TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, May 27, 1994
Bill C-26. Motion for second reading 4507
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4508
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4510
Motion for reference to committee of the whole 4511
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into
committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.) 4511
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4512
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4513
(Clause 3 agreed to.) 4514
(Bill reported, concurred in, and, by unanimous consent, read the third time and passed.) 4514
Bill C-30. Motion for second reading 4514
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4519
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4519
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4521
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4522
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4522
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4522
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4523
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4523
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4523
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4526
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4526
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 4527
Bill C-32. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 4527
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4527
Bill C-252. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 4527
Bill C-253. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed
adopted 4527
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4527
Twenty-third Report. Motion for concurrence. 4527
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4528
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4528
Bill C-30. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 4529
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 4539
Bill C-203. Motion for second reading 4539
4507
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 27, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved that Bill C-26, an Act to amend the National Library Act,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to introduce a proposal for several amendments to the
National Library Act. These amendments will enhance the
effectiveness of legal deposit provisions for the collection and
preservation of publications that are part of our Canadian
heritage.
I would like to start with a brief presentation on the problems
arising from the existing legislation and the purpose of the
proposed amendments.
(1005)
Basically, the legal deposit provisions oblige publishers to
deposit copies of all new publications with the National Library
of Canada. The purpose of these provisions is to constitute a
complete collection of Canadian publications.
Under the legal deposit provisions of the National Library
Act, publishers residing in Canada are required to send the
National Library, free of charge, two copies of every new
publication. As a safety precaution, the National Library places
one of the copies in a preservation collection, to be kept there for
future generations. The library places the second copy in a
reference collection for consultation by universities,
researchers, public servants and the general public. Users may
consult the collection at the National Library or through the
Canadian interlibrary loan network.
However, the act contains a provision whereby publishers
need deposit only one copy if the retail value of the publication
exceeds $50. This provision, which has not been changed since
1969, and this has created a problem.
In 1969, very few new publications sold for more than $50.
This means that the National Library received two copies of
practically all new publications. However, in recent years, the
publishing market has changed considerably, and today, many
publications cost more than $50. As a result, the number of cases
in which the library receives only one copy is increasing
steadily.
However, in order to continue to preserve our publications
and offer services, and thus fulfil its twofold mandate, the
National Library still needs two copies of each publication, so
that it is obliged to purchase the second copy it does not receive
under existing deposit provisions.
[English]
The amendments being proposed would eliminate completely
from the act the exemption for second copies based on retail
value. In its place is introduced in the book deposit regulations,
which are made pursuant to the act, new and more limited
exemption criteria that would still permit the deposit of just one
copy, but only in instances where the deposit of the second copy
would in fact represent a significant financial burden to the
publisher.
The book deposit regulations are being revised and will be
ready for implementation when the bill is proclaimed. The
regulations would permit publishers of limited edition
publications, such as livres d'artistes, to deposit only one copy
with the National Library.
In an effort to encourage compliance with legal deposit
provisions we are proposing the removal of the specific fine of
$150 for non-compliance as is stipulated in the current act and
replacing it with a provision stating that non-compliance is an
offence punishable on summary conviction, rather than
continuing to build into the act a precise sum that needs to be
updated periodically. The maximum fine of $150 in the current
act has not been an effective deterrent for non-complying
publishers because often the value of new publications is
significantly greater than the maximum fine of $150.
I feel that the proposed penalty provisions would allow the
courts to determine the appropriate penalty, as well as to impose
a more substantial fine if it were warranted. The act would
however explicitly exclude the possibility of imprisonment
being imposed as a punishment or for default of payment of a
fine.
4508
I would like to point out that non-compliance with legal
deposit is already a criminal offence punishable on summary
conviction. The specific reference to a maximum penalty is
being deleted in order to permit the imposition of a fine up to a
maximum imposed under the Criminal Code.
(1010 )
In order to ensure the deposit of federal government
publications with the National Library of Canada, we are
proposing an amendment to the act that would specify an
obligation on the part of the government to deposit with the
National Library all federal government publications. Although
the deposit of government publications is currently provided for
through administrative policy, there is no clear legislative
authority for the policy.
There have been consultations with English and French
language publishers representing key sectors of the publishing
industry such as major trade publishers, text book publishers,
magazine publishers, small presses, specialist publishers,
microfilm publishers, and publishers of livres d'artistes. They
have indicated the proposed amendments together with the
regulations will not impose any significant financial burden on
publishers.
During consultations, particular attention was paid to Quebec
publishers because Quebec has its own system of legal deposit.
This means that Quebec publishers must deposit copies with the
National Library of Canada as well as la Bibliothéque nationale
du Québec. Quebec publishers who were consulted understood
and supported the proposed amendments.
[Translation]
Furthermore, the Quebec Department of Culture and the
Bibliothèque nationale du Québec were consulted and had no
objections to the proposed amendments.
[English]
The proposed amendments will make the legal deposit
provisions in the act much more effective as an instrument to
support the mandate of the National Library. They will ensure
the comprehensive collection of our published heritage to
support the research and information needs of Canadians today,
as well as the future. It is a collection which is an invaluable
source of information on Canada's culture and our national
identity.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-26 entitled an Act to amend the National Library Act
proposes to update the provisions in the legislation governing
the legal deposit of books with the National Library of Canada.
Consultations with several groups affected by the legislation
have led us to conclude that overall, publishers are almost
unanimous in recognizing the validity of the legal deposit
process.
Furthermore, almost all praised the positive relationship that
generally exists between publishers and the National Library of
Canada. Finally, all of them acknowledged that a country must
take the necessary measures to safeguard its collective memory.
Legal deposit is an important tool, one that ensures the
preservation of Canada's heritage and ensures that taxpayers
have access to it. Under the current act, a Canadian publisher
must send a copy of any book published to the National Library,
when the retail value of the book exceeds $50. The National
Library of Canada may acquire, at its own discretion, a second
copy using money from its purchase fund.
According to our sources, the National Library would have to
spend roughly $700,000 each year to acquire second copies of
books. Like most government agencies and Crown corporations,
the National Library of Canada must operate on a tight budget
and it no longer has the financial means to purchase second
copies.
