stop to the senseless abuse of women and children.
Awareness and thinking are a start. However only a positive,
collaborative effort on behalf of all government agencies and
individual Canadians will protect the most vulnerable people in
our society and re-establish the family as the cornerstone and
mainstay of this country.
2350
I concur with my constituents that we need action now.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
CESO is a non-profit volunteer based organization whose
mission is to transfer Canadians' expertise to business
communities and organizations in order to help them achieve
their goals of economic self-sufficiency.
Volunteers experienced in their profession or industry serve
as advisers and trainers to clients in Canadian aboriginal
communities, developing nations and the new market
economies of central and eastern Europe.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the efforts of
Lorne and Charleen Duquette from my riding of
London-Middlesex. Their efforts in the country of Romania
have gone a long way in contributing to human and global
development.
We are proud of these Londoners and of other Canadians who
devote their time and energies to improving our world.
* * *
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker,
one of the most pleasant duties as a member of Parliament is
supporting the work of very important organizations in our
constituencies and throughout Canada.
I had the opportunity last weekend in Thunder Bay to support
the local Kiwanis Club in its kick-off luncheon to support the
national Easter Seal campaign.
Those involved, Jim Whatley, Don Murphy, Shelagh
McMillan, Pat O'Brien and Janice Harding are again to be
congratulated for their efforts and their tremendous dedication.
This year's Tammy, Sarah Hovila-Dumbrell, and Timmy,
Michael Holdt, are two outstanding young Canadians who,
despite the challenges they face, are doing a marvellous job in
their roles as ambassadors for the Easter Seal campaign. Both
are fine examples to all Canadians who are physically
challenged.
Sarah is a kindergarten student with a wonderful smile and she
is a tremendous charmer. Michael, with respect, is a grade one
student and a bit of a ham. I told him last weekend that he could
very well end up as Speaker of the House.
(1405)
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to remind members of the House and all Canadians
that March is national nutrition month.
The theme for the Canadian Dietetic Association's 1994
national nutrition campaign is ``Nourishing Our Children's
Future''. The goal of the campaign is to promote the importance
of nutrition and healthy eating for children between the ages of
four and 12.
The campaign will highlight the role that healthy eating plays
in the physical, intellectual, emotional and social development
of children.
This year's nutrition month theme is especially timely
because 1994 is the International Year of the Family. Through
information materials, media coverage and local activities
across Canada, Canadians will become more aware of the
importance of healthy eating for children and how they can
influence those eating habits.
Health Canada is proud to be a partner with the Canadian
Dietetic Association for this year's nutrition month and to be
involved in the launch of this important event.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to mention today the strength and determination of Gaspé
people in the villages of La Rédemption and Marsoui, in the
town of Matane, and in the Matapédia Valley who are fighting to
protect their natural resources and their lifestyle by protesting
the closure of their sawmill and demanding control over forest
management.
These people show that Quebec's rural regions will never let
themselves die. Often neglected by governments and having
seen their young people move in large numbers to major centres,
the inhabitants of rural regions are increasingly taking charge of
their destiny and regaining their dignity through their courage.
We should applaud these examples of solidarity which are
reviving our rural regions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, the Lethbridge
Pronghorn hockey team has matured into an outstanding
representative of southern Alberta.
2351
Last weekend for the first time in its history the hockey team
advanced to the University Cup national championship
tournament in Toronto. The team's accomplishments did not end
there. The Pronghorns went on to capture the national CIAU title
after a five to two win over the University of Guelph in Toronto's
Maple Leaf Gardens.
I would like to commend the Pronghorns for their hard work
throughout the season. The University of Lethbridge is a small
university but clearly has produced a team from southern
Alberta that we can be proud of.
It must be noted the Pronghorns have claimed the CIAU
victory in the face of serious budget cuts in the athletic
department. For this reason I believe Sunday's win is a double
victory for the team.
I would like to congratulate the Pronghorn members. Their
win displays their ability to do what they do best despite
difficult circumstances.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great privilege that I rise today and salute a recent
milestone attained by a gentleman born and raised in West
Guilford in Haliburton county, Mr. Bernie Nicholls.
A few weeks ago Mr. Nicholls became the 39th player in the
history of the National Hockey League to attain 1,000 points in
scoring. He has joined the elites in the game: Gordie Howe, Jean
Beliveau, Bobby Hull, Stan Makita and others who have reached
the millennium mark and beyond in the NHL.
Bernie has achieved this level while enduring a great number
of changes in his life both professionally and at home. He started
his career in Los Angeles, was traded to the New York Rangers
where he played for a short time, was moved to Edmonton and is
now with his current team, the New Jersey Devils. Add to this
movement from team to team the loss of a child this past fall.
That Bernie has been able to play this long and with such high
skill is a testament to the perseverance, ability and commitment
to hockey. He recognizes that his family obligations are first and
foremost in his mind.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, at
the end of this month there are several important co-operative
agreements due to terminate between the federal government
and my province of New Brunswick. The co-operative
agreements in such areas as agriculture, forestry, mining and
economic development are extremely important to the citizens
of New Brunswick.
(1410)
Both my government and the Government of New Brunswick
are emphatic about the importance of jobs and the dignity they
bring to our citizens. These agreements are extremely important
to New Brunswick in its efforts to maintain current employment
and work toward future job creation.
I urge all parties involved to expedite a successful conclusion
of the negotiations to extend these agreements for the benefit of
the citizens of my constituency of Carleton-Charlotte and all
of New Brunswick.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud and very pleased to rise in this
prestigious House today to welcome young Canadian curlers to
Truro, my hometown, where they will compete in the 1994
Canadian Junior Curling Championships.
I wish to congratulate the Truro Curling Club in hosting this
national competition and Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd. in sponsoring
the Canadian junior curlers. I congratulate as well the young
athletes as they are already winners to have qualified at the
national level.
Some 24 teams from the provinces and territories will enjoy
Nova Scotian hospitality this week. I invite members of this
House to join me in wishing these young Canadian curling
champions a week of good friendship, good competition and
good curling. This is Canada at its best.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, as you know, over
400,000 young Quebecers and Canadians under the age of 25 are
presently unemployed. To remedy this problem, this
government intends to set up the youth service corps. But the
first year, this new program will be available to only 2,500
young people, or 0.6 per cent of all the young unemployed.
Also, the youth service corps is similar to the old Katimavik
program the Conservatives abolished in 1986 in that very few
activities are directed to the labour market and allowances are
paltry. How can one imagine that a young graduate can live on a
mere $61 a week.
I submit that the federal government should review its plans
with respect to young Canadians and consider putting into place
a genuine employment program for them.
2352
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker,
tonight this House will vote on a motion to establish a special
joint committee on foreign policy.
Yesterday my colleague from Red Deer moved an amendment
to the motion that would exclude members from the other place
from sitting on that committee.
Individuals from that other place have a valuable contribution
to make and should be able to appear before the committee as
witnesses. However, members from that other place, a place that
is unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic, have no business
sitting as members on this important committee.
I encourage all members of this, the elected and accountable
House, to vote in support of the amendment. I hope the
government will allow its members to vote freely on this issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Mr.
Speaker, like the traditional Olympic Games, the paralympics
held in Norway this week are a symbol of nations gathering in a
spirit of brotherliness and peace.
[English]
Canada is a major force in a world of paralympic sport. Like
all athletes, our paralympic athletes head into Lillehammer full
of hope and optimism, ready to realize the dream of a lifetime.
[Translation]
I am proud to see that a Canadian from
Restigouche-Chaleur, Mr. Denis Lord, is representing not only
Canada but also northern New Brunswick in these games. We are
proud of the determination he is displaying on the slopes and in
his everyday life.
[English]
On behalf of all the citizens of Restigouche-Chaleur and the
members in this House, I wish to congratulate Denis and all our
paralympic athletes for their strength and courage and for
representing so well the spirit of the games.
[Translation]
Good luck to all our paralympic athletes.
[English]
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, on March 20 the
city of Cambridge will proudly host the 1994 World Short Track
Speed Skating Championships.
The high speed and aggressive edge of short track have been
attracting a worldwide following. What started out as
individuals lacing animal bones to their wooden footwear and
skating across the frozen canals and waterways of Scandinavia
has evolved into one of the fastest growing sports in the world.
Despite its relatively short history, short track speed skating
has produced many proud moments for Canadians. We are proud
of our skating talent in Canada, including Frederic Blackburn,
Marc Gagnon, Nathalie Lambert and especially Cambridge's
very own Derrick Campbell, who recently participated in the
winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway.
(1415)
I would like to extend my best wishes to all participants in
Sunday's competition, as well as to the organizers, who have
been working so hard to make this event in Cambridge a real
success.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, the
Telegraph-Journal reported today that the Liberal member for
Fundy-Royal stated that he and the Minister of Transport felt a
``double duty'' to look after my riding of Saint John because it is
not aligned with the government.
I look forward to any help I can receive from the transport
minister and from the member for Fundy-Royal in settling the
issues I have been raising as the lone opposition MP from
Atlantic Canada.
I look forward to their help in reversing base closures that I
have spoken out against, as well as any support for my efforts to
ensure support for our shipyard and VIA Rail. I look forward to
their help in reversing hurtful budget measures brought in by
their government against Atlantic Canada.
I will continue to work diligently for the people of Saint John
as I always have.
2353
ORAL QUESTIONS PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The government's decision to close the military college in
Saint-Jean is ill-advised. The government knows it yet
obstinately refuses to reverse its position, despite the fact that it
has now had to adjust downward the reported savings it would
make as a result of this decision.
Furthermore, in an awkward attempt to save face, it is
proposing to strike a fool's deal with Quebec whereby it would
lease the college facilities to the province for $1 a year. Since
the college would be stripped of its very soul, this is indeed a
poisoned gift.
Does the Prime Minister not recognize that there is something
shameful about this proposal to lease the empty facilities in
Saint-Jean for $1 a year and that in so doing, the government
would be shifting the burden of the college's operating costs
onto Quebec's shoulders, without even giving the province the
opportunity to buy the facilities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have discussed this matter with the Premier of Quebec who told
me that he could make use of the facilities at Saint-Jean. The
federal government no longer needs them because the strength
of our military work force is being reduced to 65,000. One can
easily understand why the United States, with two million
soldiers, has three military colleges. However, with a military
work force of 65,000, Canada does not need three military
colleges.
However, if these facilities can be of some use to the
provincial government or to other agencies, we will be happy to
make some arrangements with them because this would save
some jobs in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. We are proposing a
reasonable solution to a specific problem. The government had
no choice but to close some of Canada's military colleges
because it had to reduce defence spending. Had we listened to
the Leader of the Opposition, not only would we have closed
Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, but we would also have
shut down CFB Bagotville located in his region.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I am convinced that, despite telephone pressure from
the leader of the government, the Quebec Premier will put
Quebec's interests before those of the two Liberal parties.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, in case of a likely and
quite advisable refusal by Quebec to become a mere tenant of
the federal administration, his government will save much less
than expected by closing the college in Saint-Jean, as it will
have to continue shelling out at least $6 million a year in taxes
and upkeep for the white elephant it created?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
that were the case, no military base should ever be closed. Sure,
it creates problems. But to hear the Leader of the Opposition say
that we should not try to maintain a certain level of employment
at the military college with the provincial government's
co-operation, when he went over there to take part in a
demonstration with people who, only 22 years ago, were
opposed to a Quebec university awarding a diploma to
Saint-Jean graduates because it was a federal presence of the
Canadian armed forces in Quebec, and to see that Quebec
nationalists and the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society would do such
an about-face, that is too much for me!
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I will give more of it to the Prime Minister.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: I find it very strange to hear him say, in
sugary tones, ``Who will criticize us for creating a minimum of
jobs in Saint-Jean?'' It is like the fox saying, ``We should still
keep a few chickens in the henhouse'' after it just finished eating
a few of them.
An. hon. member: Right on.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a
constructive proposal to the Prime Minister by guaranteeing the
Bloc's full support for a decision to keep a French-language
college in Saint-Jean and an English-language college in
Kingston by reducing in an equitable fashion the number of
officer cadets in both colleges, so as to maintain the opportunity
for francophones to prepare for a military career in their
community and in their language.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
as we said, only 16 per cent of French-speaking officers in the
Canadian Forces graduated from the college in Saint-Jean. They
are giving the impression that officers who attended Laval
University, the University of Sherbrooke, the University of
Montreal, the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi or the
University of Quebec in Trois-Rivières instead of the college in
Saint-Jean are not as good because they did not go to a military
college.
With our smaller armed forces, the military college is no
longer necessary. The Leader of the Opposition told us we
should cut defence spending by 25 per cent. If we had followed
his advice in Quebec, we would have closed not only the
military college in Saint-Jean but also the military base in
Bagotville and probably other bases in Quebec. But we found
the Opposition Leader's proposals unacceptable under the
current circumstances. We must maintain a certain level of
employment and a higher level of military forces than he
recommended.
2354
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, it is rather
strange to learn that French speaking officer cadets can obtain
their training in civilian universities, whereas it is not the case for
English speaking cadets. According to the Prime Minister's
reasoning, Kingston should also be closed.
An hon. member: Absolutely.
Mr. Bouchard: This is a double standard.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, on several occasions
last week, we demanded that the government provide specific
figures concerning the closure of the Collège militaire de
Saint-Jean. We did not get a satisfactory answer from the
minister who, yesterday in committee, only gave incomplete
figures, with no breakdown whatsoever, which do not reflect.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Keep going.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Before making the regrettable
decision-
I realize that it hurts to hear the truth-
Mr. Bouchard: They cannot take it. They find it so hard.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): It does not hurt.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, before making the
regrettable decision to close the only French speaking military
college, did the Minister of National Defence ask for a complete
review of the financial impact of maintaining two colleges with
a reduced number of cadets, based on established objectives?
Did the minister have a complete and accurate review done?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
first, the Collège de Saint-Jean and the Royal Military College
in Kingston are both bilingual institutions. Yes they are.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes they are. As I said in this
House, there are graduates from Kingston who took all their
courses in French and also wrote their exams in French. The hon.
member once again showed his ignorance earlier when he said
that English-speaking cadets will have to go to Kingston to
become officers. This is not the case.
(1425)
They will do just as well in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg,
Toronto or Halifax. They will attend local universities and
obtain the required officers' training. In fact, only a small
proportion, approximately 15 per cent, of English-speaking
cadets currently receive their degree from Kingston, Saint-Jean
or Royal Roads. In other words, the college only serves to train a
very small fraction of officers.
Those are the facts. But we did not listen to the opposition. I
do not think the hon. member is very committed to defending
Saint-Jean. Yesterday, he made a big fuss at a press conference
which lasted five minutes, and when the media people were
finished taking pictures, he left.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, what the
Prime Minister does not realize is that it did not take longer than
five minutes to see through the government and its charade.
Since, by his own admission, the Prime Minister cannot
provide us with a satisfactory answer-and neither can his
Minister of Defence who has been ``shut out'' of this
matter-since he admits not having commissioned a study on
the costs of maintaining both colleges with a smaller student
population, how can he seriously talk about saving $23 million?
On what basis can he make that statement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have told this House several times-never mind how loudly the
hon. member puts his question-that it does not take endless
studies to see that in the United States, they have three military
colleges for two million servicemen and women. We have
reduced our military spending as suggested by the opposition
and the Canadian Armed Forces now have a strength of only
65,000.
I do not need to spend more money to see or to have experts
tell me that we do not need three military colleges for 65,000
members. We will have one good bilingual college in Kingston
instead of two, one in Kingston and the other in Saint-Jean, as
we had before.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
I would like to move beyond this family feud between Quebec
Liberals and Bloc members over the College Saint-Jean to
something of national importance.
Yesterday the money markets drove the Canadian dollar to a
seven year low and forced interest rates up. This is something
that hurts us all. Analysts say the markets were reacting to two
factors: first, foreign borrowers' concerns about the bombing of
the Quebec hydro tower; and second, the failure of the federal
budget to reverse the choking trend of public debts and deficits.
What is the Prime Minister prepared to say to investors and
lenders to alleviate their fears concerning these two factors?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy
continues to be very strong. Of course I am not going to make
2355
any comment on the value of the Canadian dollar, which
fluctuates.
The hon. member is a little late. I spent 27 years of my life
commenting on the prospective value of the Canadian dollar. He
missed it by four months. I am sorry but he is four months too
late.
I have been told by the Prime Minister not to comment on the
value of the Canadian dollar. However I will comment on the
Canadian economy. It is strong. We have had manufacturers'
shipments up 7 per cent year over year. We have had business
confidence improving over the last little while and consumer
confidence has been improving somewhat as well.
(1430 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
there is nothing new and nothing substantive in what has been
said. All of this was said before and yet investors and lenders are
not reassured.
Will the Prime Minister say something more substantive?
Does he or does he not have a contingency plan to deal with
foreign perceptions of political and financial instability in
Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is a very good and very stable country. We have had a
good budget presented and we have a plan that is very clear.
The market can speculate all it wants. However we are not
changing the policies of the government on speculation in the
market from one day to the other because investors from abroad
know very well that there is not a better place in the world to
invest than Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister mentions the budget but the budget is part of
the problem. The fall of the dollar and the rise in interest rates
for whatever reasons call into question the most basic
assumptions in the budget.
Will the Prime Minister as a bare minimum direct the finance
minister to prepare a fiscal contingency plan including a
moratorium on all new spending programs to increase
international confidence in the Canadian dollar?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker
the Minister of Finance presented a budget in this House. It will
be voted on in a few days. We are not going to have a budget
every time the leader of the Reform Party wants one.
We need political stability. We need a good plan. We said to
the market that we will be reducing expenditures and we are
doing that. Today some people are complaining because we are
reducing expenditures, but we are keeping to our plan. We have
a good plan and we will achieve our goal of 3 per cent of GDP for
the deficit within three years.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the government is desperately trying to broaden the tax base and
regularly puts out feelers on how this could be done. Its latest
effort came yesterday when some Liberal members supported
applying the GST to health care and medication, which I think is
pretty outrageous.
Does the Prime Minister share the position taken by his
members who, in the course of their work on the GST review,
came out openly in favour of taxing health care and medication?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we appointed a committee to review the GST, as we said we
would, and its members received submissions. All parties are
represented on the committee. In the end we will have a report,
and we will examine that report and then decide whether it will
become government policy.
We do not want to act without consulting the members of this
House. The hon. member complains that Liberal members are
not afraid of having ideas; I am very proud of members who go
to committees and are not afraid of exploring new avenues. I
need their help, but in the end, the government makes the
decision.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
these developments are very disturbing, and I would ask the
Prime Minister to be a little less flippant in his answers, because
this particular issue is fundamental. We are not talking about
submissions by witnesses but about his own members who came
out in favour of applying the GST to health care and medication.