As for the crux of the matter, this bill would require
publishers to deposit with the National Library two copies of
any book published in Canada, regardless of the retail value of
the book. Obviously, in this context, ``book'' is taken in the
broad sense of the word. In the current act, a book is defined as
follows: ``library matter of every kind, nature and description
and includes any document, paper, record, tape or other thing
published by a publisher, on or in which information is written,
recorded, stored or reproduced''.
The second amendment concerns the fines that apply when the
legislation is contravened. The bill proposes to increase the
maximum fine payable from $150 to $25,000, in the case of a
corporation, and to $2,000, in the case of an individual.
(1015)
The office of the critic for National Heritage consulted a
number of publishers and I would like to share with you today
some of the comments that were made as part of this
consultation process.
The government could take the suggestions they made and
concerns they expressed at that time into consideration in
making the related regulations. Incidentally, I deplore that these
regulations could not be tabled at the same time as the bill. They
are crucial, in the case of art books among others, but I will
come back to that later.
The publishers whom the office of the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata spoke to pointed out of course, as I
indicated earlier, the need to be involved in the creation of a
collective memory. They also described the statutory
requirement under Bill C-26 to deposit two copies of a book
instead of one, no matter what the retail price is, as an
additional financial
4509
burden on the publishing industry. I repeat: ``an additional
financial burden on the industry''.
Furthermore, this requirement will be particularly demanding
on Quebec publishers who already send two copies of their
books to the Bibliothèque nationale du Québec and will now
have to send two copies of all their publications, whatever their
retail value, to the National Library of Canada. The hon.
secretary of state referred earlier to consultations between the
two libraries. The government's attention should be called to
this duplication.
Based on the information provided to us in a departmental
briefing session, the National Library of Canada is planning to
save $400,000 in so doing. The government is transferring this
financial burden onto an industry it is already depriving of
substantial revenues through cuts in other programs.
The government could have been more imaginative and
looked for an approach that would have allowed publishers to be
compensated for the new requirement to deposit two copies of
all their publications with the National Library of Canada. The
government could have considered, for example, giving them a
tax credit equal to the retail price of publications sent to the
National Library of Canada. This would have covered the losses
incurred by publishers as a result of this bill.
I stress that it is never too late to do some good and that the
Minister of Canadian Heritage can still review this measure and
have it implemented in the best interest of the industry he claims
to be protecting.
One word about art books. These books can be sold for
thousands of dollars. I have been informed that their average
sales price is $2,000 in Quebec. The number of copies printed is
therefore limited. Some of them require the co-operation of
master binders, poets and lithographers and are so elaborate that
they are referred to as luxury books. For these craftsmen, the
legislation is costly, and I hope that the Canadian regulations
will take this reality into account.
When the Quebec government reviewed the legal deposit
legislation, it chose to restrict the two-copy deposit requirement
to books whose total value does not exceed $250. Publishers of
books worth more than $5,000 are not required to deposit them
at the Quebec national library. That is why we are very
disappointed that the regulations accompanying this bill have
not been tabled today, thus preventing us from assessing, with
full knowledge of the facts, the true extent of this bill.
Microfilm producers are particularly concerned. Production
costs of microfilms, weeklies and dailies are high and buyers are
few. I have been told that a micropublisher sells two or three
copies of his work and that the National Library of Canada used
to buy microfilms. From now on, micropublishers will have to
provide two free copies of their work for the National Library of
Canada and another two copies for the Quebec library.
(1020)
When one sells one copy of a microfilm and gives two away, it
is understandable that the Canadian microfilm society
denounces Bill C-26 as a disaster.
In its May 20 letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the
society wrote: ``We want micropublishers to be totally
exempted from the legal deposit requirement. Without such an
exemption, we will be forced to completely stop microfilming
weeklies and dailies and selling the resulting reels of positive
prints.''
As you can see, this observation and this appeal are very, very
serious. Since the regulations are unknown, I would hope that
the minister will note the micropublishers' concerns, especially
since the heritage minister is well placed to know because the
Canadian Microfilm Corporation is now doing very important
heritage work. This corporation is the one that microfilms the
Courrier de Laval; the first eleven years of that paper were not
microfilmed and were lost in a fire. Without appropriate
regulations, all of the Courrier de Laval and our weeklies will
disappear from our collective cultural memory because they
will not be microfilmed.
On another topic, the government could also have taken the
opportunity to combine in one place the documents to be filled
in for legal deposit. In the consultations undertaken by the office
of the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, it was mentioned
more than once that what irritates publishers is not so much
legal deposit in itself but having to complete various forms for
legal deposit in Quebec and in Canada and additional forms for
copyright and publication notices, to name only these. So I leave
this suggestion for the minister to work on and remind him that
if he acts on it, he will have the co-operation of the industry,
which is fed up with bureaucratic red tape.
I cannot conclude these few remarks without mentioning
duplication.
As you probably know, in 1967, Quebec passed a law
governing the legal deposit of all Quebec works, and rightly so,
since culture is essential and is what defines us.
It seems obvious to me that the federal government should
seek to conclude an agreement with the Government of Quebec
to turn over to the Quebec National Library the management of
all documents collected by the National Library of Canada under
the legal deposit provisions. This would be a good way to
manage public funds.
Furthermore, such an agreement could include tranferring to
Quebec everything from Quebec that the National Library of
Canada has acquired over the years. By investing $2.5 million to
buy documents in Canada, the federal government is
appropriating archives that were made in Quebec and bringing
them to Ottawa. I think it is logical for these documentary
materials,
4510
which will be used mainly by Quebecers, to stay in Quebec so
that they are available in French.
I think that such simple measures would help taxpayers regain
confidence in their institutions and show that we take taxpayers'
interests to heart and organize for maximum efficiency.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the National Library
Act.
This piece of legislation appears to be a housekeeping bill that
makes the legal deposit provisions of the act accurately reflect
the contemporary costs of texts produced today.
This debate demonstrates the willingness of my party to work
with the government to implement legislation that has a positive
impact on expenditure reduction. I want to state that again,
expenditure reduction, because I will be addressing that
particular aspect as I discuss the passage of this bill in my text
today.
(1025 )
It has always been the mandate of this side of the House to
oppose government legislation for valid reasons justified by the
commitment that we made to our constituents for responsible
financial management. However, at the same time we also
provide constructive alternatives for the government as we
present our arguments. This bill is an example of a case where
we can support the government and the proposed changes to the
legislation.
My office has spoken with the president of the Association of
Canadian Publishers. According to that conversation there do
not appear to be any concerns with this bill other than a minor
cost to publishers which they have indicated presents them with
little concern.
Publishers are currently able to deduct from their taxes the
wholesale costs of the books which they are required to submit
to the National Library.
Our previous speaker mentioned a tax credit at the retail level.
This is just to reiterate that there already is an opportunity for a
tax deduction of the wholesale costs. In effect, the only cost to
be borne by the publisher is the opportunity cost of the sale of
the book. This means that the cost to the publisher is the revenue
it fails to receive on the books that it submits.
I support the intent of this bill. It addresses in effect three
outdated facets of the legal deposit provisions of the National
Library Act, all of which were in need of bringing into
contemporary terms.
First, the government has recently been in the practice of
submitting two copies of all of its publications. Bill C-26 now
makes it a legislated requirement to do so. What is being done
here is simply formalizing an already followed informal
practice.
Second, individuals and corporations are fined under the act if
they do not comply with the legal deposit provision requiring
them to submit copies of their publication to the library. The
fines were originally listed in the act at $150 for individuals and
$2,000 for corporations should they fail to submit.
In many instances, and this has been pointed out previously, it
was cheaper not to submit and pay the fine than it was to submit.
In such instances clearly the fines were not effective deterrents.
Bill C-26 recognizes this failure of the act and has now tied
penalties to the Criminal Code summary convictions.
This is a good idea for two reasons. It increases the fines
making them effective deterrents. As well, the Criminal Code is
regularly updated whereas the act is not. Therefore this will
have the effect of addressing the issue of fines more readily and
as needed.
Third, prior to this bill a publisher was required to submit to
the library only one copy of a book if the book was worth more
than $50. However, given inflation most books currently cost
close to that amount in any event. This bill would require
publishers to submit two copies regardless of worth except when
such a submission would cause an undue financial burden.
The only potential problem with the bill is the vague
discussion of undue financial burden. I too express my concern
that the regulations were not tabled with this bill. I would hope
that when we get to committee there will further and very
specific discussion.
The bill proposes to replace subsection 13(4) of the act which
refers to non-compliance with any provision of the section or
the regulations. The specification as to what constitutes undue
financial burden will be included in the regulations and clearly
understood when this bill is discussed at committee.
It is important to acknowledge that publishers which publish
extremely limited editions and works of art not be required to
submit two copies of the publication. The regulations must
protect against causing unreasonable financial burden to the
publishers.
Speaking of financial burden, at the departmental briefing on
this bill it was made quite clear that by making these changes to
the legal deposit provision, the National Library would not have
to spend as much on acquiring copies of books. The director
general of corporate policy and planning for the National
Library stated that should Bill C-26 be passed the National
Library could spend between $300,000 and $350,000 less on
acquisitions next year. It is difficult, in fact inexcusable, not to
support a measure that could save taxpayers' dollars.
4511
(1030)
Given that the library expects this bill to save it some
$300,000 I will be recommending to the Canadian heritage
standing committee that the government decrease the
appropriations for the National Library by the amount this bill is
expected to save and I would strongly urge the government to
support this recommendation.
We have a tremendous opportunity to set a precedent here by
passing a bill recognizing that it affects next year's
appropriations. However, if the appropriations for the National
Library are not decreased by this amount then this bill will have
the effect of giving it a $300,000 increase.
The Minister of Finance has been asking for constructive
ways to trim his budget. Here is a great opportunity to cut
$300,000 from the budget of the National Library. Most
important, such a cut would have absolutely no effect on the
performance of the library.
While we are discussing how this bill could pay taxpayer
dollars we should examine the mandate of the library, for such
an investigation leads us to the conclusion that there are also
other ways to save money with the National Library.
In these times of fiscal restraint we should revisit the wisdom
of having both a National Archives and a National Library. It is
quite possible that the mandates of these facilities overlap to
some extent and that the removal of such duplication of services
would streamline their efficiency and save this government even
more money.
I can assure the government that this kind of proactive
legislation would meet with hearty approval from my side of the
House.
While I recognize that the changes Bill C-26 makes are
necessary-
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
With all due respect to the hon. member, she has made liberal
references to this side of the House and how it feels. I would like
to bring to the attention of the Chair and to the hon. member that
this side of the House does indeed include 26 members of the
government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not really believe that
is a point of order, but I am sure the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast could be more specific.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) Mr. Speaker, everyone
knows my party and everybody knows which party represents
the government in the House. I really feel that was a rather
innocuous comment to make and I am not going to address it
further.
While I recognize that the changes Bill C-26 makes are
necessary I am mystified why the Minister of Canadian Heritage
is not tabling other substantive legislation. This is a
housekeeping bill. We were informed that his department was
going to be implementing phase II of the copyright legislation.
However, there seems to be some lack of clarity as to which
department will be bringing this legislation forward. Regardless
of which department tables this legislation, its importance
should bring it to the House sooner rather than later.
As well, the Minister for Canadian Heritage has stated that he
is in favour of partially privatizing the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. Canadians are anxiously awaiting legislation that
reflects these comments from the minister. As well, the minister
has stated that the only reason he has not filled the vacancies on
the boards of directors of his department's cultural organization
is that he is awaiting a report recommending changes to the size,
structure and appointment process for these boards.
This is the kind of legislation for which the Reform Party on
this particular side of the House is waiting. We are anxiously
awaiting legislation that reflects recommendations in that report
and that starts to address some of the concerns that the Canadian
taxpayers in this country are waiting for.
(1035 )
Therefore, the safe passage of Bill C-26 through the House as
well as the areas just mentioned demand immediate action by
the Ministry of Canadian Heritage. I strongly urge the
government to act, thereby identifying other opportunities in the
department that will save money.
Rest assured my side of the House, the Reform Party, will be
there to help usher through the House any cost saving
legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you
will find unanimous consent to dispose of this bill in committee
of the whole this day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms from the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by
unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr.