I will direct my question again to the Prime Minister. Does he
or does he not support applying a new GST to health care and
medication? That is what people want to know.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows perfectly well that all taxes collected by
the government go into the government's consolidated fund and
that this money is used to pay for all the government's programs.
Perhaps some people will suggest that we should
compartmentalize expenditures and revenues, but that is pure
speculation. The government intends to go on collecting taxes
and taking these taxes to maintain health care programs.
Furthermore, our party has made a clear commitment to
maintaining a free and universal health care system for all
Canadians.
2356
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that the business
community reacted positively to the recent budget. I believe he
is overstating the case. The fact is that the business community
gave qualified acceptance based on the finance minister's
promise of a second round of spending cuts. The Prime Minister
has publicly contradicted the finance minister, saying that all
the cuts for the next three years are in this budget.
What assurances can the Prime Minister give business people
that promises made by the finance minister will be kept by this
government?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, the budget was quite
clear in its representations as to what budget cuts would be
made. Those budget cuts will reach our goal of a deficit of 3 per
cent of GDP in the third year of our mandate. That was a clear
and unequivocal statement in the budget and that remains. It was
well received by the business community despite what the
member says.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, the
government's failure to seriously address Canada's deficit and
debt problem directly contributed and contributes to the
increases in interest rates and a drop in the dollar.
On behalf of business people and Canadians who want real
jobs, when will the Prime Minister recognize the real problem,
the high cost of financing the national debt? When will the
government begin to lower its spending so that we can lower
taxes and really help the economy?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, the last employment
statistics indicated that jobs went up in this country in every
region.
It is this government's budget that has contributed to that
strength in employment. It is this government's budget that is
going to contribute to the strength of this country's economy in
the future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Last Saturday, along with
more than 1,200 people representing labour, community and
citizens groups as well as the assembly of bishops, I attended the
forum on social solidarity in Quebec. These people have joined
forces to counter rising poverty in Quebec and cuts to social
programs.
Will the government admit the obvious and will it recognize
that cutting programs at a time when people are in dire straits is
not the way to curb the deficit?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): To begin with Mr. Speaker, the opinions
expressed by the demonstration last week express the concerns
we all have about ending poverty in this country. We as a
government are very committed to that goal.
It is for that reason we have undertaken a major review and
reconstruction of most of our programs. In so doing we can
enable those who are presently long term unemployed, who have
been out of the workforce for a long time and who do not receive
proper training, to have the resources dedicated to their ability
to get back into the workplace.
The Prime Minister has said many times that the best solution
to poverty is a job. We are very much dedicated to reorganizing
and reallocating the resources of this government along with the
co-operation of the provinces to tackle this very serious
problem and to give some real hope to those people who were
demonstrating last weekend.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, in spite of
his magnanimous remarks, will the minister not concede that
what unemployed workers need is a real employment strategy,
not sermons, but jobs? Will he not admit that he needs to
implement an employment strategy instead of a deficit
reduction policy which calls for cuts to social programs?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the
responsibility to help create employment.
The budget presented by the Minister of Finance took a
number of initiatives: Stimulating growth in the areas of high
technology and small business by developing a whole new
strategy for giving access to capital. Funding a major
infrastructure program that will kick-start the economy.
Funding a number of initiatives to deal with the unemployment
problems of young people. Initiating reductions in payroll taxes
so that we give further incentives to small business.
I attended the job summit held during the last two days where
the seven most powerful industrial countries were looking at
this problem of the 35 million people who are unemployed. The
prescriptions that came out of that meeting were to stimulate
2357
growth in our industries, to reduce payroll costs and to invest in
people. Those are exactly the things this government has done.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister sits here today and tells us that he is not
going to do anything with the budget. The minister of state sits
here and says that everything is okay and everything is great in
Canada.
It is time we recognized there are signals not only from this
government that are harming the marketplace, but there are
signals from the marketplace that the Prime Minister and the
ministers of this government should take into consideration, and
they should do it today.
I wonder if the Prime Minister recognizes, and this is one of
the signals that he should recognize, that interest rate spreads on
10-year Canada-U.S. bonds have increased since the budget
came down and continue to increase. This government must act.
The Speaker: Order. Would the hon. member please put his
question.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime
Minister recognize those signals from the marketplace and if he
does, what is he going to do about them in terms of rearranging,
changing and adjusting the fiscal plan of this government?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon.
member for his reading of the marketplace and how interested
he is in interest rate spreads. I have studied them quite
considerably over the years and would tell him that interest rate
spreads at the present time are not much different from what
they have been. Indeed, the short term rates are very much lower
than they have been in the recent past. Our budget is a dead-on
plan.
We look forward to seeing that budget and the Canadian
economy prosper considerably in the year to come.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, does the
government recognize there are other signals out there?
Long term rates are on the increase, 1 per cent above what was
projected in the budget. We have a drop in the dollar value.
There are foreign investors that have lost confidence in
investing and have taken their money out of this country.
What is the Prime Minister prepared to do under those
conditions to adjust the budget to meet the needs of the signals
in the marketplace?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon.
member look at the budget a little more carefully.
The interest rate assumptions in the budget for long term rates
are, as he states, a little bit low but short term rates are where the
changes take place. Long term bond rate changes affect maybe a
seventh of the total over any year.
I would say that our budget is dead on in that. With the interest
rate assumptions that we have made in the budget and if the
interest rates continue where they are right now, we will come in
at a lower cost of interest than we had in our budget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, we
heard this morning, in relation to the inquiry into the murder of a
young Somali and the actions of certain Canadian peacekeepers
in Somalia, that the military police is considering charging
several other members of the Second Commando of the
Airborne Regiment in Petawawa.
(1445)
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can the
minister confirm that the military police is indeed about to lay
charges against several other members, including senior
officers?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad the hon. member has raised this question. We will be going
through a difficult period in the next few months. It will be
totally impossible for me, as minister of defence, to make any
comment surrounding the courts martial that are now under way
as a result of alleged actions by members of our forces a year or
so ago in Somalia.
I know it will be difficult for the House, but I hope members
will understand that I cannot, as the minister, do or say anything
that may impede the cause of justice.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, it
would nonetheless be interesting to hear what the minister
thinks of this. On a different note, how can the minister explain
that senior officers tolerated that a squadron called the ``Rebels
Squadron'' displayed for several months on the base, in
Petawawa, the white supremacists' flag? How could they do that
with complete impunity?
2358
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, again
for the same reasons I will not be able to comment on the chain
of command or anything to do with the Canadian Airborne
Regiment, anything that could be construed as interference in
the judicial proceedings.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
the government's budget plan states that a single registration
number for businesses dealing with the government will be
available in May 1994, eliminating current government
duplication and overlap and reducing costs for businesses in
their dealings with government.
My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.
How does the government plan to fulfil its promise to introduce
the single business registration number by May 1994 and how
will this number reduce costs?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): I
thank the hon. member for her question, Mr. Speaker. It will be
possible to introduce this program in May of this year on a pilot
basis in eight cities across the country. In January of next year
we will introduce it Canada-wide. Over the succeeding two
years businesses will have the opportunity right across the
country of opting into the single business number.
It will make a substantial difference, although it is a relatively
straightforward and simple change, to the cost of compliance
with National Revenue's requirements with respect to a number
of taxes. It will thus increase the efficiency of the system and
reduce the paperwork for businesses across the country.
I thank the hon. member for her interest in the matter.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I
direct my question to the Minister of Health.
Would the minister tell us briefly what safeguards are in place
to ensure that political patronage is not a factor in the awarding
of advertising contracts within her department?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. I want to reassure him
that patronage is not something we wish to use, either within my
department or anywhere within government, when it comes to
awarding any kind of contract.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the minister would table later in the House of Commons
the actual guidelines within her department.
It has been reported that the minister's department awarded
McKim Advertising from Winnipeg a contract with a potential
value of $184 million just two weeks after Drew Cringan, a
former Liberal aide and long time campaign manager, purchased
the company.
Was the minister aware of these facts when she approved that
contract?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for raising the matter on the floor of the House of Commons, the
details of which I am not overly familiar with.
However the broad based principle which the government has
been following and will continue to follow in the weeks and
months ahead as it relates to advertising for government
programs is based on competency and on the track record of the
various companies involved.
I am sure the hon. member would want me to say that there is a
necessity for the Government of Canada to advertise
government programs so that Canadians from coast to coast will
become aware of the benefits of particular programs and can
take advantage of particular programs.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): On January 20, 1994,
the only French-speaking judge on the Court of Queen's Bench
in Saskatchewan was declared surplus. As a result, of 27
full-time judges, not one is French-speaking.
My question is this: Can the Minister of Justice tell us
whether he has taken measures to appoint without delay at least
one francophone judge to the Court of Queen's Bench in
Saskatchewan?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, in response to the question I
can assure the hon. member I am very much aware of the fact
that the one member of that court who is able to hear
proceedings in the French language is no longer sitting and that
the need continues.
I have reviewed the situation in terms of the applicants who
have been approved by the provincial advisory committees. I
can tell the hon. member I have the matter under active
advisement. I am very much aware of the need to serve the
francophone
2359
population of Saskatchewan with judicial services in both
official languages.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker,
according to our information, only Judge Sirois, now declared
surplus, could hear cases in French in the Court of Queen's
Bench in Saskatchewan.
My question is this: Does the minister not consider the
proportion of francophone federal judges in Saskatchewan to be
clearly insufficient?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, without engaging in a
numbers game let me simply make clear to the hon. member and
to the House the commitment which the minister of agriculture
from Saskatchewan and I have. We are committed to ensuring
that not only in that province but across the country we have
persons on the judiciary capable of providing services in
languages as may be necessary to ensure that justice is done.
I will approach my responsibilities in Saskatchewan as I do in
Ontario, in New Brunswick and in other provinces to ensure that
is so.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I
attempted to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how she could
justify 10 lavishly appointed ministers' regional offices across
Canada.
On April 25, 1986 in the House, when she was in the
opposition, she called these offices regional powder rooms from
which ministers could expand their own political bases and their
political propaganda machines.
What political propaganda is going to be coming out of these
powder rooms now that they are under Liberal ministerial
control?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment
on the remarks of the hon. member when he refers to powder
rooms. The ministerial regional office in Halifax has a
washroom; it does not have a powder room. Perhaps I could use
one.
However I want to say to the hon. member that the purpose of
ministerial regional offices is to cut costs so that ministers of the
crown can carry out their responsibilities across the country.
That is why in Quebec City, Montreal, Halifax and elsewhere
across the country ministerial regional offices are put in place. It
is to service the people of Canada at a much lower cost, as
opposed to going to private hotels to retain the services therein.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker,
expenditure figures which I could only obtain under access to
information seemed to confirm that a propaganda based
spending spree took place in one of these regional offices just
prior to the 1993 election.
Will the government not admit that the real reason it supports
these offices now is that they allow the government to hide
propaganda spending out of sight of the public where it can only
be accessed through the Access to Information Act?
(1455 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate
for me to comment on what the previous administration has
done. However I am glad the hon. member has raised the issue.
Perhaps his colleague and friend in the back row might be able to
provide him with the necessary information.
Surely the hon. member is not suggesting to Canadians that
ministers of the crown who have to travel across the country
extensively to carry out their responsibilities are not to meet
with Canadians, are not to meet with various groups, regardless
of what their socioeconomic standings are. Those are the
purposes of ministerial regional offices.
I hope the hon. member will take note that all he has to do to
find out the costs associated with ministerial regional offices is
to draft a letter to me or to the President of the Treasury Board.
All the information will be provided and he will see clearly and
unequivocally the costs we have saved.
* * *
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On January 26, 1994 the Senate of the United States of
America voted 99 to 0 to withhold funds for contributions to
international organizations until the President certifies that no
United Nations agency or affiliated agency grants recognition to
an organization that condones pedophilia.
Will the minister declare such an unequivocal policy for
Canada and instruct our diplomats to ensure that we never again
vote to recognize an organization that condones pedophilia or
admits as members those who condone the sexual exploitation
of children?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, my answer is an unequivocal yes.
2360
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
Yesterday, I put a question to the minister concerning the
eviction notice issued to 143 families living on the Kahnawake
reserve. The minister did not answer the question, arguing that
the case was before the courts.
Can the minister confirm to us whether this case is still
pending because of the stalling tactics of the federal
government, as one of the parties involved, the purpose of which
is to delay a decision in this case?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the case is before the courts. The
number is T184389. Nothing much has happened on it since
1989.
I was concerned that nothing would occur until trial. I did
check and there is an injunction in place that prevents anything
from happening to the people living there until after the
litigation is completed.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, that was not the question. Therefore, it is not surprising
that I did not receive an answer.
There is, however, one question that the minister can surely
answer, as it relates to a matter that is not before the courts. I
will speak slowly so that the minister hears it clearly.
This question relates to the argument of genetic purity used to
justify the eviction of the families from Kahnawake. Does the
minister not recognize that this kind of argument reflects a
discriminatory attitude which blatantly contravenes the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I do not really care if the hon.
member speaks quickly or slowly; I understand the question.
The question that he asked is before the courts in the sense
that the charter of rights will be addressed along with the Indian
Act. If there is an adverse reaction it is the responsibility of the
House and the government to come back with legislation that
reflects these things. At that time the member may have to deal
with it.
Hopefully it will be dealt with to the hon. member's
satisfaction before the courts in which I have more faith than he
does.
(1500 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Why is the federal civil service offered the six months' pay in
lieu provision of the workforce adjustment plan and in the case
of the military up to two years' pay for adjustment for base
closures when we already have a UI plan in place as a safety net
for people who become unemployed?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, as
the member knows, a significant number of people from the
defence department are being asked to leave, to retire, and they
are being given departure incentives to do so. This is normal
when dealing with some 16,500 people in jobs that we need to
remove in order to meet the budget commitments with respect to
reducing the deficit.
That program has been put in place. They can choose not to
accept it if they do not wish to, in which case the workforce
adjustment policy would come into play and they would be
offered an alternative job. I am talking about the civilians who
are roughly 50 per cent of that group.
We have dealt with these people in a most fair and equitable
fashion in an attempt to reduce the size, to reduce the budget. At
the same time we are providing some protection for our
employees which is a priority of the government. If they can be
retrained and go into something else, we want to ensure they will
have an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, I point out
it is a very rich program and I would argue it is a two-tier system
of unemployment insurance.
Considering that the Auditor General has been very critical of
the application of the workforce adjustment program, will the
Treasury Board president commit to reconsider the need for this
program and the new adjustment plan for the military,
considering that we will soon have a reformed UI plan to deal
with these types of problems.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
can only repeat that in a very short period of time we have to
reduce the size of the military in order to meet our deficit
reduction plan.
Does the Reform Party not want us to meet our deficit
reduction plan? Does it not want us to get spending down? That
is what we are trying to do.
We cannot move that many people that quickly without some
incentive program to help them and that is exactly what we are
doing. The costs of the program will be met and we will still
2361
meet our deficit reduction program of getting to 3 per cent of
GDP in three years.
* * *
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could raise a point of order
with you to get your guidance for the entire House during
question period.
It has been the tradition of the House that questions arising
from committees not be raised during question period. That is
consistent with Beauchesne's section 411(3).
A pattern has been developing among all members of raising
matters with ministers of the crown that are in fact before
committees. I wonder if you could give us some guidance as to
what your expectations are.
The Speaker: As a general rule the Chair would of course
discourage any questions on matters which are before a
committee at that time and the Chair will try to see to it that if
there are questions on matters before a committee that they not
be put in the House.
That would be the intention of the Chair.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate that you are trying to clarify this and I appreciate the
parliamentary secretary for bringing it up.
Maybe you could also clarify something for him. In his
answer to me yesterday during question period he raised the fact
that the matter had been brought up in committee. I wish you
would clarify that as well, both the question and the answer.
(1505 )
The Speaker: I refer the hon. member to Beauchesne's
section 411(3):
Some further limitations seem to be generally understood. A question may
not:
(3) seek information about proceedings in a committee which has not yet made its
report to the House.
We are dealing here with the proceedings themselves. If there
are general questions the Chair would be more apt to permit
them. That is why many times when questions are put I ask hon.
members to rephrase them so they will be more general in
nature. I hope this will be of guidance to all hon. members.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I simply
want to emphasize that of course we can refer to what is going on
in a committee. It is customary to be able to refer to it in a
question and not necessarily to deal with an issue under
discussion. That is the nuance which the hon. member should
respect.
The Speaker: It is not only a nuance; it is understood that we
can ask general questions about committees, but I would prefer
that we not ask questions about committee procedures because
that is now covered by our Standing Orders.
_____________________________________________
2361
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr.
Speaker, there have been discussions between the parties, and I
believe you will find unanimous consent in the House for the
following motion:
That the deferred division on the motion on the Budget scheduled for
Tuesday, March 22, 1994, be further deferred untill Wednesday, March 23,
1994, at the end of the time provided for the consideration of Government
Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue. The reason for
the motion is to accommodate the minister and the opposition
critics, some of whom were unable to be here on the previous
dates for deferral of this vote. I may say that while this is not the
first time it has been deferred-members of the public may be
wondering why this is happening so often-it is to accommodate
these people and I am seeking the unanimous consent of the
House on that basis. However, if it is refused it is refused.
The Deputy Speaker: Bearing in mind that we have just
heard a reason, is there unanimous consent based on the
explanation we have just heard?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on the
National Capital's Celebration of International Water Day to be
2362
able to rise to inform the House that another red book
commitment of the government is being kept. It proves that as a
government we mean what we say and we are serious about
governing in a new and sustainable way. It is particularly
significant on the National Capital's Celebration of
International Water Day because water is the basic form of
sustenance that each human being needs to live.
Earlier today I wrote to the able chair of the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to
ask that the committee study the ways in which the concept of an
environmental auditor general might be instituted to ensure that
our government's actions are carried out in a sustainable
manner. In doing so the government keeps several of the Prime
Minister's commitments. By seeking the advice of the standing
committee we recognize in a non-partisan manner the
importance of consulting members of Parliament before we
introduce legislation. By asking the committee to hold hearings
we recognize the importance of consulting Canadians.
(1510)
[Translation]
In Creating Opportunity, we stated clearly that the
environmental agenda can no longer be ignored and that
government needs to recognize the fundamental link between a
healthy economy and a healthy environment. We said that all
government departments need to adopt economic and
environmental principles that converge, integrate, are
accountable and show leadership.
[English]
On February 22 my colleague, the Minister of Finance, kept
our first red book promise. He announced a task force of
government, industry and non-governmental organizations to
carry out a review of the barriers and disincentives that currently
exist in the tax system to sound environmental government
practices, and to find effective ways to use economic
instruments to support sustainable development.
Canadians are justifiably proud to have a Minister of Finance
who recognizes that economics and the environment are not
competing agendas but complementary realities. I congratulate
him and I know that the members of this House feel as I do.
``Creating Opportunity'' laid out our plan for an
environmental auditor general as the second task of the
government's move toward sustainability. That is why I have
asked the committee to look at what the focus of an
environmental auditor general might be. Members of the
committee will consider how an assessment of current
government practices and policies and departmental policies
and practices should be incorporated into the functions of an
environmental auditor general.
[Translation]
I have asked the committee to consider means by which we
can achieve our objective properly, keeping in mind the
government's commitment to budgetary restraint. In particular,
I want to avoid duplication and overlap.
The committee might consider whether we can learn from the
experiences of provinces or other countries which have created
similar offices.
[English]
It is the government's hope that the committee will be able to
report to the House of Commons by the end of May.
The point is simple. The government under the leadership of
the Prime Minister is determined to place environment at the top
of Canada's agenda, determined on this National Capital's
Celebration of International Water Day to make our country a
leader in sustainable development.
If we are serious then our government must show leadership
in getting our own house in order. We cannot expect high
standards of others, whether they be business, labour or other
countries, unless we impose and demand high standards from
ourselves.
[Translation]
I am continually grateful for the serious and non-partisan
manner in which all members of this House approach the
important environmental issues facing our country.
[English]
I am sure it is in that non-partisan spirit that the standing
committee will examine the role of an environmental auditor
general. I look forward to the wisdom of all the members of the
committee and indeed all the members of the House of
Commons on this serious initiative which will start the
government on the road to putting sustainable development into
action, not only by our words but also by our deeds.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the Minister of the Environment for sending us a copy of
her ministerial statement this morning, and I urge her to keep
doing so.
As vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development, I am pleased to be
able to discuss in a non-partisan manner the role of a future
environmental auditor general.
I believe that the announcement made this afternoon by the
Minister of the Environment clearly demonstrates her desire to
keep the commitments made in the red book. So, the government
2363
promises it will consult us, as well as Canadians and Quebecers
through public hearings.
(1515)
It is a good thing to consult, but the recent budget tabled by
the Minister of Finance was a very concrete opportunity where
the government could have demonstrated its will to do
something about the environment.
Of course, the Department of the Environment is one of the
few whose budget was increased. We can only be thankful for
this 4.1 per cent increase. However, some measures go against
sustainable development, even if the minister alluded to a
committee which will try to promote it. The best example of this
short-term vision, which is the opposite of the objective of
sustainable development, is the fact that the government
increases-listen to this-the government increases by $18.4
million the budget to clean up the St. Lawrence River, but
reduces by $5 million the budget to clean up the Great Lakes,
when we know that 40 per cent of the pollution in the St.
Lawrence River comes from the Great Lakes. So much for
sustainable development. On the one hand, the government
increases the budget to clean up the river, while on the other
hand it reduces the one for the polluted waters which flow into
that river. Whatever happened to cohesion and co-operation
between departments?
The Minister of the Environment says that she wants to put an
end to overlapping. Right now, the most obvious overlapping is
the one blocking any action concerning the Irving Whale.
Transport Canada commissions study after study that
Environment Canada never sees and they keep sending the ball
back and forth. In the end, nothing concrete comes of it. When
you see two federal departments get in each other's way like
that, thus delaying concrete action, it is easy to understand that
the people of Quebec want to have in their own hands the power
to make decisions.
In her speech, the hon. minister stated, and I quote: ``The
government is also determined to make our country a leader in
sustainable development. The government will be able to show
leadership in getting our own house in order''. The Official
Opposition is prepared to believe these fine words except that,
when we hear from Statistics Canada that this country exported
200,000 tons of hazardous waste to Asia and Latin America
from 1990 to 1993, we wonder if that is the kind of house
cleaning involved in the ministers plans.
The minister told us that the government and the Prime
Minister must recognize the fundamental link between
economic health and a healthy environment. She also praised the
Minister of Finance for recognizing that economy and
environment are not competing, but complementary.
It is true that environmental considerations are prominent is
the red book. It is also true that it conveys the importance of
integrating the economy, and thus the industry, with the
environment. This spirit of co-operation was made manifest by
organizing consultations on the environmental industry last
January.
Why is there nothing then to that effect in Growing Small
Businesses, the information booklet on new programs and
guidelines for small business?
(1520)
I was quite surprised, Mr. Speaker, to see there is no mention
of environmental concerns anywhere in the document's 52
pages.
The government must give its support to this sector, either by
implementing programs or by promoting initiatives to
encourage the private sector to adopt a sustainable development
approach.
It makes good sense, politically, to table a budget allocating
more money to the Department of the Environment.
Unfortunately, these inconsistencies show that it is only a smoke
screen.
In closing, the Bloc Quebecois draws a parallel between the
Auditor General of Canada and the environmental auditor
general. Before rejoicing and showing off, we should know what
kind of follow-up the government will give to the
recommendations made by the environmental auditor general. If
they are treated the same way as those made by the Auditor
General of Canada, the situation is not very encouraging.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I
compliment the Minister of the Environment on the initiatives
announced today.
The Reform Party looks forward to assisting the minister and
Canadians in achieving her well intentioned objectives. I
compliment the minister on asking advice from the standing
committee because it is a non-partisan manner of consulting
with members of Parliament and through them, Canadians.
She has spoken about her government's commitment to
budgetary restraint. I applaud her efforts to avoid overlap and
duplication of environmental standards and enforcement
between jurisdictions. Completing the process by May 31 will
minimize the costs and frustration of a long drawn-out process.
The Reform Party supports ensuring that all Canadians and
their descendants dwell in a clean and healthy environment. The
party supports sustainable development because without
economic development and the income generated therefrom the
environment will not be protected or enjoyed.
2364
The Reform Party supports the view that environmental
considerations must carry equal weight with economic, social and
technical considerations in the development of a project.
The Liberal Party's red book statement on the environment
closely parallels ours. On page 64 of the red book it states: ``It is
past time for the federal government to act on this understanding
by adopting economic and environmental agendas that
converge''. However in appointing an auditor general the red
book also states: ``Individuals could petition the environmental
auditor general to conduct special investigations when they see
environmental policies or laws being ignored or violated''.
I acknowledge that in the minister's statement she said she
wants the standing committee to look at the focus of an
environmental auditor general. I believe this is exceptionally
important because as a result of over eager activities of some
extreme protectionists, some businesses are beginning to
express concern about the potential of what I call green tape.
Green tape is rules and regulations that could unnecessarily tie
up reasonable, productive economic activity. They have
expressed concern that the office of an environmental auditor
general could easily become the captive of narrow interest
groups.
Members of the Reform Party will be active participants in
the process of examining the role of an environmental auditor
general. As stated, we support sustainable development,
recognizing that without economic development and the income
generated therefrom the environment will not be protected or
enjoyed.
I agree with the statement the minister made about two
months ago in this House that we all want to guarantee a
prosperous economy, a healthy environment and a bright future
for Canada.
(1525 )
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. With your permission I would like to seek consent of
the House to make a brief statement as chair of the committee of
the environment and sustainable development.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, is there unanimous
consent for the hon. member to speak briefly on this matter?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Hearing no nays, the hon. member for
Davenport.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to thank the
minister for her kind words and for the statement that she made
earlier. I would like to thank also the colleagues who have
spoken before me.
On behalf of the members of the committee, namely the
member for York-Simcoe, the member for Simcoe North, the
member for Lincoln, the member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for Thunder
Bay-Atikokan, the member for Oxford, the member for
Frontenac, the member for Terrebonne, the member for
Kootenay East and the member for Comox-Alberni, I would
like to assure the House that we are looking forward very much
to completing this assignment.
We will put our efforts into completing it in the spirit that has
been expressed in this House in recent minutes. We will
certainly endeavour to report to the House within the time
limitation indicated by the minister. We look forward to
implementing this promise contained in the red book of the last
election campaign.
We also look forward to the fact that in future Canada will
have either an auditor general for the environment or a
commissioner for the environment. We look forward very much
to keeping other promises we made in the last campaign.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 11th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the membership of the Standing Committee on Transport.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 11th report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like to move:
[Translation]
That the deferred division on the motion on the budget scheduled for
Tuesday, March 22, 1994, be further deferred untill Wednesday, March 23,
1994, at the end of the time provided for the consideration of Government
Orders.
Mr. Speaker, this motion had been moved by an hon. member
earlier today.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (for the Minister of Finance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes
to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 22, 1994.
2365
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-225, an act to amend the transfer of language
rights to provincial jurisdiction.
(1530 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's
bill, an act respecting the transfer of language rights to
provincial jurisdiction.
Its purpose is to add the words ``freedom of speech'' to the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to transfer all questions of
language out of federal jurisdiction into the control of the
provinces.
My bill recognizes that the courts will be obliged to provide
services in the language of those bringing matters before them
and that Parliament will still be free to choose bilingualism.
I hope my bill will spark debate on the socially divisive,
multibillion dollar boondoggle of official languages so that
residents of B.C., Quebec and all provinces of Canada come
closer to being masters in their house on the vital question of
language.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the 11th report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier
this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a
petition initiated by several Quebec organizations and signed by
628 people in the riding of Trois-Rivières.
These petitioners ask the Parliament of Canada to refrain
from any rent increases for low-cost housing, housing
co-operatives and non-profit housing and that it reverse the
freeze on the budget of the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, to provide for the construction of new social and
co-operative housing.
The situation is becoming increasingly difficult for tenants in
social housing, and the answer to our problem is not to attack
them but to review tax shelters that allow Canadians who are
better off to get rich at the expense of people on low incomes.
[English]
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I have about
1,300 more names on a petition to add to the several thousand
that have already been presented from my riding.
These petitioners draw to the attention of the House of
Commons that sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982
provide that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in
relation to certain matters may be initiated by a resolution of the
House of Commons.
The petitioners therefore call upon the House to urge the
government to abolish the Senate.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions of the
House of Commons as to form and content.
The petition is signed by Canadians from my constituency of
Regina-Lumsden and from other parts of Saskatchewan,
including Estevan, Kamsack, Moose Jaw, Biggar, Saskatoon,
North Battleford and Sturgis, to name a few.
These petitioners are extremely worried about the impact of
Bill C-91 which was passed in the last Parliament. It extends the
patent on some prescription drugs for up to 20 years and
guarantees drug manufacturers monopoly prices and substantial
profits at the expense of Canadians. Prescription drug prices in
Canada are the highest in the world as a result of this bill.
These petitioners are calling for the repeal of Bill C-91 to
reduce the financial burden on health care consumers in need of
prescription drugs and on provincial government drug plans.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker,
today I rise to present a petition on behalf of 25 constituents of
my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap.
The petition requests Parliament to enact legislation to
change our criminal justice system to provide greater protection
for children against sexual assault and also to provide greater
assurance that offenders will be convicted.
This petition has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
2366
(1535 )
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the following question will
be answered today: No. 11.
[Text]
Question No. 11-Mr. Easter:
How many new appointments were made between June 1992 and January 1994
to the personnel of the Department of Agriculture at the level of director and
above? How many were internal transfers within Agriculture Canada? How many
were transfers from other federal departments? How many were designated as
exempt staff? How many new personnel were retained by the department on the
basis of contracts? What were the names of the individuals involved, the
positions they held previously, the positions to which they had been appointed
and the dates of their appointments?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Between June 1992 and January 1994 there were
44 appointments to Agriculture Canada at the level of director or
higher. Of these, 33 were appointments from within the
department, 10 were from other federal government
departments, and one was from the Quebec provincial
government.
Details concerning the appointees, their current and former
positions and the dates of appointment are listed below. None of
the employees appointed at these levels were exempt staff. This
list does not include any contract employees, since people
retained under contract are not appointed to specific classified
positions in which case it cannot be determined whether their
assigned duties are at the director level or higher.
Name
|
Current Position
|
Former Position
|
Date of App.
|
Former
Dep.
|
Richardson, G.
|
Dir., Int'l Mark. Serv.
|
Dir., Agricultural Office
|
01.03.93
|
AGR.
|
Larmond, E.
|
Director, Industry Service
|
Dept'l Dir., Gr. Res. Lab.
|
27.09.93
|
CGC
|
Miller, D.
|
D.G., Fin. & Res. Mgmt
|
Dir., Gov. Serv. Prog.
|
01.07.92
|
TB
|
Ray, R.
|
D.G., Communications Br.
|
Senior Policy Advisor
|
18.12.92
|
AGR.
|
Cleghorn, E.
|
Director, Racetrack
|
Assist. Dir., Ops. FP&I
|
17.11.92
|
AGR.
|
Ide, P.. R.
|
Director, Anim. Dis. Res. Inst.
|
Dir., ADRI (Lethbridge)
|
22.02.93
|
AGR.
|
Yates, W.
|
Director, Anim. Dis. Res. Inst.
|
Dir., Health of Anim. Lab.
|
26.03.93
|
AGR.
|
Mackenzie, A.
|
D.G., Food Inspection
|
Reg. Dir., FP&I (Atl.)
|
16.08.93
|
AGR.
|
Panasuk, C.
|
Director, Mgt. Services
|
Sen. Adv. Consult. & Audit
|
22.06.92
|
DSS
|
Jarjour, V.
|
Director, Cereal Grains
|
Dept'l Dir., Food Aid Cen.
|
17.08.92
|
CIDA
|
Lachance, A.
|
Dir., Food and Animal Res.
|
Dir., Special Projects
|
17.08.92
|
LABOUR
|
Guttormson, R.
|
Dir., Tech. Serv. Div.
|
Dir., User Services
|
29.11.93
|
ISTC
|
Lavoie, J.Y.
|
ADM, Joint Market, Initiatives
|
ADM
|
04.01.93
|
P.Q. Gov't
|
Ballantyne, R.
|
D.G., Human Resources Br.
|
D.G., HRB, Health & Welfare
|
29.11.93
|
H&W
|
Charron, R.
|
Exec. Dir., Net Income Stable.
|
D.G., Ops. Western Divers.
|
22.11.93
|
WDO
|
Lavoie, G.
|
D.G., Commodities, Prod. &
Mark.
|
D.G., Farm Fin. Prog.
|
08.11.93
|
AGR.
|
Bard, L.
|
Director, Informatics Serv.
|
Dir., Corporate Informatics
|
19.10.92
|
AGR.
|
Blewett, R.
|
Director, Client Services
|
Special Adv., Stratégic Plan.
|
01.11.93
|
AGR.
|
Stemshom, B.
|
Dir., Animal Health
|
Dir., ADRI
|
19.02.93
|
AGR.
|
Gravel, A.
|
D.G., FP&I Atlantic Reg.
|
Dir., Meat & Poultry, Ottawa
|
16.08.93
|
AGR.
|
Gifford, M.N.
|
D.G., Trade Policy
|
Sen. Pol. Adv., Trade Negoc.
|
19.07.93
|
AGR.
|
Bulmer, W.S.
|
Dir., Anim. Health Lab (Sask.)
|
Dir., Anim. Health NCR
|
26.03.93
|
AGR.
|
Comeau, M.
|
ADM, Market & Industry Serv.
|
D.G., Human Resources
|
07.09.93
|
AGR.
|
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Jensen, P.
|
Dir., Trade Access Mgt.
|
Consult., Can. Mission Euro.
Comm.
|
21.06.93
|
AGR.
|
Wright, R.
|
Deputy Minister
|
Dept'l Secy to Cabinet (Plans)
|
07.10.92
|
PCO
|
Price, K.
|
Dir., Mgt. Serv., FP&I (Atl.)
|
Project Leader
|
10.08.92
|
DPW
|
Davidson, W.
|
Dir., Food Insp., FP&I (Atl.)
|
Dir., Meat Hyg., FP&I (Atl.)
|
10.08.92
|
AGR.
|
Piette, D.
|
Dir., Health of Anim. (Qué.)
|
Program Veterinarian
|
22.06.92
|
AGR.
|
Kiley, C.
|
Dir., Anim. & Plant Health (Alta)
|
Training & Sp. Project Officer
|
24.02.92
|
AGR.
|
Spencer, J.
|
Dir., Mgt. Services (B.C.)
|
Manager, Prog. Serv.
|
01.09.92
|
AGR.
|
Chong, K.
|
Dir., Anim. & Plant Health
(B.C.)
|
Coastal District Mgr.
|
13.01.92
|
AGR.
|
Finnan, D.
|
Dir., Food Inspection (B.C.)
|
Manager, Meat Prod.
|
01.06.92
|
AGR.
|
Walzak, J.
|
Dir., Ops. Parimutual Agency
|
Research Officer
|
01.07.93
|
AGR.
|
Fraser, A.
|
Dir., Research
|
Research Scientist
|
01.04.93
|
AGR.
|
Desroches, M.
|
Dir., Exec. Group Services
|
Resourcing Officer, HRB
|
10.06.92
|
AGR.
|
Stolarik, K.
|
Director, Info. Mgt. Serv.
|
Co-ord., Access to Info.
|
01.04.93
|
AGR.
|
Bélanger, Y.
|
Program Director
|
Dir. for Program Mgt.
|
06.07.93
|
AGR.
|
Baltacioglu, Y.
|
Director, Policy Coordination
|
Sen. Policy & Prog. Analyst
|
16.11.92
|
AGR.
|
Kranendonk, C.
|
Dir., Food Inspection (Man.)
|
Dir., Meat Hygiene
|
02.10.93
|
AGR.
|
Strachan, A.
|
Dir., Mgt. Serv. (Midwest)
|
Manager, Program Services
|
01.07.93
|
AGR.
|
Bedwei, F.
|
Dir., Food Inspection (Ont.)
|
Dir., Meat Hygiene
|
13.04.92
|
AGR.
|
Clark, B.
|
Dir., Health of Animals Lab.
|
Res. Scientist-Bacteriology
|
30.04.93
|
AGR.
|
Stone, P.
|
Corporate Secretary
|
Dir., Trade Anal. and Negoc.
|
26.11.93
|
AGR.
|
Stone, P.
|
Dir., Trade Anal. and Negoc.
|
Dir., Bilateral Affairs
|
24.06.93
|
AGR.
|
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Gagnon: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the
production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed Bill S-2, an Act to implement a
convention between Canada and the Republic of Hungary, an
agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Zimbabwe, a
convention between Canada and the Argentine Republic and a
protocol between Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal
evasion with respect to income taxes and to make related
amendments to other Acts, to which the concurrence of this
House is desired.