Kilger in the chair.)
4512
[Translation]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order. House in
Committee of the Whole on Bill C-26, an Act to amend the
National Library Act.
[English]
Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause agreed to.)
On Clause 2:
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Chairman, I
do not know if appropriate attention was given earlier to the
Official Opposition's answer, but I want to point out the
financial burden which will be imposed on the cultural world
because of this double deposit requirement.
The secretary of state said that discussions had taken place
between the National Library of Canada and the Bibliothèque
nationale du Québec. Therefore, I want to ask her if the issue of
double deposit, both in terms of books and related money, has
been discussed and if the upcoming regulations will take that
additional economic burden into account.
This is my first question. With your authorization, Mr.
Speaker, I will raise other issues as well. I would like to hear the
secretary of state on this.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Chairman, from what I
heard, there has been a great deal of consultation with the
Quebec minister of culture, and I think that the regulations will
accommodate everyone, while also reflecting the interests of all
concerned. I say this based on what I was told.
(1040)
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the same
problem exists in other provinces but, in the specific case of the
Bibliothèque nationale du Québec and the National Library of
Canada, will the parliamentary secretary provide a precise
answer to the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata
regarding the issue of double book depositing in two libraries,
which also involves a double deposit of money? Will the
Secretary of State provide a clear answer regarding this issue?
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Chairman, based on what I was told,
Quebec publishers were consulted. They clearly understood
what we were proposing and they supported the suggested
amendments.
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, my colleague is right, they
supported the amendments, but with one qualification. It relates
to the regulations which have not been tabled along with the bill.
They drew the attention of our critic to the fact that they will
have a double financial burden. The parliamentary secretary is
right, they support the bill, but they want to know what will be
done regarding the double legal deposit. Did you think of the
burden for the industry?
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the regulations
will satisfy Quebec as well as the other provinces. Quebec has
its own legislation, but I believe that the minister did everything
he could to satisfy Quebec in this regard.
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for her
remarks, but what we have in mind particularly are the limited
editions, the art books. You know very well that some artists
produce major works as limited editions. The legal deposits
could then exceed the sales. You should consider this. What we
suggest is that the regulations provide for a tax credit.
My last question deals with another problem created by
having two levels requiring the same thing. We asked whether it
was possible to consider a single-window proposition, since
Quebec already has its library.
[English]
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Chairman, from what I understand,
widespread consultations with both English and French
language publishers representing key sectors within the
publishing industry including, as the hon. member mentioned
the livres d'artistes, indicate that the proposed amendments that
we are suggesting today will not impose any significant
financial burden.
The member's fears may be alleviated when the regulations
are presented. I know the minister has given an undertaking that
the proposed amendments will certainly assist and enhance the
publishing industry's interests rather than impede them in any
way.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for telling
me that our fears will be alleviated.
(1045)
In conclusion, I will say that I raised the issue of
micropublishing and of the problems facing microfilm
publishers. This is another very specific example of a very
limited production. These publishers mentioned that their sales
were very low and that the National Library of Canada was one
of their customers. Under such circumstances, I would like their
very specific concerns to be taken into account.
Ms. Guarnieri: I want to reassure the member that we will
look into the matter.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Chairman, I have a
question on subsection 13(4) of the act and the replacement of
the $150 fine. In the case of corporations it is being increased to
$25,000 if they do not send two books to the National Library.
4513
The Reform Party has indicated over many months its
position on young offenders, but it seems the government takes
far more seriously a book publisher that does not send two books
to the National Library than young offenders who roam our
streets and commit crimes. The government has a draconian
attitude when it comes to increasing fines to $25,000 in the case
of sending two books to the National Library.
The speaker for the Reform Party mentioned that these books
were now to be delivered free to the National Library and that
there would be a savings of about $300,000 to $350,000 to the
government. If it is a case of trying to raise some money, I am
sure $25,000 fines to a few book publishers would raise that
amount of money and more.
An hon. member: And reduce the debt.
Mr. Williams: They are suggesting that they want to reduce
the debt. If they want business to hand them something for free
and wield one mighty big stick worth $25,000 over its head to do
so, it sends the wrong message to business. We want businesses
to create jobs in the country. They are already handing $350,000
to government through the bill. I would suggest it should rethink
the size of the fine it intends to impose.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that
proceedings were initiated in only one case which actually went
to court.
I am a bit confused by what the hon. member is suggesting
because the amendments we are proposing are meant to assist
publishers. They do have provisions for recourse. I am pretty
confident judges will take into consideration any financial
burden we are asking these people to undertake.
The National Library of Canada, we have estimated, will have
savings of over $1 million over the next five years with the
proposed legislation. Does the hon. member not feel that we will
be assisting Canadians by making sure they have a National
Library that is the pride of the country?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting the fact
that the National Library gets two editions of every book
published is not in the national interest. The point I was trying to
make was that these books are being donated, not freely but by
legislation. They are being donated by the book publishers of the
country to the National Library and we are turning around and
increasing the fine.
The parliamentary secretary already admitted there was only
one particular case. Why are we increasing the fine from $150 to
$25,000? We have heard about inflation but this is ridiculous.
(1050 )
This stick it is now going to hold over businesses if they do
not send two books to the National Library is far too draconian.
Therefore it should be scaled back if the government would like
the co-operation of businesses to achieve its particular agenda.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Chairman, the reason we have
undertaken this specific initiative arises from the fact that when
the act was first proposed in 1969 it became quickly obsolete as
books exceeded the value of $50 or the fine of $150. We want to
make sure that we do not have to revisit the issue every second
week.
I am sure the hon. member will concede that there are matters
of pressing importance. I have every confidence that the act will
be interpreted in the spirit it is meant rather than in the
exaggerated case suggested by the hon. member.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, if the parliamentary secretary
is suggesting that the fines should be increased an exorbitant
amount to take care of inflation over the next unknown number
of years as the finance minister tries to keep his books balanced
and inflation may get away on us, who knows when we will be
back revisiting this point?
As I mentioned earlier I hope the government will apply the
same attitude as it introduces other legislation, for example the
Young Offenders Act, to ensure that fines and punishments will
be equally severe to take care of it for the next number of years.