[English]
I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order
33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement Government
Orders will be extended by 18 minutes.
2368
2368
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition) moved:
That this House urge the government to follow up on its election promise to
protect and strengthen Canada's publishing industry by renewing the Baie
Comeau policy adopted in 1985 and by declaring that a public investigation will
be held into the circumstances surrounding the takeover of Ginn Publishing by
Paramount.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are many different reasons for
submitting a question for debate. For instance, a decision was
made and one feels it should be questioned because it was
wrong, or it may be necessary to shed some light on the
circumstances surrounding the decision-making process or on
what was actually done. Or again, one would want to prevent a
recurrence of something that just happened and which was
unacceptable.
We have here a situation where all these reasons converge to
require a public debate on a transaction that has just been
authorized by the government. We are, of course, referring to the
decision made by the government and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage on February 18 to authorize the sale of Ginn
Publishing Canada, a Canadian publishing company based in
Toronto, to Paramount, the American communications and
publishing giant.
The conclusion of this transaction is shrouded in mystery. I
would say it is an enigma. Consider the following sequence of
events: everything started in July 1985, when Cabinet met in
Baie-Comeau and adopted, at the request of the Minister of
Communications at the time, the so-called Baie Comeau policy
which was aimed at further protecting the Canadian publishing
industry.
The gist of the policy was, first of all, to authorize the creation
of new Canadian publishing companies or the acquisition of
Canadian publishing companies, provided, and I quote, ``the
proposed investment takes place within the framework of a joint
enterprise controlled by Canadians''.
Second, the policy provided that in the case of the direct
acquisition of a company controlled by foreign interests but
operating in Canada, the transaction could be authorized,
provided that control over ownership was transferred to
Canadians within two years, at a price reflecting market value.
Third, the strongest component of the Baie Comeau policy, in
my opinion, is the section pertaining to indirect transactions
which ensures that in the case of foreign takeovers, Canadian
publishing houses controlled by foreign interests are returned to
Canadian owners. This means that 51 per cent of the shares of
these Canadian subsidiaries must be transferred to a Canadian
owner in the event the parent company operating abroad
undergoes a change of ownership.
(1540)
What are the objectives of this policy? Many members of the
cultural community have congratulated themselves for
supporting it. The following assessment was made by the hon.
member for Mount-Royal, the Liberal Party critic at the time,
who had been following this issue very closely. On June 7, 1993,
she delivered in this House a speech in which she assessed the
implications of this Baie Comeau policy. She asked what the
results of this policy were? She stated the following and I quote:
``Initially it was very exciting. It was very positive''.
And she goes on to give examples. ``The major retail chain,
W.H. Smith, became Canadian controlled. An important book
wholesaler, John Coutts Ltd., returned to Canadian ownership.
The Doubleday Book Clubs were brought under Canadian
control with a resulting fivefold increase in sales of Canadian
authored books. For the first time''-still according to the
Liberal critic at the time last year-``Canadian controlled
publishers handled an increasing share of the distribution of
imported books''.
Let me continue to describe the sequence of events. In 1986,
one of the first effects of the policy was-and here we are
getting to the heart of the matter-to require Paramount to
return Ginn Publishing and G.L.C. Publishers to Canadian
control. And events continued to unfold.
In 1989, after the expiration of the two-year period required
by regulation following Paramount's decision to put Ginn
Publishing and G.L.C. Publishers up for sale, since no private
buyer had expressed an interest in these companies, the federal
government, acting through the Canada Investment
Corporation, intervened to acquire 51 per cent of the shares of
these two companies at a cost of $10 million. The government
had no choice but to act to ensure that Paramount did not retain
control over its shares following the expiration of the two-year
waiting period.
A very important event occurred in January 1992, namely the
amending of the Baie Comeau policy. This came about as a
result of the enormous pressure exerted on the federal
government and on the Conservatives, primarily by the
Americans. The Conservative government caved in to these
pressures and watered down its Baie Comeau policy which had
achieved excellent results since 1985, even according to the
Liberals in the House. So, the policy was amended. While the
direct takeover of Canadian publishing houses by foreign
interests was still prohibited, as far as indirect takeovers were
concerned, however, foreign investors could now acquire
ownership of a Canadian publishing house, provided that they
made commitments likely to benefit the Canadian publishing
industry. They were required to demonstrate that Canada was
likely to derive a net benefit from this transaction. This change
occurred in 1992.
We can ask ourselves what all of these provisions mean and
why the fuss over the publishing sector? The answer is that we
wanted to step in to protect the publishing industry, a cultural
industry that is clearly very much at risk in Canada. In 1991-92,
Canadian publishers controlled only 50 per cent of a $1.2 billion
market. During this same period, 80 per cent of Canadian
authors had their works published by Canadian book publishers.
2369
The imbalance between the two is clear. Canadian publishers are
far more likely than foreign controlled publishing houses to
publish the works of Canadian authors.
Therefore, since the publishing industry is important to
Canada and to Quebec and indeed to all Canadians and since it
plays a meaningful role in the protection of our cultural identity,
it must be protected. And that was what the Baie Comeau policy
purported to do.
Of course, when the policy was watered down, howls of
protest arose from cultural circles. Everyone in cultural
circles-I would say it was a rare case of unanimity in Canada
and Quebec-protested, including the Liberal Party now in
office.
(1545)
On February 14, 1992, we heard in this House the hon.
member for Mount Royal, who is now a member of the Liberal
Cabinet, complain about what happened and ask very tough
questions to the then Minister of Communications, and I quote:
``Is the government going to permit the foreign takeover of
Canadian publishing subsidiaries like Harper-Collins,
Collier-Macmillan and Grolier which are presently before
Investment Canada? Is it going to sell off $150 million of our
book publishing industry to foreigners?'' That amount was
worth a lot more back then.
So here we are today with a new government whose members
harshly criticized the watering-down by the Conservatives of
the very welcome measures they had taken in July 1985.
We would have thought that this government would tighten
the screws in line with the old Liberal tradition to defend
Canada's cultural identity. We thought that a Liberal
government more sensitive to the important realities and
symbols of cultural identity would come to the rescue of this
threatened industry. The red book even contained a very explicit
commitment in this regard, that the government does not like to
quote very often but that I will quote today: ``A Liberal
government will help Canadian books, films, and sound
recordings to increase their share of the domestic market
through the establishment of policies and legislation with
respect to marketing, distribution, and exhibition''. They talk
about culture in very lyrical terms that must have won them
many votes in the last election.
And I quote: ``Culture is the very essence of national identity,
the bedrock of national sovereignty and national pride. At a time
when globalization and the information and communications
revolution are erasing national borders, Canada needs more than
ever to commit itself to cultural development''.
Nobody could have put it better. But as for honouring its
commitment to protect cultural industries, the first time this
government was put to the test, it failed miserably and
disappointed a lot of people.
I am talking, of course, about Ginn Publishing that Paramount
had to return to Canadian interests in 1989 under the Baie
Comeau policy. We do not know exactly what happened, we may
find out in this debate, but Paramount eventually managed to get
Ginn back with the agreement, I would say the complicity or the
complacency at least, of the heritage minister. How could a great
victory for Canadian cultural identity be erased with a stroke of
a pen by the minister who must defend Canada's heritage, a
member of a government that promised to do the opposite? How
is it possible?
Because the current legislation and even the 1992 guidelines
contained the policies considered by the Liberal Party to be
diluted, feeble, insufficient. Even the Liberal Party had, through
its heritage minister, violated the Tories' already very diluted
rules. In other words, they were more lax than the Conservatives
themselves by allowing Paramount to regain Ginn Publishing.
Under the rules in the 1992 policies, it should have been
demonstrated that Ginn was in financial trouble, which is not the
case. It should also have been demonstrated that Canadian
buyers had the opportunity to make an offer. Nothing of the sort
happened, no matter what the people opposite are saying. All
Canadian publishers feel they have been pushed aside. All
Canadian publishers are unanimous in their complaints. We
would have found people to buy this publishing house but
everything was done on the sly to allow the American company
to reclaim Ginn quickly.
I would like to table a letter proving that at least one Canadian
buyer expressed interest on May 7, 1993. This letter was
addressed to the then owner of Ginn by Canada Development
Investment Corporation.
(1550)
[English]
I would like to file this letter before the House because it is
evidence that there was at least one Canadian interested.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
member to table the letter?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Bouchard: This letter is very important because it gives
irrefutable evidence that there was at least one Canadian owner
who was very much interested in buying the interests in Ginn.
The letter is dated May 7, 1993 and is signed by Mr. Ronald
Besse, chairman and president of Canada Publishing
Corporation. It is addressed to Mr. Patrick Keenan, then
chairman of CDIC, and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Keenan:
I would like to formally express my interest in purchasing the 51 per cent
equity held in Ginn Publishing by the Canadian government. We are a
successful educational publisher, 100 per cent Canadian owned, and we have
identified Ginn as a company with excellent synergies with our future business
plans.
2370
Would you please have someone contact me if you are interested in selling
this equity position.
We have this evidence. The government felt obligated to say
no to the transaction. Why did it not say yes? The only answer is
that-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): The previous
government.
Mr. Bouchard: This government had the decision to make.
We all know we have a new government and the decision was in
the hands of this government.
Why did the government say no? The excuse was a previous
verbal commitment by someone existed that might go back as
far as 1989. We do not know exactly. There are many questions
to ask.
The first question would be: Where is the legal advice that the
government is invoking? The government is basing its decision
on the fact it has been provided with a legal opinion from the
justice department supporting the decision to let the transaction
go, the sellout. We never saw this legal opinion. I think we
should have it. It should be tabled.
Second, where is the contract confirming the deal between
CDIC and Paramount dated 1989? We have never seen it. If it
exists we feel it would be very important for us to see it.
Third, who has made this commitment? This is quite a
mystery. Is it possible for a national government policy decision
to have been taken because someone we do not know said
something to someone else in a meeting on a date we do not
know? Is it possible that everything has swerved because of
that? The question has been asked and I think the government
should answer it.
We must ask ourselves whether there effectively was a sale of
Ginn to Paramount in 1989. Where is the contract to establish
that?
There was an interesting sequel to the letter sent to CDIC by
Canada Publishing Corporation. It is very interesting because
the letter was sent on May 7, 1993 and on August 13 of the same
year the corporate counsel of Canada Publishing, Mr. John
Evans, met with Mrs. Benita Warmbold of CDIC to express
Canada Publishing's interest in acquiring the 51 per cent equity
in Ginn in accordance with what the letter said before. There was
a meeting, a letter, and another meeting.
Then what happened? On August 19 the chairman of Canada
Publishing Corporation who signed the letter, Mr. Ronald Besse,
received an answer from Paramount. The answer came from
Paramount through a phone call inquiring: ``Why are you doing
that? What are you trying to do? We are not interested in selling
our equity in this company. We would like to control the whole
company''. That was the answer from the American company.
(1555)
Those are the facts. The government used its ministerial
discretion to get out of the obligations under the guidelines. The
only motive was that he had a verbal agreement, a verbal
commitment. We should know the name of the person. Is it a
minister? Is it a public servant? Who is it? We should know it.
I do not think the minister is right when he says in answer to a
question in the House that we should protect the name of the
person. I do not think this man, this person, has a right to
anonymity. Surely the public has the right to know who killed
the Baie Comeau policy and who was instrumental in depriving
Canada of one of its publishing companies.
I see that my time is coming to an end. We are asking the
government to table the legal opinion. We are asking the
government to table the contract between CDIC and Paramount.
The government should not be afraid to confront anyone in court
with the facts, with the public policy and the fact that only one
man or one woman would have reached an anonymous, hidden,
secret verbal agreement on behalf of Canadians, throwing aside
the policy of government discussed in Parliament.
As far as legal opinions are concerned, I am a lawyer and I
have seen many legal opinions in my life. There is always one
legal opinion against another legal opinion. I respect the people
in Department of Justice but we would like to see the legal
opinion. I know lawyers; there must have been some nuances in
the legal opinion. They should describe the full circumstances
wherein such a commitment would have been made.
We have the right to ask for it. We have the right to ask the
government to change its policy and go back to the Baie Comeau
policy. We would like the House of Commons to vote on the
question of knowing if there should be, as we think there should
be, a public inquiry into those obscure circumstances.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois for his speech.
There is no question the Ginn Publishing scandal leaves many
unanswered questions. It is proper to pursue it to find out exactly
what transpired in the sale of Ginn Publishing.
To me that is not the largest issue. The largest issue is whether
or not we should be erecting barriers to protect Canadian
culture. I personally believe the Canadian publishing industry
can stand on its own two feet. All aspects of Canadian culture
and the people behind it-the creators, the singers, the writers
and the performers-are more than capable of standing up and
competing with culture from around the world.
I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition, a person
who would have his own country if he could and presumably
would be part of a free trade agreement. Why would he want to
return to a Baie Comeau type policy if he believes strongly that
his own people can compete in the world?
2371
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking
a very relevant and important question.
We are free traders. We think there should not be any
economic barriers between our partners, that we should have
completely free exchanges in every aspect of our economic life.
When it comes to cultural identity, when it comes to the soul of a
country, whatever country it is, we have a duty to protect it.
(1600)
That is why one of the main victories won by Canada during
the negotiations with the Americans on the free trade agreement
was the cultural exception. It was a great victory. It was the first
time that Americans had to accept from any country in the
world, from any of their partners, that they should respect the
cultural identity and the cultural sector of a country. It was taken
out of the scope of the free trade agreement.
We should not forget also that this question has been very
much at the heart of the political landscape and preoccupations
of Canada. For example if you look at the Investment Canada
Act you will see two provisions where it is really strongly
affirmed that the cultural sector is a special case. For example
section 20 of the Investment Canada Act states that one of the
criteria to approve transactions is the ``compatibility of the
investment with national, industrial, economic and cultural
policies''.
If you look more precisely at section 15, which is a very
strong provision, it states very clearly that cultural activities are
very special and that we should assess quite differently any
transaction that would bear on this sector when it comes to be
reviewed by Investment Canada. Subsection (a) of section 15
reads: ``It falls within the prescribed specific type of business
activity that in the opinion of the governor in council is related
to Canada's cultural heritage or national identity''.
To resume my answer, there is a wide consensus from every
part of Canada, from every walk of life, that we should protect
our identity from a very strong and invading neighbour. The
Americans have a universal civilization and culture. It is quite
dynamic. We admire them. But in a way we have a duty to
protect what we are. If we do not protect what we are we will
never be in a position to do anything right. There would never be
any dialogue if we have nothing to say. We have a contribution
to bring to the universal realities, to the universal values, and it
stems from what we are so we have to protect what we are.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure other members besides myself and indeed Canadians
are somewhat amused at what the Leader of the Official
Opposition is doing.
He just said a few moments ago that he wants to protect our
identity. We have to protect what we are. I find it passing
strange that someone who is dedicated to separating from the
rest of Canada would want to protect what we are.
I was wondering if the Leader of the Opposition, a dedicated
separatist, can explain exactly why he is standing up today
defending Canadian culture. Can it be interpreted as a change in
his basic philosophy? Can he explain to Canadians and indeed to
Canadians in the province of Quebec what he is doing fighting
for Canadian sovereignty, Canadian identity?
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the main
reason, maybe the sole reason for which I am a separatist, as my
colleague just said, is exactly because I want to protect what I
am. I want to protect Quebec sovereignty.
I fully expect the rest of Canada to protect its own identity. It
happens there are two identities in this country. That is my
feeling. That is my vision of the future for us and of the present
reality.
The rest of Canada is perfectly legitimate in fighting for its
sovereignty against the Americans for example. It is perfectly
legitimate to fight for your own identity. No one is better placed
to understand that than a Quebecer. We think that Quebecers
have won a great victory for the last 350 years in protecting their
identity.
(1605 )
In this case, both our identities are threatened. If any
government allows the invasion of the American publishing
industry into Toronto it should be possible also in Montreal. As
long as we are in the federation in Quebec, we are exposed to the
same threat. I do not accept that.
This is a case where we have a common cause. This is a case
where the interests of the rest of Canada and of Quebec are the
same. Therefore we should act together. I would expect the
national government which made such strong commitments to
respect that.
This is a case where the government can fight the good fight
for Quebec and the rest of Canada, for our own respective
identities.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by picking up
on my colleague's remarks.
For a moment it sounded hopeful when we heard the Leader of
the Opposition speak about Canada's interests. I know that this
member who has fought for Canada and has a deep feeling for
Canada must have moments of doubt, especially when we are
dealing with an issue like this one today. Maybe eventually he
will convert back to his Canada-first policy, which he once had.
I say that sincerely and hopefully. I hope it is a temporary
difference we are having.
My question has to do with the actual transaction. The
original transaction on this Ginn Publishing deal stemmed from
when Gulf and Western had to offload it. When there was no
2372
Canadian purchaser, the CDIC purchased it for $10.2 million.
However there was a condition attached to that transaction and it
was that if the policy of the government changed, if the Baie
Comeau policy changed, then Paramount had the option to buy
back Ginn Publishing.
Can the leader not see that there was a sale and agreement that
was consummated in 1986? This was really a conclusion to that
deal because of the policy shift. As a government, in effect, we
were boxed in.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to assure
my hon. colleague and friend that there is nothing personal in
our differences. It is really a question of collective perception of
what the future should be, what should be best for our two
collectivities, what kind of political structures would achieve in
the best way the welfare and development of Quebec and the rest
of Canada. Therefore, it is nothing personal but just personal
consideration.
If it were possible to bridge our differences through personal
appreciation, through friendship, I am sure it would already
have been done. However even though we have all those good
feelings and respective consideration for each other, it was not
possible when it came time to table collective and concrete
proposals to satisfy Quebec's aspirations. It is collective and it
is the political dynamics of the country that has conducted us
where we are.
Coming back to the specific deal, the hon. member said there
were conditions attached to the 1989 transaction. There might
be but we do not know. How come there was a very extensive
contract? I suppose it exists. That is why we asked for it. There
was a very extensive and comprehensive written contract as
there always is when there is a transaction where all the
conditions were stated and clearly expressed. How can we
explain that one of the main conditions of the contract, one of
the main considerations of the contract was taken out of the
document? How can we explain that? It never happens.
(1610)
I practised law for 22 years. I was involved in these kinds of
deals. It never happened in my life that someone took the liberty
of contracting a verbal agreement which was not couched in the
contract. It is very dangerous too because chances are that the
court would not sanction the commitment. That is why I do not
believe for one moment that the legal advice is binding on the
government. It is quite possible if the government hired good
lawyers, and they have lots of good Liberal lawyers, it could go
to court and fight for Canada and fight for the cultural interests
of Canada.
Why does the government not do that? It did it for a $6 billion
contract when it cancelled the helicopter deal in Quebec. It did it
for the Pearson International Airport with a $1.6 billion contract
which will be brought to court now. We read in the papers that
the government will be sued for close to $200 million, but it did
it anyway because it thought it was in the interest of the people.
Why does the government not do that with something which
amounts to about $10 million, which is not a very big amount of
money for a government, but so huge, so symbolic and with
cultural interest?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, the motion
before us today calls for the reinstatement of the Baie Comeau
policy which was adopted by the previous government in July
1985.
The late Conservative government introduced a foreign
investment policy for the book trade in July 1985 which came to
be known as the Baie Comeau policy. The objective of the policy
was to Canadianize the book publishing and the book
distribution industry by flowing distribution revenues from
imported books through Canadian controlled firms. More
specifically when a foreign investor acquired a book publisher
or distributor in Canada it was obliged to divest control of the
business to Canadians.
While I am sure all members of the House, including I might
add rather ironically the leader of the Bloc, would agree that
Canadianizing the book trade is a laudable objective, the chosen
instrument of the previous government, the Baie Comeau
policy, simply did not work. It is patently absurd to demand a
reinstatement of that policy.
To begin with the policy was implemented through the
Investment Canada Act, a statute also instituted by the
Conservatives. This legislation was designed to attract foreign
investment into Canada, not to discourage it. This led to a
situation in the publishing industry in which foreign investors
created sham Canadian corporations; that is firms which met the
technical definition of Canadian control under the act but which
effective control continued to rest with the foreign investor.
Under the free trade agreement the guarantee of fair, open
market value to investors obliged to divest control exposed the
government to significant financial risks without any benefit to
Canadian publishers. Furthermore the policy was not linked to
any incentives for Canadian ownership. To put it another way
the Canadian control sector of the industry was too weak to
profit from any opportunities provided by forced divestiture.
There was nothing to prevent foreign publishers who acquired
these Canadian subsidiaries from withdrawing to the U.S. and
serving Canadians directly from there. This completely
undermined the objective of supporting a strong Canadian based
industry and a strong east-west distribution system. For
example Grolier Canada and Doubleday Canada were both
implicated in indirect acquisitions between 1985 and 1992. A
significant portion of their warehousing and fulfilment
operations were transferred to the United States. A government
cannot simply rely on indirect acquisitions, that is transactions
in which
2373
Canadian businesses are incidentally involved in international
mergers and acquisitions to achieve domestic policy goals.
(1615)
The track record of the Baie Comeau policy was an extremely
disappointing one. The one instance in which Canadians gained
a 51 per cent interest in a foreign book publisher occurred
because the taxpayers themselves stepped in and made the
purchase.
I refer, of course, to the CDIC's purchase of the 51 per cent
interest in Ginn Canada for which the taxpayers paid $10.3
million to a hostile foreign partner. As a result of the
government's recent decision to resell its interest in Ginn back
to Paramount, the taxpayers will recover this investment.
The publishing community has criticized the government's
decision to resell Ginn and company to Paramount. Let me
underline the fact that the government weighed all the facts
before it made its decision.
In January 1992 the previous government announced a new
package of measures for the book publishing industry. I use the
term new advisedly. What the government did in fact was claim
for itself a longstanding Liberal approach to book publishing
policy. That approach was based on a mix of program and policy
instruments which together formed the basis of a comprehensive
and coherent industrial and cultural strategy for the book
publishing and the book distribution sector.
The two key elements of the 1992 announcements were, first,
a revised foreign investment policy and second, increased
funding for the book publishing industry development program.
The revised foreign investment policy marked a return to the
regime which prevailed under the Foreign Investment Review
Act and which had been introduced by a Liberal government in
the 1960s. The book publishing industry development program
was initially introduced by a Liberal government in the late
1970s.
Increasing Canadianization of the book trade in Canada has
always been an objective of the Liberal government and it
continues to be so today. Foreign investment policy is one
instrument for achieving that objective but it must be applied in
a way which will achieve tangible results.
[Translation]
The guidelines of the amended foreign investment policy are
as follows: new investments in the book publishing industry will
be limited to joint ventures under Canadian control; takeovers of
Canadian-controlled companies will not be allowed.
Under extraordinary circumstances, the government might
consider an exception to this guideline. In such a case, the
government must have credible evidence from the vendor that
the company is in obvious financial distress and that Canadians
really had an opportunity to buy it.
If a non-Canadian is chosen as a potential buyer, his proposed
investment will be subject to a net benefit review.
If a foreign investor wishes to sell a Canadian company
regardless of any other transaction, Canadians will have an
opportunity to bid; indirect acquisitions by foreign companies
will be allowed provided that they are of net cultural and
industrial benefit to Canada and to the Canadian-controlled
publishing industry.
More specifically, Investment Canada will normally seek to
obtain one or more commitments from the foreign investor, such
as the commitment to support Canadian authors, in particular by
establishing joint ventures with Canadian-controlled publishers
so that the Canadian authors whom they publish have access to
new national and international markets; the commitment to
support the book distribution infrastructure, for example by
distributing imported titles through an exclusive
Canadian-controlled publisher/distributor; by maintaining in
Canada fully integrated warehousing and fulfilment operations
for recent publications and back-list items; by participating
actively in co-operative projects with the industry on
marketing, distribution and order fulfilment operations.
(1620)
Contractual access to the company's marketing and
distribution infrastructure in Canada or its international
network by Canadian-controlled publishers whose interests are
compatible;
Financial and professional assistance to institutions that offer
teaching and research programs in the publishing field.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the results
obtained by this government for the Canadian-controlled
publishing sector by applying this policy on indirect
acquisitions.
In the case of Maxwell Macmillan, this government was able
to obtain a commitment from Paramount to entrust the
distribution of high-volume imported books, a Canadian market
estimated at some $4 million in 1993, to Canadian-controlled
publishers and agents. This is a very important precedent
because the previous government was unable to obtain similar
commitments for indirect investments, as in the Harper-Collins
case.
[English]
In announcing the Baie Comeau policy the previous
government was effectively putting all its eggs in one basket.
The megaproject approach to automatic forced divestiture has
proven to be illusory. The focus on automatic forced divestitures
as a cure for the ills of the publishing industry has been proven
to be counterproductive. The only time it ever worked was when
the taxpayer was forced to send money to a large U.S.
multinational
2374
corporation whose need for Canadians' hard-earned cash was at
best questionable.
Surely Canadian taxpayers' money, increasingly limited as it
is, ought to be spent in Canada on the Canadian-owned
publishing industry. The Liberal approach to book publishing
policy has been seen to strike a balance between financial and
foreign investment policy, providing publishers with the
financial resources to grow and seeking undertakings from
foreign investors which will benefit the Canadian-owned and
controlled sector of the industry. It is a longer term strategy but
ultimately a more effective one.
No policy is ever perfect. There is always room for
improvement. This government does not question the objectives
underlying the instruments now in place to support the book
trade. As far as the foreign investment policy is concerned we
are more than willing to sit down with the publishers and discuss
what improvements could be made to the guidelines.
I would like to make this as clear as possible: This
government strongly believes in the economic growth of the
Canadian-owned publishing industry and in the industry's
progressive Canadianization. Any improvements to the policy
guidelines would be made in the spirit of these policy
objectives.
[Translation]
I would like to talk to you briefly about the publishing
industry development assistance program.
The main purpose of this program is to strengthen the ability
of the Canadian-held and controlled sector of the industry to
publish and market Canadian literary works, nationally and
internationally.
(1625)
This program was implemented especially to encourage
Canadian-held and controlled publishing houses to increase
their efficiency and to reward those that are able to improve
their long-term economic viability; to give Canadian-held and
controlled companies the tools they need to become more
competitive so that they can build up capital and finance their
growth and development; to facilitate the development of the
market, in particular through new publishing technologies; to
promote Canadian ownership; to ensure the continued diversity
of types of books by Canadian authors that are published.
The beneficiaries of the program are publishing houses that
are at least 75 per cent Canadian-held and controlled, as well as
industry groups and associations. The annual budget for the
program is about $24 million.
[English]
The government also provides significant financial support to
Canadian-owned and controlled publishers, distributors and
booksellers for the physical distribution of books across the
country as well as for the marketing in Canada of Canadian
titles. This is of crucial importance in a domestic market which
is small, linguistically fragmented and spread across a vast
geographical area.
Indeed, national and international marketing support is also
crucial to enable companies to recoup their production costs in
our small domestic markets.
[Translation]
Now I would like to say a few words about the copyright
policy.
At present, exclusive publishers and agents have no official
legal protection for enforcing contractual book publishing or
distribution agreements in Canada. This very regrettable
situation makes us almost unique among our main trading
partners. It results in a loss of income for Canadian publishers
and makes it more difficult for them to maintain a solid financial
footing.
In an effort to consolidate the financial base of Canadian
publishers and distributors, we intend to make two amendments
to the Copyright Act as part of Phase II of the review.
The Copyright Act should be amended to strengthen the
protection of copyright holders from pirate works, to provide
better protection to exclusive licence holders for their
publishing rights on the Canadian market, and to give better
protection to exclusive distributors for their distribution rights
on the Canadian market.
These changes will not create new rights under the Copyright
Act; however, they will give exclusive licence holders and
exclusive distributors the possibility to sue for enforcement of
their territorial rights.
[English]
If I may, I would like to draw a parallel with magazine
publishing. The government's objectives in this sector are the
same as they are for the book trade: to strengthen the Canadian
industry and ensure that Canadians have access to a wide range
of Canadian writing.
The report of the task force on the Canadian magazine
industry is expected very shortly. I can assure the House that the
government intends to respond quickly to the task force report in
a way which will strengthen the Canadian magazine industry's
economic foundation.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage for her comments.
She mentioned in her speech several measures that the
government is taking to protect Canadian publishing and
Canadian
2375
culture. I would point out that the effects of protective-type
measures like that are very punitive, particularly for the
consumer of culture. They lead to higher taxes, higher costs and
less choice. They uphold inefficient businesses and they really
do imply that somehow our culture is inferior to the culture that
comes from other countries.
(1630 )
I also point out that culture is very dynamic and it is always
moving and really is subject to change. The borders cannot stop
that influence any more. We see a lot of that coming in anyway. I
would argue that it is also necessary to have that type of
influence to keep a culture fresh. Without that we get an inbred
culture and a very nationalistic, very petty and very mean
culture. That is a problem that a sovereign Quebec would have to
deal with.
I also believe that when governments interfere and make
arbitrary decisions on what constitutes culture it is extremely
inappropriate. Culture is a very personal matter and we must let
the consumer be sovereign.
Why does the government not want to let the consumer drive
the cultural industry in Canada? Why is it afraid to let
consumers make those types of decisions? Why is it afraid to let
consumers decide what constitutes art, what constitutes a good
novel and what constitutes the type of culture they want to be a
part of and enjoy?
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member earlier
applauding the initiative of the Leader of the Opposition when
he mentioned that this government should not have proceeded
with the sale of Ginn.
In purely financial terms which the Reform Party is always
harping on, the Reform Party should be applauding the initiative
taken by this government. In its own very narrow terms, the sale
of Ginn gives the Canadian government $10 million for its
coffers.
This is an interesting twist because the Reform Party is
always preaching that the government should get out of the
business world except when it becomes an issue in the media.
Let me reassure the hon. member that if any responsible
government wants to tailor a sound cultural policy, and I hope
the hon. member wants a sound Canadian cultural policy, if it
chooses not to lose its shirt on one deal, it is sound judgment and
sound cultural policy. This government will not be throwing
Canadian taxpayers' money away.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to respond
and to suggest some other possible approach for the
government.
We are not advocating that we return to the Baie Comeau
policy at all. We do not believe in that. What we are saying is
that if there were a policy in place and there were some rules to
be followed, then those rules should be followed. If we are going
to set some guidelines, then let us make sure that everybody
knows what they are and follow them.
Having said that, we support moving away from cultural
protectionism and we would hope the government will realize that
is no longer appropriate in the world. The type of protectionism
we have in this country today simply is not working. It leads to
some division in the country in that the government makes
arbitrary decisions about what constitutes something as personal
as culture.
I would argue that is an inappropriate role for the government.
That is why we have an uproar when the National Art Gallery
buys paintings with taxpayers' money that most people cannot
see the value of.
My comments are to encourage the government to move away
from that type of protectionism and to let the consumer decide
what constitutes culture.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, Canadians had the good
judgment to elect a Liberal government.
It is the intent of this government to present Canadians with
sound cultural policy initiatives which I hope even the hon.
member will come to appreciate.
I am still confused about the apparent contradiction in his
statements. Is it the member's intent that we should buy back
Ginn? Is that what he is suggesting by his earlier statements?
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker, I
will refrain from entering into the debate between the
government and the Reform member about Canadian culture,
consumer choice, other than to say that we can only have
consumer choice if there is something to choose from.
(1635 )
If multinationals occupy all of our theatres, all of the
bookstores, all of the magazine racks and Canadians do not have
a choice, how in the hell can one have choice? That is my
question, pardon the language, to the member of the Reform
Party.
In the same vein, I would like to ask the member of the
government about enhancing Canadian choice and at the same
time allowing the sale of both Macmillan and Ginn to Paramount
which will reduce choice.
Would the government be in agreement to have a full and open
investigation on this since obviously it was the former
Conservative government that entered into this bad deal?
Obviously there were not written agreements but verbal
agreements, some say by a cabinet minister making a phone call.
There are indications that when a publisher visits Ottawa
enquiring about Ginn and gets a response from Paramount there
is something very odious and very fishy going on here.
2376
Would the parliamentary secretary agree that a full and open
inquiry is needed to bring the body on the table to properly look
into what happened so that we and the rest of Canadians would
know what exactly the former government undertook to sell out
Canadian cultural interests?
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, the publishing world must be
looking at this debate to rank the abilities of the aspiring
mystery writers in this Chamber.
There is no mystery surrounding Ginn. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Industry have both been
rich in their explanation on the sale of Ginn. They have provided
us with the richest details on the sale. The deal is transparent.
I must be suffering from a lapse of memory because I do not
recall the hon. member's speaking up in defence of Canadian
cultural industries when his party went to the U.S. to produce a
campaign video. Perhaps he is gripped with the culture of
convenience or the convenience of the cultural issue.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Regina-Qu'Appelle will have the floor in a few moments, as I
think he is aware.
[Translation]
Since time allotted for questions and comments has expired, I
now give the floor to the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata.
[English]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, the motion we are debating today is probably one of the
most important that we have had to deal with in this House since
the beginning of the session. It concerns Canadian identity and
cultural sovereignty and its consequences, and the identity and
cultural sovereignty of Quebec.
In effect, the motion refers directly to that important form of
cultural expression represented by the book publishing industry.
[Translation]
Let us look at a few facts, Mr. Speaker. In 1985, Mr. Masse,
who was commucations minister at the time, announced a new
policy regarding investments in publishing companies in
Canada and Quebec. This policy became known as the Baie
Comeau policy and its goal was to ensure that the Canadian
publishing industry can play its role fully in all regions of
Canada.
To this end, Mr. Masse declared his department would view
favourably transactions to create new companies as well as
corporate acquisition initiatives, so long as the proposed
investment were mostly Canadian. Direct or indirect acquisition
of companies by foreign concerns would be authorized provided
that the control of these companies was returned to Canadians or
Quebecers within two years.
In 1986, the federal government authorized Paramount to take
over Prentice-Hall on condition that Paramount divest itself of
its shares in Ginn Publishing for the company to become
Canadian-controlled.
In 1988, the government bought 51 per cent of Ginn's shares
through Canada Development Investment Corporation to make
sure Paramount would not hold the stock indefinitely, in
accordance with the Baie Comeau policy. Observers did point
out the high cost of the transaction at the time, CIDC having
negotiated the acquisition price directly with Paramount instead
of through an adjudicator as required in the Baie Comeau policy.
Furthermore, at the time of purchase, CDIC stressed that it
intended to sell the company back to Canadian interests.
(1640)
In 1992, the Baie Comeau policy was reviewed by Perrin
Beatty. The imperative was maintained, in that a non-Canadian
was not authorized to acquire an existing company under
Canadian control. However, foreign investors were allowed to
acquire Canadian and Quebec publishing companies if they
were able to prove that these companies were in dire financial
straits and that Canadians and Quebecers had had a fair chance
to bid on the companies.
In the U.S., on February 14, Viacom purchased Paramount.
Investment Canada will soon be looking at the repercussions of
this transaction in Canada.
Four days later, hardly five months after they came to power,
the Liberals agreed to sell two publishing companies to
Paramount: Ginn Publishing, whose shares were sold back to
Paramount at the price paid in 1989, that is, $10.3 million, and
Maxwell Macmillan, purchased by Prentice-Hall Canada, a
Canadian subsidiary of Paramount.
Here are some of the issues raised by these transactions.
Let us start with Ginn Publishing. Since February 18, the
government has said repeatedly that it had to sell back to
Paramount the shares it had purchased in this company in 1989,
at the price paid in 1989, on the basis of a verbal agreement
made by someone in the previous government.
The question we have been asking since the beginning of this
affair has remained unanswered so far. I will ask it again today:
Who made a commitment, when, and where, to sell the Ginn
Publishing shares back to Paramount? A ghost who haunts the
office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and leaves verbal
traces? I am inclined to believe this when I read in Hansard what
the minister said last Thursday in reply to one of my questions,
and I quote: ``I said that I did not see the contract, since it was an
oral one and naturally could not be seen''.
2377
Why does the government continue to abide by verbal
agreements supposedly made by the previous government?
Why, in this case, is it making a decision that goes against the
interests of the publishing industry and violates Canada's policy
on foreign investment in this industry?
Why does the government not rescind that decision? After
being sworn in, it courageously fulfilled one of its promises and
cancelled the helicopter contract, even though it knew that there
would be costs involved. And the government did not hesitate to
cancel the privatization of Pearson Airport, even though it ran
the risk of being prosecuted.
Why does the Liberal government so directly and openly
violate Canadian policy on foreign investment in the field of
publishing? This policy clearly states that the takeover of an
existing company under Canadian control by a non-Canadian
will not be authorized. This is as clear as can be.
Why does the Liberal government violate so wilfully this
policy by rejecting all the offers and requests for information it
has received regarding this issue? Why did it not follow up on
the representations made by Reidmore Books in Edmonton, and
by Canada Publishing Corporation, McClelland & Stewart and
Fitzhenry & Whiteside, in Toronto, to name but a few?
These Canadian companies have publicly stated their interest
in buying Ginn Publishing. Why did the Liberal government not
call for tenders, in compliance with the intentions stated in 1989
by the Canada Development Investment Corporation?