Then we can be assured that we will not have to worry about
crime on our streets as well as book publishers sending books to
the National Library.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for
his editorial, but I am not sure it really furthers the debate today.
My understanding is that the provisions are being supported by
his party. In the spirit of co-operation perhaps we can proceed.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Chairman, I
reiterate that indeed the Reform Party supports the legislation in
spirit. Given the concerns expressed by my colleague in the
Reform Party, I would like to add that it is imperative assurances
be given in the regulations that this will not cause significant or
undue financial burden for the book publishing industry.
I have heard that term several times today from the hon.
parliamentary secretary without many specifics. There is an
expectation that when we go to committee we will be accepting
on good faith the regulations that will go forward because we
have supported the legislation in principle. However, if it is at
all possible, the parliamentary secretary should be somewhat
more specific when she makes the statement ``undue financial
burden'' that indeed there will not be undue financial burden on
our book publishing industry.
It is unfortunate the regulations were not tabled or at least
addressed a little more fully in the debate this morning.
4514
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member
it is not our intention to cause undue hardship on the publishing
industry. As I mentioned earlier, we have had widespread
consultations with all major principals in the publishing
industry and to date none have expressed undue concern.
Most people see this initiative as a positive step rather than a
regressive one.
(Clause agreed to.)
(Clause 3 agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported, concurred in, and, by unanimous consent, read
the third time and passed.)
* * *
(1055 )
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Human Resources
Development) moved that Bill C-30, an act to amend the
Department of Labour Act, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-30, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act,
proposes to reduce to 50 years the age at which fish plant
workers affected by the Atlantic groundfish crisis may be
entitled to income assistance payments under the Atlantic
groundfish strategy.
When the government announced the Atlantic groundfish
strategy last month the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stressed
the importance of listening to Atlantic Canadians and their
concerns.
We listened while developing the strategy. We will continue
to listen to ensure that its evolution is focused, cost effective and
meets the needs of those for whom it was designed.
The massive adjustment being faced by many people formerly
involved in the groundfish industry demands a relevant, fair and
flexible response from government that recognizes the specific
situations of those most affected by sweeping changes to the
industry.
A particular concern expressed by many Atlantic Canadians
was the situation involving older fishermen and older fish plant
workers who have made a significant contribution to an industry
in decline and whose chances for new employment are in many
cases not good.
The Atlantic groundfish strategy therefore includes as a vital
component an older worker adjustment program for fishermen
under the responsibility of fisheries and oceans and a similar
program for fish plant workers under the responsibility of
human resources development which I will be addressing today.
Like the other components of the strategy the emphasis is on
pragmatic-
The Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor as soon as
we resume debate.
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Statements by
Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
4514
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq): The Odawa Pow
Wow starts today and continues through tomorrow and Sunday.
This major event takes place at the Nepean Tent and Trailer
Park. It is an experience not to be missed.
This year's pow wow, the 18th annual, promises to be one of
the biggest ever. Four hundred singers and dancers from all over
Canada and the United States are gathering. Over 60 vendors
and crafts people are displaying their wares, including fine art,
jewellery and clothing. Traditional Indian food is being served:
corn soup, wild rice, bannock and buffalo.
The pow wow is a great celebration of joy and pride in Indian
culture and tradition, a renewal and a strengthening of the spirit.
It is an opportunity to renew acquaintances and to make new
friends.
I encourage all members of the House, local residents and
visitors to the national capital region to join the celebration.
Come and share the spirit.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, Fernand
Daoust, that great Quebec labour leader, resigned as president of
the FTQ, Quebec's largest labour congress, last December. He
was the secretary general for 20 years and had been president for
the past three years.
In February 1994, he became president of the board of
directors of the FTQ solidarity fund.
Mr. Daoust is known for having redefined the ties of solidarity
between Quebec and Canadian labour movements. In fact, the
CLC convention held recently in Toronto ratified a landmark
agreement under which the CLC acknowledged the FTQ as an
autonomous entity.
Fernand Daoust, who always fought for social justice and the
Quebec cause, make a profound impact on Quebec's recent
history through his commitment and dedication and deserves
our admiration and gratitude. Tomorrow, more than 1,000
4515
members of the labour movement and people from all walks of
life will pay tribute to Fernand Daoust.
Fernand, thank you for your tremendous contribution to
Quebec society!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, since
taking over the job the immigration minister has boasted about
his new process for hiring Immigration and Refugee Board
members. However, it is time that the boasting stopped and
accountability began.
Since this minister began making appointments, the
acceptance rate for refugee claimants has skyrocketed. The
definition of refugee has been expanded well beyond anything
the United Nations intended. Canadians are all too clearly
seeing the pattern of the IRB when it comes to overturning
deportations.
The minister of immigration has heard the calls from across
the country that the refugee board represent a real cross-section
of Canadians. Instead, the minister has stacked his board with
immigration lawyers and refugee advocates. It is time for a
public scrutiny of the minister's appointments.
I call on the minister to have all prospective appointees
screened before the standing committee on immigration. If there
is a bias, let us get rid of it; if there is an agenda, let us expose it.
Canadians want a real balance and that means balancing the
needs of migrants against the need for integrity of our borders.
Let us start by ensuring that the right people guard the gates.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to salute and congratulate an organization known as
Canadian Parents for French, which is holding its eighth annual
festival national de l'art oratoire in Ottawa this weekend.
Over the past few months over 55,000 students from all across
Canada have been taking part in French language public
speaking competitions across the country. The festival is the
culmination of these events.
This weekend we will see representatives from all 10
provinces, including the territories, showcase their winning
speeches, speeches delivered in a language other than their first
language, that is, in French.
[Translation]
It is a great pleasure for me to salute this organization and the
young people who have been involved in these competitions
from the very beginning and will come here from all our
provinces and territories.
This is an important event. I am delighted to see that so many
young people in Canada want to learn French, and I challenge
hon. members to do likewise.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, this year Canadians along with all members of the
United Nations celebrate the International Year of the Family.
The family has undergone tremendous changes since the days
following World War II. Attempts to define what is now the
traditional family would be most difficult.