Unfortunately, the list of questions is incomplete. But the real
lesson to be drawn from this episode is that as soon as the
government has the possibility to choose between Canadian
interests and those of some mysterious entity influencing what
goes on behind the closed doors of the Cabinet meeting room, it
forgets Canadian interests. Tell me then: What weight do those
cultural exemptions included in agreements signed with the
United States carry? This political decision is a national
disgrace.
(1645)
In the end, one wonders if Ginn Publishing was ever really
under Canadian control. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance said in this House that, technically
speaking, CDIC had indeed bought Ginn Publishing in 1989, but
that a number of legal issues still had to be settled with
Paramount before shares could be offered to Canadians. The
parliamentary secretary added that, in fact, CDIC was not in a
position to actively look for someone to buy its shares in Ginn,
as long as some issues remained unsettled.
The situation appears to have been such that, according to Jamie
Portamn, a journalist with the Ottawa Citizen, Paramount
retained veto power over the choice of the eventual buyer. And
when Ron Besse sent his lobbyists to the Liberal Party, it was
Paramount that phoned him to find out what he wanted.
Could it be that those legal issues still to be settled, mentioned
by referred the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance, are only excuses used by the government to have time
to amend its nationalist policy on ownership of publishing
companies?
Could it be that this delay between the coming and going of
shares from Paramount to Paramount was only to allow CDIC to
make an interest-free loan of $10.3 million to Paramount, with
money paid by Canadian and Quebec taxpayers? In this episode,
Canada lost, while Paramount won.
How can the government claim that federalism is the best way
to protect Canadian and Quebec cultures when it is prepared to
so openly violate its own policy and sell our publishing industry
to Americans? Are there two policies regarding investments in
the publishing industry: The one which Canadians know but
which is not implemented, and the one which non-Canadians
know and which is dictates government action?
As regards the takeover of Ginn Publishing, I agree with Mr.
Karl Siegler, the President of the Association des éditeurs
canadiens, when he says that what is at stake here are Canadian
cultural sovereignty and identity.
[English]
Every country in the world protects its cultural industry. At
the first opportunity that presented itself in Canada to the
ministers of Canadian heritage, industry, finance, and finally to
the cabinet as a whole, they preferred to abandon the defence of
Canadian cultural interests. That does not bode well for the
future. We must continue, therefore, to watch this bunch of Don
Quixotes very carefully as they cannot count on the presence of
essentials to bring them down to earth again.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying through
you to the hon. member that in no way, shape or form are we
defending the previous government's Baie Comeau book
publishing policy. I believe the parliamentary secretary to the
minister of heritage stated that quite clearly in her previous
remarks.
The difficulty that we have in this particular transaction is the
fact that in 1986 when Gulf and Western committed to sell 51 per
cent of Ginn within two years, it could not find a Canadian
buyer. At that time the government directed the CDIC to offer to
buy the 51 per cent. We are talking now in 1986. This is not three
weeks before an election date, like when you compare it to the
helicopter transaction where we had taken a public policy
2378
position during the campaign. It is not like Pearson International
Airport where the deal was done two weeks before the final vote
and we declared our position. This was a transaction that
emanated in 1986.
(1650)
We inherited this completed transaction. Does the member
think that when a transaction went back that far that there is
some responsibility on us or is the member suggesting that we
just ignore all of these contracts, some of them going back three,
four and five years?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): The
problem with my hon. colleague's question, Mr. Speaker, is that
it makes reference to several questions we have asked in this
House, to which contradictory answers were given. We have
never been able to get a clear answer from this government.
They duck questions, claiming that it was the previous
government that had entered into an agreement with Paramount.
We ask to see this agreement, but it cannot be produced. We are
told it was a verbal agreement. What is a verbal agreement
worth? Who made it? We have asked that question over and over.
Who spoke to whom, when, why? Basic stuff. We never got an
answer.
The Baie Comeau policy was changed by Mr. Beatty, a
member of the Conservative government, in June 1992 I believe.
The government, which may or may not carry out a given
transaction, can still keep an eye on things. It did not hesitate to
expose itself to a $200 million lawsuit from Pearson
International Airport. So do not try to delude me into believing
that decisions in cultural matters are not as political as those
regarding helicopters! I think that they are hiding behind
something; I think that they are trying to protect someone. What
is to gain? For whom? It is suspicious! That is why we are
requesting a public inquiry into this matter.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
am truly delighted that the Bloc is taking such an interest in
Canada's identity and cultural situation. I find myself lacking
considerable sympathy with the member for Medicine Hat who
seems to think our cultural industries can survive entirely on
their own. I wish I could ask him whether or not he has bought a
Canadian book recently but I do not have that opportunity.
My question to the hon. member opposite is this. In the
context of the powerful cultural invasion from the United States
does she feel that we are better off, both anglophones and
francophones, united against cultural aggression from the
United States rather than separate?
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr. Speaker, I
would say that a degree of commonality will continue to exist
between us as Canadians even if we become separate in Quebec.
Our goal in this debate is to protect Canadian culture. When we
leave, we want Canada to be strong and have a strong cultural
identity. We do not want it to be assimilated by the United
States. We want it to be able to sell us and continue to trade with
us elements of our cultures. Part of our heritage will not just
disappear. We will not cut all trade relations with Canada just
because we have gained sovereignty. On the contrary! We will
want to continue to trade with Canada, but if we get a better price
in the United States for books, Canada will starve culturally
because we will buy directly from our neighbour to the south.
The Deputy Speaker: The time allocated to questions and
comments has now expired. My apologies, hon. colleagues.
[English]
I was following the exchange between the member for
Regina-Qu'Appelle and the parliamentary secretary too
closely and I misread my list. Before the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, it should have been the turn of the
Reform Party, the member for Calgary Southeast. It seemed
easier, rather than interrupt the member, to let her finish and
then to go back to the Reform Party which should have had the
floor. I will have the second round for the Bloc after the member
for Calgary Southeast has spoken. With your permission I will
call on the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
(1655 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak with deep concern on an issue that has been
percolating in the news for weeks and has come to the floor of
the House numerous times in question period. I am talking
specifically about the sale of Ginn Publishing Inc., what I call
the Ginngate affair.
The Bloc Quebecois has put forward a motion that appears to
protect the Canadian cultural identity. It is appearing to
champion Canadian culture. However, the BQ represents no
cultural, political or economic interests outside of Quebec. It is
hoping that Canadians will believe that the Bloc Quebecois, a
separatist party, actually cares about the interests of the whole
country.
The members of that party have stated unequivocally that they
are in the House to look after the interests of Quebec and to set
the stage for separation.
This motion is not about culture. This motion is about how
business is conducted in this country. The motion of the Bloc
calls for an investigation of the process that was followed in the
sale of Ginn Publishing.
The Baie Comeau policy will not protect Canadian culture.
What will protect Canadian culture is an open and competitive
marketplace. However, I do agree with my Bloc colleagues that
there is a need for a thorough investigation, a complete one, of
the sale of Ginn Publishing, not to protect Canadian culture but
to ensure that the marketplace is fair and open.
2379
It is clear that the former Tory government violated its own
policy. But this government has done worse. It has lacked the
political will to halt the sale, claiming that some vague and
tenuous legal obligation requires it to sell. This is in direct
conflict with the stance these members took when they were in
opposition.
Let us look at the history of the sale because this is where it
becomes clear that there are many irregularities within the
process of the sale as it unfolded. Let us look first at the players.
There is the past Tory government that began the cover-up.
There is the current Liberal government that has continued the
cover-up. There is the Canadian book publishing industry, the
Canadian public and the members of this House, all of whom are
the victims of this whole affair.
Here is a brief history of Ginngate. In 1985 the Tories
implemented the Baie Comeau policy. In 1985 Paramount
bought Ginn. In 1988 the CDIC bought Ginn from Paramount. In
1992 the Tories abandoned the Baie Comeau policy. In 1994 the
CDIC sold Ginn back to Paramount. This is an innocuous
history. But let us dig a little deeper.
During the 34th Parliament when some members of the
present government were in opposition, Gulf and Western, an
American company, bought Ginn Publishing Incorporated.
When this sale occurred the Baie Comeau policy of the former
government was in effect.
The Baie Comeau policy required that a foreign owned
business which had acquired a Canadian magazine or book
publishing company must sell controlling interest back to a
Canadian firm within two years. If the foreign company was
unable to do this the Canadian government would buy the
controlling interest of the Canadian firm. The government
would direct the Canadian Development and Investment
Corporation, CDIC, to buy controlling interests and then it in
turn would attempt to sell that interest to a Canadian firm.
In 1988 the federal government ordered the CDIC to buy
Ginn. This sale appears to be in keeping with the Baie Comeau
policy. However, there are two problems here. First, Investment
Canada never investigated Paramount to determine if it had
made a real and earnest attempt to sell Ginn to a Canadian buyer.
(1700 )
Second, the CDIC was supposed to pay only a fair market
value for Ginn. However the government would not disclose
how much was actually paid for Ginn. The amount of the
original sale has never been officially reported to the House or to
the Canadian taxpayer. It has been alleged that CDIC offered and
paid a value much higher than what Ginn was worth, an
estimated $10.3 million, the same amount that it is now reported
to be getting from Paramount for Ginn.
Experts in the industry and competitive bidders suggest that the
company was worth only about $3 million or $4 million in 1985.
Why then did CDIC pay up to three times the fair market value
for this company? The Canadian taxpayers have the right to
know.
The former government would not tell the House the amount
that was paid, and this government seems quite content to follow
in those footsteps despite its commitment to open and honest
government. Small wonder, is it not, that a poll released today
shows that only 2 per cent of Canadians believe what their
parliamentarians say?
If the government continues to show this kind of disdain for
all the members of the House and the people of Canada, it will
suffer the same fate as that of the previous government.
The facts raised thus far in and of themselves merit an
investigation. However the fiasco continued. Once the CDIC
controlled Ginn, it was required to find a Canadian buyer. Under
the Tories the minister of regional industrial expansion
guaranteed to the House that every effort would be made to
respect the principle of Canadian ownership and primacy within
our book publishing industry. However, between 1988 when
CDIC bought Ginn and 1994 when Ginn was sold to Paramount,
no Canadian buyer was able to acquire a controlling interest in
the company.
I know of three Canadian companies that tried to buy Ginn
Publishing. All of their attempts were thwarted. Gage
Distribution Company, McClelland & Stewart and Edmonton's
Reidmore Books all made efforts to buy Ginn. None of their
efforts were taken seriously. In one instance when a bidder
wished to discuss the sale he was directed to the board of
Paramount, not to CDIC. Who was conducting the sale? CDIC or
Paramount?
The Reform's position is clear. We do not oppose foreign
ownership. We do oppose the former government violating its
own policy. We oppose the process of a sale that treats Canadian
firms unfairly and precludes them from bidding on a company.
We oppose the government's willingness to weakly follow suit
and to keep Canadian companies from competing fairly in the
marketplace. Instead the government undertakes a weak
decision and watches specific expertise in the book publishing
industry become compromised and lost. Job redundancy in Ginn
means job loss for Canadians.
The Liberal red ink book becomes gasping rhetoric. The
government claims that it wishes to create jobs. We have heard it
all before: ``We have a plan: jobs, jobs, jobs''. But the plan in
this instance seems one that destroys job opportunities. We need
to keep the jobs we have in Canada.
2380
On another point, when the Liberal Party was in opposition it
spoke vociferously against the sale of Ginn. Now that it is the
government all that was said seems to have been forgotten. Let
me take a few minutes to remind the House and members of the
government when in opposition of the position they took on the
sale of Ginn. I have some historical statements from the
Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of
Industry and the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. All
these ministers when in opposition spoke at great length against
the sale of Ginn.
(1705)
In 1985 the member for Winnipeg South Centre pleaded with
the minister of regional industrial expansion, and I quote from
Hansard, ``to give a very clear signal to foreign investors that at
least in this one area we are not going to accept foreign
ownership; in this one area we are going to protect our Canadian
culture''. He went on to ask:
Will the government establish a very clear statement in the publishing industry
that the dominant element must be Canadian? Will he reject the application for
Ginn and Co.? If he believes in Canadian culture, why did he not make a decision
today and turn down the application?
That same member made another plea in 1985. He stated:
Surely if the legislation denotes a consideration for cultural industries, then
sufficient time should be allocated to ensure that all the questions pertaining to
the acquisition are properly examined, and, most important, that the minister
has sufficient time to make arrangements for alternative buyers in the Canadian
marketplace.
This sentiment could not mirror any better the intent of what
we would like to see accomplished. We are not calling for the
government to reject outright the sale of Ginn. We simply want
to ensure that from 1985 until today all reasonable means have
been followed to allow Canadian companies a fair opportunity
to bid on Ginn Publishing. This is about business.
The minister's comments clearly demonstrate his support
once upon a time for our position. We anticipate his support and
that of his colleagues on our motion.
Further, the member for Mount Royal expressed a concern
that bears investigation. She asked:
Is the government prepared to admit that it is betraying its own policy, that it
is backing off under pressure from the Americans in the interests of free trade?
The member thought the question deserved an answer in 1988.
Now that she is a minister surely she is able to provide for the
House the answer to the question she asked.
The member for Mount Royal stated that the government paid
too much for Ginn when she said that the equity was purchased
at an incredibly inflated price. If the sale bothered her in 1989,
does it not bother her today? When the member was in
opposition she appeared concerned about how taxpayer dollars
were spent. How can she now show such a lack of willingness to
investigate the misuse of taxpayer dollars? The government is
contemptuous in the extreme.
The next statements demonstrate perfectly why an
investigation is needed. They demonstrate that the government
does not know what has transpired regarding the sale of Ginn.
The government should have access to all pertinent information
needed to clarify the situation and to answer all the questions.
Yet it still does not have its story straight, or so we are led to
believe.
On February 22 of this year the Minister of Industry admitted
to the House that Ginn was up for sale but that no acceptable
offers were made. Just two days later the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance stated that CDIC was at no
time in a position to market its interest in Ginn.
The government first admitted that the company was up for
sale but two days later it admitted that it had never been up for
sale. This blatant contradiction staggers me. Which of these
stories is true? These glaring inconsistencies cause great
suspicion. The government claims there is a verbal commitment
requiring the sale of Ginn to Paramount, but the government will
not tell the public who made this alleged legal commitment and
it will not tell the public what that legal commitment was.
What is this government hiding? If all these commitments are
legitimately legal and binding as the government suggests, why
will it not demonstrate this to the House and to the people of
Canada?
Since it has come into office the government has broken at
least two legal commitments. It is facing legal action for
cancelling the Pearson International Airport contract. That has
been mentioned before in the House today. The government also
moved quickly to cancel the EH-101 deal. That decision cost
millions of dollars in compensation and many Canadian jobs.
This is precedent setting. Where is the consistency?
We need a public investigation of the government's
contradictions and inconsistency to determine what has really
happened with Ginngate.
(1710)
It is clear that many questions need to be answered by the
government. I sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking five
questions. It has not yet been acknowledged. I conclude from
this that either no one knows the answers to my questions or, if
known, there is no desire for full disclosure. Whatever the case,
the only way to get clear answers is for a public investigation.
Such an investigation would answer the preceding questions and
the five following ones that I put to the Prime Minister.
2381
First, how can the government explain the contradictions
evident in this sale with the red book policy on the protection of
Canadian arts and culture?
Second, how does the government explain away the offers to
purchase Ginn by several members of the Canadian business
community during the period from 1989 to 1994?
Third, what happens to our Canadian publishing industry after
February 15, 1999 when Paramount's investment agreements
cease?
Fourth, why was a specific job loss figure not included in the
press release of February 18, 1994? I understand that job losses
could reach as high as 60 per cent.
Fifth, how can the government ignore the provisions of the
Investment Canada Act and undertake a private agreement
which precludes the sale of a Canadian firm to a foreign
company except in extraordinary circumstances?
Again Reform supports the notion of an investigation to allow
for freer competition in the Canadian cultural marketplace. This
motion is not about protecting Canadian culture from within or
from being co-opted by foreign cultural influences from
without. It is about allowing the market to run its due course
without needless and harmful protection or undue government
regulation.
The Reform Party believes that a strong Canadian cultural
community has a positive influence on Canada's national
identity. We will not help to develop this community by
implementing protectionist measures. Canadian magazine and
book publishers should be allowed to flourish in an open
competitive marketplace.
Erecting barriers to protect this industry implies that
Canadians produce a mediocre or inferior product and cannot
compete. This is simply not the case. Canada has a magazine and
book publishing industry that is capable of competing with any
market. I propose that we let it do so.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words ``by renewing the Baie
Comeau policy adopted in 1985 and''
The Deputy Speaker: The table officer indicates the
amendment that has been moved is in order. It is an acceptable
amendment.
Before returning to debate, there is still the period of
questions and comments to the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member had five questions for the Prime Minister and now I
have three for her.
First, the hon. member refers to the fact that three Canadian
companies were willing to bid for Ginn. Does she have any idea
whether each of them is willing to pay $10.3 million or not?
Second, if they were not willing to pay that sum but something
closer to $3 million, where does she propose the $7 million
difference might come from? Does she propose adding it to our
national debt?
(1715 )
The third question is really a more philosophical one. I would
like a little understanding of whether we or the previous
government should have intervened or not intervened on the sale
of Ginn.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I do
appreciate the questions from the hon. member. I will take his
questions in order.
The hon. member asked about the three Canadian companies
that were prepared to purchase Ginn. In telephone conversations
that we have had with those companies there was a willingness
and a searching for an opportunity to become involved in the
tendering process. There is some question about the inflated
value at this point about Ginn and that answer will also suffice
with respect to question number two.
I have a sense that when we look at that inflated price it comes
back to the lack of revelation in terms of the actual purchase
price of CDIC of Ginn Publishing in the first place. There is
some real confusion with respect to how that was initiated and
took place.
Because there are still so many questions surrounding the
initial sale and the moneys that exchanged I have to say to the
hon. member that he too is speculating on those numbers with
respect to the many millions of dollars paid.
On the matter of philosophy, I do believe that
entrepreneurship is a spirit in this country that needs to be
generated and promoted. I am very much in favour of
competition in the free marketplace. I do believe that
governments should get out of business. That is my bottom line.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, allow me to congratulate the hon. member of the Reform
Party on her speech which, in my opinion, was very sound. I
want to thank her for recognizing the timeliness of the motion
put forward by the Bloc and by my colleague from Rimouski. I
would, however, like to make two brief comments.
First, I would just like to gently remind my hon. colleague
that the official opposition is very concerned about Canadian
culture. The proof of this is that we initiated and welcomed a
debate on this subject.