(1105)
The changes the family unit have endured have made it all that
more important. All of us have been affected by changes to the
family. An aging population, dual income families, women in
the workforce and divorce have forced us all to look at families
in a different light.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the families of
members of Parliament. Our absence away from home, the
challenges and demands of our position and the pressures of
office all take a toll on our families. They share the
responsibility of our public service. We as parliamentarians owe
them a debt of gratitude for their service and dedication to the
work we do and this should never be forgotten.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to condemn the assumptions
of the members of the Reform Party that bilingualism is not
working in Canada and costs too much.
By challenging the Official Languages Act, the Reform Party
is doing as much to destroy this country as the Bloc québécois.
Their intolerance towards French-speaking Canadians merely
fires the zeal of the separatists.
As a Franco-Ontarian member of Parliament, I think the
comments made by the Reform Party are an insult to
Francophones in this country. French Canadians outside Quebec
play a vital role in the economic and social development of our
country.
4516
I am very proud to be a bilingual Canadian, and I intend to
stand up for the principles of the Official Languages Act.
* * *
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker,
once again yesterday, we saw how the federalist refrain is sung
differently on the two sides of the Ottawa River. While the
Prime Minister of Canada is denying the right of Quebecers to
determine which country they wish to belong to, Daniel Johnson
is acknowledging Quebec's right to self-determination.
Cautiously embracing the position of Mr. Jacques Parizeau,
the Leader of the Opposition in the Quebec National Assembly,
Premier Johnson stated that the first ones who must
acknowledge Quebec sovereignty and independence are
Quebecers themselves.
Mr. Johnson was merely repeating what all of Quebec's
political leaders have been saying since the Quiet Revolution,
namely that Quebecers are free to make their own choices. That
is something on which all of Quebec agrees, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I recently was sent a letter by Mr. Jones of Chatham,
Ontario who writes in part:
I am writing to say how glad I am that at least one member is willing to
condemn the planned Theme Park in Shawinigan as just what it really is, blatant
patronage.
Mr. Chrétien does not seem to get the message. The real reason the
Conservatives were kicked out was because of patronage, appointments to the
Senate, old buddies rewarded for life at our expense, and on and on. It appears to
be just more of the same with Chrétien.
I guess we should consider ourselves lucky-
The Speaker: It would be better if we did not name members
by name. Of course legitimate statements in the House are
accepted and thus far I would rule that this statement could be
controversial, but it is a statement. I would ask the hon. member
not to mention any other member by name.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I was quoting from Mr. Jones.
Anyway, his letter goes on to say:
I have to wonder why money is spent on consultants if you just go ahead and
do it anyway. The difference is that it is not their money but taxpayers' money
and there is no limit to that.
Thank you for speaking up about this.
Here is one Canadian who is fed up with the successive
governments that squander his hard earned tax money. Mr. Jones
and all those like him can take some comfort in the fact that
there is now a party in the House that understands-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yukon.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, after 21
years of negotiations, the Yukon land claim and
self-government legislation is now completed. This historic
piece of legislation, the product of successive governments,
including the current Liberal government and the vision of the
Yukon First Nations is a tangible example of true representative
democracy.
The Council for Yukon Indians, the Yukon Chamber of Mines,
the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, all parties in the Yukon
legislature, l'Association franco-yukonnaise, the Yukon
Federation of Labour and many other non-governmental
organizations support this legislation.
Clearly, the will of the Yukon people has spoken and that will
says that self-government and land claims can work in the
Yukon. Self-government is the key to the Yukon's future
self-sufficiency, as is land claims. That is something all
Yukoners can work toward in the spirit of co-operation,
goodwill and mutual respect.
(1110)
I call on all parties in this House to support the will of the
Yukon people and to support the Yukon land claims and
self-government legislation.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker,
osteoporosis affects 2.5 million Canadians, making their bones
so fragile and brittle that they break very easily. It causes severe
pain, disability, deformity, and even death.
I first learned about osteoporosis from the late Mrs. Lindy
Fraser. When Lindy was 80 years old she decided to educate
women about osteoporosis and the importance of exercise in its
treatment and prevention. She made a video which I will never
forget where she lay on her bed lifting her thin little legs in the
air and saying: ``See, I can do it. So can you''.
Now 80-year old Eleanor Mills is leading her ``Bony
Express'' on a trek across the country to bring attention to
osteoporosis. This weekend our capital will be hosting one
segment of this walk.
I would like to wish the ``Bony Express'', in the name of
Lindy Fraser and all who are at risk of osteoporosis, the best of
luck in its endeavour to help Canadians understand and fight this
disease.
4517
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park): Mr. Speaker, this
Sunday marks the 80th anniversary of the tragic sinking of the
Empress of Ireland, Canada's little known version of the
Titanic
disaster which still ranks as the worst maritime accident in
Canadian history. On May 29, 1914 the
Empress of Ireland was
en route from Quebec City when she ran into thick fog and
collided with another ship at the mouth of the St. Lawrence
River.
Over 1,000 passengers and crew suddenly lost their lives as
the ship went down in less than 14 minutes. Many more would
have perished in the icy waters if not for the heroic efforts of the
ship's surgeon, Dr. James Grant. In the absence of medical
supplies or proper facilities, Dr. Grant treated his fellow
survivors and restored calm in the midst of the crisis.
Let us not overlook this important event in Canadian history.
May we remember all those aboard the Empress of Ireland.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is
with regret that I must rise today and report to the House what
my family and I experienced last Monday, Victoria Day.
Following the traditional fireworks presentation at Ontario
Place, our car and those around it, and sidewalk vendors were
assaulted by what can only be described as a mad mob of
uncontrollable teenagers showing no respect for, or fear of the
law.
These teenagers beat their fists on cars, stole merchandise
from street vendors and overturned not one but three hot dog
carts. Who were these people? Where did they come from and
where did they go? These are all questions I cannot answer.
What I do know is that this type of rash, mindless violence has
made many of my constituents and Canadians demand a tougher
stance on crime, particularly youth crime. I must urge the
Minister of Justice to move quickly in bringing forward his
amendments to the Young Offenders Act and to the criminal
justice system. He must do whatever is necessary to prevent this
type of action from occurring again and thus make our streets
safer for us and our children.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to advise the House that May has been proclaimed as
Huntington's Disease Awareness Month by the Huntington
Society of Canada.
Huntington's disease is an inherited neurological disorder.
The symptoms include uncontrollable jerking movements,
unsteady gait and slurred speech. Because of these symptoms
persons with Huntington's disease are often mistakenly thought
to be intoxicated.
The Huntington Society of Canada is a national network of
volunteers and health professionals. They work together to
provide public information, to find a cure and treatment for
Huntington's disease, and to improve the quality of life for
people with the disease and their families.
I encourage members of the House and indeed all Canadians
to be sensitive to the needs of those who suffer from disabilities
caused by Huntington's disease and to support the work of the
Huntington Society of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the media reported the angry words of some
Liberal members who were outraged at the fact that the Leader
of the Official Opposition had agreed to attend the convention of
the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario.
I am surprised by these reactions since the association also
invited seven members of the Liberal cabinet, including the
Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, to participate. However, not one of the
ministers in question had the courage to accept the invitation.
(1115)
Furthermore, the members who criticized the most harshly of
all the presence of my leader at this convention, namely the
members for Ottawa-Vanier and for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, have still not confirmed if they
plan to attend.
In view of the absenteeism of federal Liberal representatives,
one has to wonder really who is being courageous and who is
being chicken.
The Speaker: These are rather strong words.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, last
Tuesday the Prime Minister refused to answer a serious question
about the fate of aboriginal people in a sovereign Quebec.
The Prime Minister called it hypothetical, saying: ``If my
grandmother had wheels, I would have been a bus. I do not like
if, if, if''. Yesterday in Calgary in responding to concerns about
separation the Prime Minister told the crowd: ``If we provide the
people of Alberta, if we provide the people of Quebec, if we
4518
provide the people of Canada with good solid work in
government-''
I suggest the people of Canada do not like hypothetical
answers any better than the Prime Minister enjoys hypothetical
questions. Rather than wondering whether he might be a bus, the
Prime Minister should be more concerned that he might have
missed the bus.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, the
debate over gun control in this country continues to heat up.
There has been a lot of speculation lately over what exactly the
government might be planning and there are some
misconceptions.
Some have said that the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Justice have draconian measures in mind. They fear the
government might want to penalize hunters, sportsmen and
other law abiding gun owners.
Putting people out of business is not the Liberal approach.
The Liberal approach is a balanced one. It is the only way fair
and just improvements can be found. Without a doubt gun
control is an issue which divides Canadians but
misunderstanding only adds fuel to the fire.
We need a rational debate and a sense of mutual trust. We need
to strike a balance that ensures fairness for gun owners and at the
same time increases gun safety for all Canadian citizens.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, the turpitude of the chairman of the Bloc Quebecois's
policy committee, Daniel Turp, simply must be pointed out.
Today, Mr. Turp formally denied the statements he has been
making for years on the Quebec natives' right to
self-determination.
A press release from the Bloc tells us a lot with the following
words: ``Mr. Turp will make no further comment''.
The Bloc is blocking the Bloquiste who was trying to tell us
the truth. Imagine if they ever had ``real power'', it is the people
who would be blocked!
The Speaker: I am glad that we are now moving on to
question period.
4518
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Quebec's
health minister has strongly denounced the federal
government's decision to ignore the provinces by refusing to
invite them to participate in the National Forum on Health,
which will study all health care issues, in particular the
financing of health care. Need I remind you that the Constitution
recognizes health as an area of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction?
How does the Acting Prime Minister justify the government's
decision to not directly involve the provinces in the National
Forum on Health and what is his answer to the Quebec health
minister who asked him: ``How can health care reform be
contemplated without the participation of the provinces which
are responsible for delivering the services?''
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government maintains very close consultations with
the provinces on the terms of reference and the membership of
the National Forum on Health.
(1120)
I want to add that the proposed forum will not be a
decision-making body; its only mandate will be to advise the
government. I think we will be able to make decisions on the
forum in close consultation with the provinces. It is not our
intention to exclude them from our consultations.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, since the acting Prime Minister is talking about
consultations, I would like to know whether he endorses the
position given by a source from the federal Cabinet, namely that
the provinces were not invited because the federal government
sees them as nothing more than an interest group, just like
physicians', nurses' or consumers' associations. Are the
provinces put on the same footing as these associations?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the provinces have a very important role in the field of health
which is recognized by the federal government. That is why
there has been and continues to be very close consultation with
the provincial governments on the terms of reference and the
membership of the forum on health which the federal
government is committed to create.
4519
We certainly have in mind to continue these consultations
both on the terms of reference and on the membership of the
national forum on health. We should also bear in mind that it is
not intended that this forum be a decision making body. If there
are decisions to be made at the federal-provincial level there is
an ongoing committee of federal and provincial health ministers
for that purpose.
Instead, the purpose of this forum is to look at medium and
long term concerns with respect to our national health programs
and systems and to give advice to both federal and provincial
governments on how we can deal with these problems.
I do not see why this in itself is a problem for the Bloc
Quebecois. Surely the Bloc, as is the case with all other
Canadians, wants to maintain and improve our health system. I
do not know why as a result it is asking these questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, for your information, the Quebec health
minister is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois. She is a Liberal
minister, a member of a federalist party, and she denounces the
federal government. As usual, we hear two different tunes as
federalists in Quebec and Ottawa have different interpretations
of federalism although they both belong to a Liberal party. It is
not only the Bloc Quebecois.
Can the decision not to directly involve the provinces in this
debate not be explained by the federal government's refusal to
hold a public debate with the provinces on the eventual
reduction of health-care transfer payments planned by his
colleague from Finance?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to repeat that it is the federal government's intention to
work with the provinces in having a better and stronger health
care system for Canadians. That is why the federal government
is consulting with the provinces both on the terms of reference
and on the membership for the national forum on health care. No
members have as yet been appointed to the forum. Before this is
done there will be further consultation with the provinces on
membership.
As I have said before, the purpose of the forum is to give
advice to federal and provincial governments on strengthening
our health care system. That is the way we are going to proceed.
Our objective is not to weaken the system but to make it better.