2382
As the official opposition, we are acting responsibly and with
conviction. And if we are here in this House reaffirming our
primary goal, which is to create a francophone country in the
Americas to complement the Canadian, American or Spanish
cultures and all countries of the Americas, it is only because we
wish to put a new country on the map.
[English]
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): I am not sure, Mr.
Speaker, if there was really a question to answer there. However,
I have to say to the hon. member that it is a very difficult issue
when we are looking at cultural identity. I feel great concern
when we have a challenge put forward to us almost daily on the
floor of this House from a party that is bent on separation. Those
opening remarks in my presentation were placed there because
of the very different ideologies through which we came to this
discussion.
I do acknowledge that the Bloc Quebecois has been adamant
and unceasing in its search for an answer to this question.
However, I acknowledge it on the basis of process. Like we are
trying to do, it is trying to uncover process. That has very little
to do, in my view, with the differing cultural ideologies that we
bring to the floor.
(1720 )
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a
brief comment on the hon. member's answer to the last question.
It was clear that there were no offers made to purchase Ginn
from these three Canadian companies. What she told us was that
they may have expressed an interest in that which is very well
and good but it is a long way from actually making an offer.
CDIC has told us clearly that there was no offers ever received
for the purchase of these companies from anybody. There were
opportunities on several occasions for offers to be made but
there was never an offer made.
The hon. member has said she might be interested, that might
be nice. It is nice after the fact when one never has to cough up
the $10.3 million, but there was never really an offer made and
the hon. member has just stated that.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I really
question the tone and tenor of the hon. member's question.
I question whether CDIC is telling the truth. There were three
companies that were contacted by telephone by my office and
they indicated that they had wanted to purchase Ginn Publishing
Incorporated.
An hon. member: Did they make an offer?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am trying
to answer this question to the best of my ability and I would like
to do that without interruption.
I do not recall saying that would be nice or this would be nice. I
stated in my text that all of their attempts had been thwarted.
The three companies again are Gage Distribution Company,
McClelland & Stewart and Edmonton's Reidmore Books Inc.
They all had made efforts to buy Ginn Incorporated. They are
Canadian companies and should have had an opportunity to
participate in the tendering process. They did not have that
opportunity.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker, I
find the question from the government side either naive or
misleading. Even the minister and CDIC have admitted that they
could not accept any offers because there were so many
technicalities that still had not been resolved.
For the government member to now stand up and say they
never received any concrete offers is ludicrous to me. That is my
statement.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to acknowledge the hon. member's comments and express my
appreciation for his support on this last question.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, this is quite complicated
now. We are going back, with your permission, to the time
allotted to the Official Opposition. The Official Opposition
allotted part of its 20 minute slot to the hon. member for
Regina-Qu'Appelle. Accordingly, I call on the member for
Regina-Qu'Appelle.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to sincerely thank the members of the Bloc for giving me
an opportunity of participating in the debate.
It is an issue that I have been following. I had the privilege of
raising it the first time in the House. I think it is an important
issue that affects the cultural well-being and cultural future of
this country and one that deserves a full debate.
I do not quite understand how government members are
putting down the Bloc for showing its interest and concern about
Canadian culture. I ask the government how can it argue that
federalism is the preferred system under which to protect and
enhance the unique cultural make-up of Canada and Quebec's
distinct culture and society in Canada as a unique whole when it
is willing to sell off the country's cultural markets to the
Americans?
I am more concerned about what these people are doing across
the way in terms of the viability and future of Canadian culture
than I am right now about the Bloc.
(1725 )
These are the folks who are selling them off to the United
States. They are the ones who should be hanging their heads in
shame. It is quite amazing that they are still in the House and
willing to protect and defend a decision that the former Tories
made.
2383
We have asked about this over and over again in this House,
particularly the Bloc members because they have had the
opportunity of revealing some of the specific details, including
who made this verbal agreement. The government keeps
stonewalling. We have been pressing and asking for a full public
inquiry. There are things that have occurred here that demand a
full and public inquiry. Let us bring it all out in the open. Let us
see what the former Tories entered into in this wicked, wicked
affair.
Surely anybody who is interested in Canadian culture can
smell a rat here. Why not bring it out in the open? Why not
expose the rat for what it is? My basic question to the Liberals is
who are they trying to protect in this? Why are they so adamant
about not bringing this out into the open?
To tell the truth, I was deeply shocked-and I do not say this
in a rhetorical manner but in full sincerity-when I heard what
the government had approved. I really expected something
much different. I had worked with the Liberals in opposition,
particularly on the communications and culture committees,
trying to defend Canadian culture against those Tory years of
rape and plunder and total unconcern for Canadian cultural
identity. We worked shoulder to shoulder when the sale of
Prentice-Hall and the whole episode with Ginn occurred. We
stood shoulder to shoulder in opposition to this.
Now I must say there is no difference. The same show goes on.
What is going on here? Initially I was concerned that the
bureaucrats had misinformed the ministers. I could understand
that with a new government coming in. Although, I expected a
little more of the Liberals, the natural ruling party, since they
after all had some experience in government and knew how to
take control over the public service to make sure that the
political agenda and not the bureaucratic agenda was the one in
control.
I had been assured by the parliamentary secretary and
everybody not to blame the bureaucrats, the ministers knew
what they were doing. Let the ministers, then, be responsible.
Again I ask why not bring it out in the open? Why not have a
parliamentary inquiry? Why not get to the bottom of it? There
are numerous questions that remain unanswered and that
deserve answers.
As well, this may be a case study of how a large American
multinational like Paramount is able to exercise its will over an
area that is so important to us as a nation, our cultural identity.
We fought the free trade agreement and we fought NAFTA and
we tried to ensure that there were provisions in there through
which we would protect our Canadian cultural identity, unlike
the Reform position of letting the market take care of
everything. When the market takes care of everything it takes
care of Canadian culture all right because we do not have a
chance at all of being heard. The mass marketing of music, film,
video and books and magazines will swamp Canadian culture
and Canadian musicians and writers and publishers' ability to
get in and be heard by other Canadians will totally diminish.
I hope this will be an education for the Reform Party in the
years it is in Parliament where this begins to sink in, where it
begins to realize that there are limits as well to where the market
can flourish. The national interest precedes the notion of the free
market when it comes to cultural institutions. Because once a
nation loses its sense of identity, when Canadians cannot hear
and see other Canadians, we have lost ourselves as a nation. That
is why book publishing policy, particularly textbooks, is so
essential, so important. That is why I plead with the government
to please allow this to go forward as a proper inquiry.
(1730)
Let us make certain if, and I underline the word if, the Ginn
decision is not reversible that this will never, ever happen again.
The only way of ensuring that is to put the body on the table and
dissect it. Let us see who and what created the situation we find
ourselves in where foreign owners of our book publishing
industry now are producing most of our textbooks that we use in
our schools in this country.
I understand that around a quarter per cent of all the textbooks
in Canadian schools are published by Canadian publishers.
There is so much to get into. I am just filled with notes here on
all the different questions to be asked. I could go on for several
hours on this. We have been talking about Ginn. There are all
sorts of questions about the other approval that the government
made when it also approved the acquisition by Paramount of
Maxwell Macmillan.
There are contradictions here. CDIC approved this. If CDIC
approved this, that means it has to be treated as a direct
acquisition and not as an indirect acquisition. If it is a direct
acquisition, then we should be able to ask CDIC ``Did you find
or did you attempt to find a Canadian purchaser?'' The law now
states that if there is a direct acquisition, and I believe the
parliamentary secretary read it: ``If a non-Canadian wishes to
sell an existing Canadian business independent of any other
transaction, the vendor will be expected to ensure that potential
Canadian investors have full and fair opportunity to purchase''.
The good question is: Did the government go out and look for
a potential Canadian to purchase Maxwell Macmillan before the
government approved Paramount's takeover of Maxwell
Macmillan?
That is one of the many questions that have to be asked and
answered. Only in a full, open and public inquiry will we be able
to ask these questions and try to get the answers that are needed.
2384
Other questions have to be asked. For example, all of
Paramount's operations in Canada, including its film
distribution, will have to-
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I am sorry to interrupt the
member but it is now 5.33 o'clock. It is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the business of supply proceedings now before the
House under the provisions of Standing Order 81(16).
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: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 13)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-44
NAYS
Members
Adams
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
2385
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-204
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Cauchon
Finestone
Gerrard
Nunez
Sheridan
de Savoye
(1805)
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
I know from time to time during votes that some of us have to
absent ourselves for personal reasons. I would ask that if it is at
all possible when hon. members come in to vote they stay in
their seats until the votes are completed. That way there is no
question whether someone is here or not.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 14)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bouchard
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-54
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
Mayfield
McClel
2386
land (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-191
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Cauchon
Finestone
Gerrard
Nunez
Sheridan
de Savoye
(1815 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
The House resumed from March 15 consideration of the
motion and of the amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred division on government business No. 9 regarding
the appointment of a special joint committee to consider
Canada's foreign policy.
The question is on the amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 15)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-96
NAYS
Members
Adams
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
2387
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-149
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Allmand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Cauchon
Finestone
Gerrard
Nunez
Sheridan
de Savoye
(1825 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that there
is unanimous consent to apply the result of the last vote to the
main motion, but in reverse.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Speaker: The next question is on the main motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed
to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
(1830)
_____________________________________________
2387
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies)
moved
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the necessary
measures to ensure that the St. Lawrence Seaway remains navigable on a
year-round basis, namely through a more effective allocation of the ice
breakers in operation in eastern Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence River and the Seaway
are a major asset for Canada and Quebec. Historically, this huge
river and its network of tributaries has been a major route of
penetration into North America.
Not surprisingly, the first towns were founded on its shores
and their prosperity came from their shipping activities. This is
the case for Montreal which developed mainly because of its
port facilities.
2388
Today, the St. Lawrence Seaway, with an operating budget of
$78 million and almost 900 employees, has an annual volume of
more than 30 million tonnes. More than 5,000 ships go through
the system every year. It provides a major transport
infrastructure, not only for Canada and Quebec, but also for the
whole of North America.
Today as in the past, the river remains the main corridor for
the transportation of goods into the interior of the continent.
The motion I introduced today asks the government to provide
for measures that will ensure the St. Lawrence Seaway remains
navigable on a year-round basis, namely through a more
effective allocation of the ice breakers in operation in eastern
Canada.
The Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for navigation on
the St. Lawrence. It has enough ships, ice breakers, helicopters
and communications equipment to carry out that mission.
However, last winter, ice jams paralysed traffic on the river.
During 29 days in February and early March, some 40 ships were
held up for various periods of time. A dozen ships had to be sent
to St. John harbour, in New Brunswick because they could not
moor in Montreal. The Coast Guard had simply not installed the
booms that control freeze-up and ice flow, thus preventing ice
jams.
Needless to say that the losses resulting from this incident
were catastrophic and enormous. Of the 560 longshoremen who
normally work in Montreal harbour during the winter, barely
200 were called in sporadically during that period and those who
did not work were not paid because this was an act of God.
The port of Montreal alone incurred losses estimated to $1.5
million during those few weeks.
Substantial losses were also incurred by road and rail carriers
awaiting delivery of merchandise on board the immobilized
cargo ships and consignees suffered inventory and production
problems.
As for ship owners, water carriers and insurers, according to
Frank Nicol, the president of the Shipping Federation of
Canada, their losses totalled tens of millions of dollars. And that
does not include the losses due to flooding incurred by
individuals, particularly along the shore, where the ice jams
occurred.
Aside from these immediate, short-term losses, the port of
Montreal now finds itself under the obligation to defend its
reputation as a port open on a year-round basis in front of
potential users who may well decide to land their cargo
elsewhere, and this at a time when transportation infrastructures
and communications are playing a major strategic role in the
positioning of regions. It was a terrible blow for the entire east
side of Montreal, which has already been hard hit by
unemployment and job losses.
I will remind this House that, based on a document prepared
by the greater Montreal mayors' convention, forty or so
shipping lines connect the port of Montreal to over 200 ports
around the world. It creates tens of thousands of direct jobs, and
more than 20 million tonnes of goods, or 40 per cent of the total
volume for Montreal, transit through the port''.
(1835)
The Coast Guard blamed the ice jam phenomenon on climatic
conditions, and Mr. Frank Nichol added: ``We were hit hard by
the weather and we were not ready''.
Yet, it is not the first time that the Coast Guard is blamed. In
1980, the commission investigating the circumstances
surrounding the collision of the Athanasia Comninos with the
railway and roadway bridge in Quebec City said this: ``If federal
authorities want the St. Lawrence River to remain navigable in
winter, it is unacceptable on their part to tolerate at any time that
ship captains be faced with ice jams such as the one which the
pilot of the Comninos had to dealt with. The solution calls for
the river to remain free of ice and, seemingly, this implies a
greater use of the ice breakers in operation''. Again, this report
goes back to 1980.
In 1982, another commission, this time on the Hudson
Transport tragedy in the St. Lawrence River, headed by Judge
James K. Hugessen, was even more critical of the Coast Guard.
It said: ``Obviously, the Coast Guard attaches a low priority to
its search and rescue responsibilities. The Coast Guard is
certainly renowned, but not because of its role in this particular
case'.' Following part of the testimony given by the then
regional director of the Coast Guard, Judge Hugessen added
this: ``His admiration fills us with deep contempt. It is
symptomatic of the need for a fundamental review of priorities
and attitudes in the management of the Coast Guard''.
The report concluded with those comments: ``Winter
navigation in the river and the gulf has now reached a level such
that it can no longer be considered an exceptional occurrence.
Hundreds of men and thousands of tons of goods use this
waterway, which is dangerous in the best of circumstances, and
particularly so in winter. We assume that Canada reaps an
important economic advantage of winter navigation in the St.
Lawrence. Otherwise, this waterway should be closed in the
wintertime. If the seaway is to remain open, Canada must
arrange for adequate search and rescue services''. And this
involves icebreakers.
The effectiveness of the Coast Guard in Quebec and in eastern
Canada, notably as regards the allocation of vessels and land
personnel, leaves something to be desired. Of the 19 icebreakers
operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, 11, or roughly 60 per
cent of the fleet, are based in the Maritimes. This figure includes
the only three heavy icebreakers operated by the Coast Guard.
2389
Yet, ice jams virtually never occur in this region and we fail to
understand why the majority of our icebreakers-including all
of our heavy icebreakers-are based hundreds of kilometres
away from the locations where the ice jams occur, either because
the seaway is too narrow or the water flows more slowly, as is
the case in the Montreal area. Only two medium icebreakers and
three light icebreakers are based on the St. Lawrence. They
account for only 25 per cent of the Canadian Coast Guard's fleet
of icebreaking vessels.
When an icebreaker moored in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, is
deployed to break up an ice jam on Lac St. Pierre, it should come
as no surprise if the damage intensifies before the vessel
manages to arrive on the scene.
(1840)
Mr. Speaker, the port of Montreal should have been better
protected last winter. We really did not need to have these
problems.
This glitch, which could have been avoided, only adds to the
problems already encountered by the port of Montreal and the
St. Lawrence Seaway.
Since 1977, the overall tonnage of goods shipped has steadily
decreased. In fact, tonnage declined from 57.5 million tonnes to
31.4 million tonnes in 1992, an especially catastrophic year,
primarily because of a marked decline in wheat shipments.
We know that, in the last two years, Ottawa has spent
hundreds of millions of dollars on direct and indirect subsidies
to Western rail carriers for the transportation of grain to West
Coast ports under the Crow's Nest Pass agreements and that a
direct effect of this has been a considerable reduction of
activities in the port of Montreal.
We also know that the maritime industry as a whole is in
decline and that, at a time when the MIL Davie shipyard in
Lauzon is in its death throes, Canada is still wondering whether
it will ask this shipyard to build the Magdalen Islands ferry or
buy a ship from a foreign supplier.
The Japanese would never do such a thing. They would build
the ship themselves and provide work for their own citizens
rather than putting them on unemployment. In this day and age,
Canada would be well advised to follow the Japanese example.
In 1945, Japan was a third world country. It is much smaller
than Canada, with five times the population, few natural
resources and no energy sources; it is very far from its markets
and yet, in a 40-year span, it became one of the world's major
economic powers.
In contrast, Canada, with its huge territory, abundant natural
resources, nearly inexhaustible energy sources and the world's
biggest market on its doorstep, managed to accumulate a $500
billion debt and to kill the job market.
The only certainty in the government's recent budget is that the
debt will reach $600 billion in three years and that the
unemployment rate will remain high. Under these
circumstances, it is important to go ahead and make the changes
that can be made right away.
Under these circumstances, it is imperative to maintain
maritime activity in the St. Lawrence on a year-round basis and
to have the Coast Guard simply do its job. That is why we are
recommending to the government to ensure a more effective
allocation of the ice breakers in operation in the St. Lawrence,
specially in February and March, to avoid these preventable
events in the future.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies for raising this motion.
Let me begin by informing the House, as the previous member
has, that the St. Lawrence seaway is truly a national treasure. He
pointed out that it is one of the transportation corridors and an
important link in the economic well-being of all of Canada.
The hon. member indicated, and should understand, that the
2,000 miles of the waterway extend from the Atlantic Ocean all
the way to Thunder Bay, which is located at the head of the Great
Lakes. Aside from the lakes and rivers of the system, ships
traverse 6 canals and 15 locks, of which 13 locks are Canadian
and 2 locks are American, before they reach the end of the
seaway.
[Translation]
Since the St. Lawrence seaway opened in 1959, Canada has
not stood still in advancing navigation in the seaway.
[English]
Indeed, we have been able to take advantage of much new
technology that has been developed to combat ice formation in
locks and canals. This technology has allowed the St. Lawrence
Seaway Authority to add a number of days to the shipping
season. The navigation season on the waterway from Thunder
Bay to Montreal now extends from late March to late December.
(1845)
Current technology, however, does not permit us to keep
every lock and the canal system open to navigation throughout
the entire year. In order to sail the seaway in winter we would
need to keep the locks and canals ice free, have buoys in place
year round, as well as have many additional icebreakers to
escort vessels and keep the broken ice moving throughout the
system.
It is quite simply impossible for an icebreaker, and the
member should understand that his motion is faulty in this
respect, or any other vessel to enter a lock filled with ice without
causing extensive damage to the lock infrastructure.
Therefore escorting vessels above the first lock at St. Lambert
would be next to impossible, even with extensive retrofitting of
the lock and canal structures.
2390
As my hon. friend may be aware, the federal government has a
primary mandate to provide flood control services on the upper
St. Lawrence River. The Canadian Coast Guard is responsible
for providing these services and has done so since 1904.
Icebreakers operate in the river throughout the winter to keep
a channel open as far as Montreal for the unobstructed
movement of broken ice downstream. This activity prevents ice
jams from forming and also permits the passage of ships except
for the periods, and I am sure that the member would recognize
this, when there have been abnormally severe weather and ice
conditions.
The river has been kept open year-round since the late 1950s.
Flood control is not a by-product of keeping the port of
Montreal open, as some would have us believe. The opposite is
the case.
I think it is very important that people understand that
icebreakers are in the St. Lawrence to prevent potentially
devastating floods.
By ensuring that the St. Lawrence River remains navigable
year-round as far as the port of Montreal, the Canadian Coast
Guard does support the maritime commerce and consequent
industry and port employment along the St. Lawrence and the
Saguenay River.
There is also a need, then, to keep the maritime traffic moving
through the Gulf of St. Lawrence to allow vessels access to the
St. Lawrence River.
In the motion presented before this House my hon. friend
refers to the effective allocation of the icebreakers in operation
in eastern Canada.
I am happy to report to the House that a fleet resources review
study was undertaken by the Canadian Coast Guard in 1990 to
respond effectively to broad responsibilities in high priority
areas of safety and environmental protection while improving
efficiency and reducing costs.
Following this study, a fleet restructuring plan was enacted.
The plan was phased over a three year period and involved
increasing multi-tasking and double crewing which is known in
the trade as lay-day system.
To improve our resource utilization the coast guard removed
10 ships from active service and reallocated fleet units between
the regions. The reallocations were based on achieving the best
match of operational requirements and equipment capability in
each region to ensure multi-tasking capability nationwide.
The Canadian Coast Guard has retained the ability to redeploy
icebreaking resources where and when needed as the situations
dictate while it has trimmed excess capacity.
For example, last year from February 3 to March 5 two
powerful icebreakers were redeployed in the maritime region to
assist three icebreakers and one air cushion vehicle from the
Laurentian region to break up the ice jams in the Lac St. Pierre
region which were causing extensive flooding along the river
between Montreal and Trois Rivieres.
The east coast icebreaking fleet consists of one heavy
icebreaker, one heavy icebreaking supply tug, four medium
icebreakers, 13 light icebreakers and one icebreaker hovercraft.
Of these, eight are based in the maritime region of the coast
guard, six are based in the Laurentian region, four are located in
the Newfoundland region, and two are located in the Great
Lakes region.
All of these icebreakers are in full operation at this time in
eastern Canada, preventing flooding and escorting ships on the
St. Lawrence River.
(1850 )
Historically problematic ice conditions begin in the upper St.
Lawrence River and progress through the season eastward to the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, as the hon. member would know. Heavy
ice conditions can simultaneously occur in different areas such
as the east coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence depending on the influence of weather systems.
As a result of the ice jams experienced during the winter of
1993, the Canadian Coast Guard developed an action plan to
implement short and long term solutions to try to prevent a
similar occurrence, Mother Nature's abilities to surprise
notwithstanding.
Several studies of the St. Lawrence River and Lac St. Pierre
were done to evaluate methods of increasing water currents and
ice evaluation in problem areas, constructing and placing more
efficient steel booms and repairing man-made islands to help
maintain a solid ice coverage outside the main shipping channel
and analyzing the links between snow and ice coverage, river
currents, water levels, wind and tide in the developments of ice
jams.
[Translation]
The Canadian Coast Guard is absolutely committed to the
provision of icebreaking services on the St. Lawrence River up
to Montreal in support of year-round accessibility for shipping
and in order to provide the necessary flood control measures for
the safety of the local population along the St. Lawrence River.
[English]
There are no plans at this time to change the number or
capacity of Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers in eastern
Canada. As my hon. friend can see, we are actively addressing
the most important aspects of service delivery to Canadians.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that some of the things I have to say were already
mentioned by the hon. member. He gave a very good speech
indeed.
2391
I rise to speak to the motion that the government take
measures to ensure that St. Lawrence Seaway remains navigable
on a year-round basis by reallocating icebreakers in operation in
eastern Canada.
Before we get too excited about such an idea, it is necessary to
determine the future of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway
system. We also have to look at the cost impact of such a move
and whether once again we redirect much needed resources from
the maritimes to Quebec and Ontario.
An essential part of the Great Lakes seaway system is the St.
Lawrence Seaway proper. This was a joint venture of Canada
and the United States which was opened in 1959. It extends from
Montreal to Lake Erie and is composed of a system of 15 locks
and canals divided into two sections, the Montreal-Lake
Ontario section consisting of five Canadian and two U.S. locks,
and the Welland Canal with eight Canadian locks.
Since the early eighties there has been growing concern and
considerable debate over the future of the seaway. This has
occurred for several reasons. One of the reasons is a significant
decline in grain and iron ore traffic because of persistently weak
and changing market conditions for grain and steel exports.
Another reason is the fragile financial state of the lake carrier
industry, and finally the continuing requirement on the part of
the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the pilotage authorities and
ports to be financially self-sufficient.
Many a study has been undertaken on the future of the seaway
and the redirecting of our east coast icebreaker fleet has little to
do with the issue of demand for the ports along the waterway.
The motion before us suggests that the way to stimulate more
traffic in the seaway would be through a significant extension of
the system's shipping season beyond the current eight and a half
to nine month operating period.
Many reports have pointed out that it is technically possible to
do this even in heavy ice and poor weather conditions. However,
it is acknowledged that there would be an increased cost to keep
the system open. This is a cost which will be borne by the
Canadian taxpayer once again.
Do we need an already overburdened taxpayer paying more
for a cause that is somewhat dubious at best? Should we not
clarify the future of the waterway before making costly
adjustments to the way it is being managed?
The federal government, the provincial governments and the
municipal governments have entered into an infrastructure
program which will cost us $6 billion.
(1855 )
They are committed to a child care program that will cost us
$1.5 billion. They are overspending their annual budget by $40
billion. I ask again whether one needs to give this government a
licence to spend more money.
Since the seaway opened there has been an extension to the
shipping season of four weeks on the Montreal-Lake Ontario
section and two weeks on the Welland. In addition, cost benefit
studies have been done which indicate that an extension of the
season cannot be justified on economic grounds alone.
It simply makes no economic sense for the seaway system to
remain in operation during the period of cold weather and heavy
ice. There is not sufficient icebreaking capacity to do the job and
because of the narrow channels it is very difficult to keep them
open as the ice closes in behind the icebreaker very quickly.
Furthermore, there are large questions regarding the required
flow of water for hydroelectric plants during the winter season
in periods of heavy ice. Broken ice is also a serious problem as it
can damage hydroelectric generators. Ice booms are placed
across the seaway under the control of the power authority to
ensure that ice does not damage its generators.
Therefore the seaway is not opened until March 28 for that
reason. What the authority is concentrating on doing is
providing at least eight and a half months of safe, trouble free
and efficient navigation while giving at the same time
consideration to gradual incremental extensions of any season
based upon the weather, facilities, costs and the amount of
business.
This common sense approach to business is more practical
and economical than launching a major effort to provide a
longer winter navigational season. There would be considerable
extra cost and it is by no means clear that a sufficient amount of
extra traffic would be generated to justify the greater cost and
effort.
Let us look for a moment at the two main responsibilities that
the Canadian Coast Guard has. The first responsibility is to
provide route assistance by escorting vessels through the ice on
the St. Lawrence. The second responsibility is flood control on
the upper St. Lawrence.
Flood control is necessary because when the ice gets thick it
acts as a dam. It backs up the water and floods over the banks.
Therefore it is necessary for the icebreakers to get through, open
it up and release the pressure on the head of the ice.
Escorting costs $7.9 million each year. Out of a total of about
3,000 hours dedicated to escorts, 566 hours were attributed to
vessels running into Montreal. The flood control costs are about
$10 million a year.
There are various types of Canadian Coast Guard ships. Six
types are classified as icebreakers providing year-round
operations or heavy ice control. The others are used for small
and medium vessel escort in light ice or shallow water
conditions or
2392
they are used for life boat class for all-weather operations in
semi-sheltered waters.
Let us look at the actual number of ships and their locations.
The hon. member from the opposite side mentioned similar
numbers and I got mine from the coast guard this afternoon. The
difference between the numbers from one speaker to the next is
actually as fast as those ships are redeployed in different areas.
In the maritimes there are 26 vessels but many of those
vessels are for shallow water or cannot really break ice. They are
used for other operations. Six of those vessels are classified as
icebreaking ships.
The maritime region is classified by the coast guard as the
area around Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and some of New Brunswick.
The Newfoundland region has 13 vessels, four of which are of
icebreaking capability.
The west coast has 27 ships with only two icebreakers. In that
climate icebreakers are not that necessary. The Laurentian
region has 23 vessels and five icebreakers and the central region
has 24 vessels and two icebreakers. That is a total of 83 vessels
broken down into those various classes.
(1900 )
I want to emphasize some critical points in this discussion.
The icebreaking fleet on our eastern seaboard totals 17. Of that
total, seven are in central Canada and the others are in
Newfoundland and the Halifax area. The ice is so dynamic
where it shows up, and because of weather patterns and so on,
the fleet is based in four places for ease of getting to the
problem. The economy of these four bases is affected by
redeployment.
Why do we have a motion before us that will have a negative
effect on the maritimes to the benefit of the area located around
the St. Lawrence, which is Quebec and parts of Ontario? The
economy is not good in the maritimes and I do not think we
should be trying to present a proposal that would harm the
maritime economy.
The coast guard must have the say on temporary
redeployment as the need arises, not the government. We should
stay out of that business. It knows best where to redeploy its
fleet. Perhaps if we concentrated on paying our bills, reducing
our debt and eliminating our deficit we could expand the coast
guard to look after such a problem and allow our young people
the opportunities to restore the maritimes to its proud heritage as
guardian of our seas.
I think the coast guard knows best. That is about all I have to
say, except that I would not be in favour of this motion.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to discuss this very important motion
brought forward by my friend from
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies that the government should take
the necessary measures to ensure the St. Lawrence seaway
remain navigable on a yearly basis and doing this through a
more effective allocation of the icebreakers and their operation
in eastern Canada.
I was interested in the comments just made by my friend from
the Reform Party. He is interested in the costs of keeping the St.
Lawrence open on a year round basis, the effect it would have on
the coast guard and the impetus the coast guard could bring to
this very important issue of icebreaking, not only along the St.
Lawrence River but on the Great Lakes and their additional
duties in the Arctic. If one considers the Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence system, Canada is really a country that is water bound
on three sides and on the southern perimeter by half the length of
Canada. Therefore, we are from sea to sea to sea to sea and
therefore a maritime nation.
I was particularly interested in the remarks of my friend from
Quebec who mentioned the unfair subsidies that create an
artificial freight rate with respect to grain and oil seeds. This is
generated because of sections in the Western Grain
Transportation Act which create an artificiality in the movement
of grains whether they are to the ports of Prince Rupert, the port
of Vancouver or the port of Thunder Bay and eventually from the
port of Thunder Bay to the downriver ports in which he has an
extreme interest.
Our side has yet to make a decision about what we are going to
do in the future, whether we continue to pay the shippers, in this
case the Canadian Pacific Railways and the Canadian National
Railway, or whether we pay the producer so that we can
maximize the return to the farming community. More important,
by withdrawing support of the subsidy paid directly to the
railways in this country we can then create a level playing field
for all transportation loads. We let the farmer, as we let the
manufacturer of automobiles, furniture or any other
commodities, make the ultimate decision on how to ship their
product to market. If we take away that artificial subsidy that is
creating distortion in our freight system now in Canada, we then
allow the farmer to maximize his or her return and choose the
most effective way to ship his or her product to market.
(1905)
As my friend knows, at certain points in Canada we will find
that it is more effective-and I think that point goes beyond the
western boundary of Manitoba, to go beyond that point-to ship
and use the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway in order to
transport those products of grain, oil seeds, potash and coal than
by using other ports.
2393
I respect that comment. It is one of the issues that we will be
addressing in the very near future.
The issue that we are really talking about when we discuss the
opening of the St. Lawrence seaway for a full 12 months is
whether the St. Lawrence seaway-Great Lakes system is still a
viable transportation route in Canada. It is an infrastructure that
we have built and paid for, to answer my friend's question. It is a
transportation route that was approved in 1954 and 1956 and
completed in 1959. It was paid for through the Government of
Canada. There was some support from the United States for the
two locks that it owns and still operates.
In the last seven years there has been a complete refurbishing
of the Great Lakes locks especially around the Welland canal in
the amount $175,000. It has just been completed. The system in
itself today is very viable and in good shape.
Your colleague in the front row who is going to speak after me
is part of the subcommittee that we on this side of the House
have formed to analyse whether the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
is a viable transportation route in this country. If it is not viable
we want to know what we have to do as a government to make it
a viable transportation route and what changes are needed that
are presently obstructing the use of the St. Lawrence-Great
Lakes system and the down river ports that create so much
employment in Montreal, Quebec City, Baie Comeau, Sept-Iles
and all of the other areas in the province of Quebec. There is an
ability there to recreate those jobs that were lost because of the
flow of grain going to other centres.
I look forward to your support on the subcommittee that has
been formed on the viability of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
seaway. Your colleague and our colleague from the Reform
Party form part of committee that will be bringing all of these
considerations together. We will be studying them. We will be
visiting your area hopefully in the near future. We would very
much like to discuss in depth all of the pros and cons to the
motion you bring before this House today which is: Is it possible
to maintain the St. Lawrence River on a 12-month basis.
We will be very interested to hear the proposals that will be
forthcoming. I would like to continue this discussion at another
time after we have had the opportunity to review all of the
information and facts that are so necessary in order to make
those vital decisions to ensure the stability of our maritime
transportation system in Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
allowing me to make those comments.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe the member used the
expression ``you'' a number of times. He was no doubt referring
to the Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague, the hon. member for Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies,
submitted to the House a motion asking this Chamber to demand
that the government take the necessary measures to ensure that
the St. Lawrence Seaway remains navigable on a year-round
basis, through a more effective allocation of the ice breakers in
operation in Eastern Canada.
(1910)
As the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, I
wish to inform the House that I support this motion and that my
Party as well as my constituents of
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans also support it. I will not
repeat my colleague's arguments, I will only say that I endorse
them, because they are sound, they are based on a reality we
have faced year after year and that we have been denouncing
since March 1993.
My riding borders on the majestic St. Lawrence river. Our
ancestors were navigators and boat builders. Many people still
are. That means that anything relating to the Seaway is of great
interest to my constituents and they are concerned when
problems arise.
My Party made me the official opposition critic for Transport.
The St. Lawrence Seaway and the ice breakers allocated to this
waterway are essential to the Canadian transportation industry.
On March 10 of this year, the Minister of Transport took the
floor to support the budget presented by his colleague, the
Minister of Finance, on February 22, and he said: ``it is the
government's intention to spend $619 million on the Canadian
Coast Guard''. It is precisely to the Coast Guard that I wish to
draw the attention of the House, and not so much to the amount
which will be spent on it, but on the way it will be spent.
The commissioner responsible for the Coast Guard mentioned
several times that there were only two ways to go if we wanted to
make the Coast Guard profitable: it must either become a
government agency and receive grants or impose a user fee. The
first option could be discussed if the government decides to
present it to the House. It is not the status of the Coast Guard
which is important, but its mandate and its budget. My party and
myself do not wish to modify the Coast Guard's present status
and we would very much like to be consulted if ever the
government intends to change it.
As for the second solution, that is a user fee, it would be a
national suicide. Canada is a northern country where winter is
often rough and long. An important part of the country has no
access to the Atlantic or the Pacific. Commercial and economic
centres are inland and waterways leading to them are ice-bound
in winter. The main role of the Coast Guard is to guard
waterways that are open to traffic year-round so that ships can
pass freely and respect delivery deadlines and shipowners can
be competitive.
Year after year we have seen major problems and the number
of ships assigned to those routes is quickly dropping. At the
beginning of the eighties, 125 ships were assigned to transporta-
2394
tion on the St. Lawrence; now, there are only 79 left. Just think
for a minute about what the effect of a user fee would be. It
would kill all activity in the ports of Quebec City,
Trois-Rivières and Montreal and in those of the Great Lakes,
including Thunder Bay.
It was mentioned that this fee could be based on the distance
covered in Canadian waters. What do you think the shipowners
would do? They would go to Halifax, Boston, New York maybe
but certainly not to Quebec City, Montreal and Thunder Bay.
The problem is a serious one. We must revive the St. Lawrence
and assign to it all the ice-breakers that are required to keep it
open. If we are to achieve that, the present government must
take three main steps. First, it must distribute the ice-breakers
equitably and reassure all employees of the Coast Guard about
their future. Second, adopt a maritime policy for Canada; and
third, examine the possibility of allowing shipowners to get a
second registration.
The allocation will be fair ifas it allows free movement from
the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to the Great Lakes. If ice-breakers
have to be built, we are able to do it: we have shipyards, human
resources and iron. When I have the time to do so, I will explain
to my colleagues in this House the present allocation and
composition of the Canadian Coast Guard fleet as well as its
needs.
Montreal harbour should never again be closed, as happened
between February 4 and March 2, 1993, which entailed
astronomical losses. The Canadian Coast Guard is reputed to be
the best in the world, so whose fault was it?
Canada does not have a real maritime policy like the United
States which require that 60 per cent of the ships served by
American ports be U.S. registered.
What are the conditions required to sail our waterways? What
are the environmental protection requirements? All those
answers should be put together in framework legislation; that is
what is lacking in Canada.
Several countries, like England and Norway, allow
shipowners to get a second registration for their ships. Why
would Canada not do the same thing in allowing Canadian
shipowners to serve ports other than ours, without having to pay
tax? Among the benefits of such a policy, more than 300
unemployed deck officers, representing more than 50 per cent of
our trained and qualified officers, could be put back to work.
These workers would be able to feed their families and would
spend their money in Canada.
In conclusion, it is not the time to think about changing the
status of the Coast Guard and the ice-breakers. It is not the time
to impose user fees, but rather to provide the ships needed by the
Coast Guard to maintain movement all year long in the
navigable waters of the St. Lawrence River.
Until Quebec becomes sovereign and takes back what it gave
under contract to the federal government at the time of
Confederation in 1867, we demand that the present government
adopt a consistent transportation policy that will allow
Quebecers to see ships from all over the world move freely on
the St. Lawrence River 365 days a year and that will ensure the
economic development of our cities, which badly need it in
these times of recession.
The Deputy Chairman: Since no other member wishes to
speak, the hour provided for the consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing
Order 86(1), the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 7.20 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.19 p.m.)