That is why we think that the Bloc, as is the case for all the
parties in this House, should be supporting the federal
government in its efforts to create the system, and I am not
referring to provincial members but to the Bloc, instead of
asking questions which suggest that the Bloc does not have the
same commitment as the Liberal government to having a better
health care system for all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Health unequivocally
indicated in this House that she refused to assume her
responsibilities in the area of public health as far as Canadians
infected with the hepatitis C virus through blood transfusions
are concerned. An estimated 5,000 individuals were infected
without their knowledge and now pose a threat to others.
Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the absolutely
absurd and irresponsible remarks made by the Minister of
Health who merely suggests that people see their doctor and
refuses to take action to identify those who were infected?
(1125)
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian blood supply is
widely recognized as one of the safest in the world. It must be
understood, however, that blood transfusions like other medical
procedures cannot be entirely without risk. Hepatitis C infection
is a case in point. It has long been understood to be a possible
result of blood transfusions.
In spite of progress to reduce its occurrence by means of
improved donor selection and the introduction of a screening
test, infection happens infrequently. The testing of donors for
hepatitis C beginning in 1990 has dramatically reduced the rate
of transmission of this virus through blood transfusions.
The Ministry of Health encourages anyone worried about
hepatitis C to discuss their concerns directly with their
physician or, in the absence of their physician, directly with the
Ministry of Health.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the Acting Prime Minister to
give his opinion on this and I will direct my supplemental to
him. This is a crucial issue, in fact a vital one.
Does the Acting Prime Minister not recognize that the Liberal
government is making the same mistake it made in the early
eighties when the AIDS epidemic broke out and that it is being
careless about the threat posed by hepatitis C, since those
infected can transmit the virus to others if they are not warned?
4520
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): In the absence of the Minister of Health, Mr.
Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that good health is
almost analogous with Liberal philosophy. If you look at the
history of health legislation in the country you have to look to
the Liberal Party.
The member is concerned and he is addressing his concerns
legitimately in the House. The Minister of Health has been
working diligently in answering questions daily about this
important and serious problem. I think she is doing a heck of a
job.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, over the past several months Canadians have told
Reform members that any proposal to amend the Young
Offenders Act must include the following three changes: That
the age parameters be reduced from the current 12 to 17 years to
a proposed 10 to 15 years; that repeat serious young offenders be
automatically transferred to adult court and that the public has
the right to know the identities of those involved in criminal
activities in their communities.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday the
minister assured the House that the Liberal caucus is unified on
the need to amend the Young Offenders Act. Can the minister
today assure the House that the Liberal government is unified
with Canadians and will introduce these three specific
amendments?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the government too has been
listening to Canadians about the Young Offenders Act. Indeed,
when we arrived in Ottawa in November consultation with
Canadians, launched by the last government, was under way. We
extended that consultation until mid-January. We received
hundreds of submissions from interested individuals and groups
across the country, all of which we have taken carefully into
account.
We discussed the issues involving the act with the provincial
and territorial ministers of justice and attorneys general in late
March. We have also engaged in broad consultation outside the
parameters of those meetings.
I can assure my hon. friend and the House that the changes we
will introduce will reflect those consultations and will address
the needed changes in the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate that the minister has been receiving
information. My concern remains that the proposed legislation
may not live up to the expectations of Canadians. Members of
the Reform Party have repeatedly demanded that these three
specific suggestions outlined in my initial question be adopted.
Can the Minister of Justice tell the House if these three
specific changes to the Young Offenders Act will be included in
his proposal?
(1130 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member
that in the course of our campaign for office last fall and in
statements that I have made since the election we have made it
clear that we believe the maximum punishment for the crimes of
serious violence should be increased. We have said there is a
need for greater sharing of information about those convicted of
violent crime who are young offenders where community safety
is at stake. We have also made reference to a variety of other
changes which will be reflected in the bill we will introduce
within the coming weeks in this House.
We have also made it clear that some of the more fundamental
questions about the statute will be the subject of study by the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. At the same
time as we introduce a bill for immediate changes we will ask
the committee, for example, to look at broader questions such as
the age application of the act. It will come back to us after
consulting with knowledgeable people on those issues.
Some of the items the hon. member has mentioned will be
covered in the statute that we are going to introduce to change
the act in the short term and many other important questions will
be addressed by the standing committee in its longer term
analysis.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I think my concerns are being verified with the
suggestion that perhaps age will not be dealt with promptly and
that is of course a major concern of Canadians.
The minister has said that he has received correspondence,
and we know that he has a paper called ``Toward Safer
Communities''. The minister has invited public submissions on
judicial reform in this effort.
I would invite the minister to table these letters before the
House so that all members can review the suggestions that
Canadians have offered to the Minister of Justice. Would he
table these responses?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to provide the
hon. member or any other member of the House with copies of
suggestions I have received about the Young Offenders Act.
I can warn the hon. member that I have received quite a few
suggestions for changes to the Young Offenders Act. Last month
my office received 12,000 letters from Canadians and many of
4521
them dealt with this issue. I would be happy to share those letters
with the hon. member or any other member of this House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
After trees were cut in the Oka pine grove, the Kanesatake
band council yesterday authorized removing the pavement from
a private road leading to the golf course, in order to expand the
Indian cemetery. The Mayor of Oka called this action a
provocation.
Does the Minister of Indian Affairs, who is the guardian of the
Mohawks' rights, intend to intervene directly with the
Kanesatake band council to convince it to stop the work and to
follow through the negotiation process which he just set up and
entrusted to Michel Robert?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
In the past four or five weeks, I had several meetings with
Christos Sirros, the official in charge for the Province of
Quebec, with people who want to sell their homes south of
highway 344, with the Chief of Kanesatake and with my Cabinet
colleagues.
[English]
We have been working diligently to calm the situation and I
think we have. Moreover, on the property south of 344, which
had been raised several times by hon. members opposite-
[Translation]
-a decision was made. The federal government will buy the
houses south of highway 344.
[English]
I am sure he will be happy with that. We have looked at the
grievances of the people in the area. We think they are
legitimate. They should not be responsible for the drop in value
of their houses. It was not their doing. We have authorized the
federal negotiator to proceed in an orderly fashion to negotiate
with them at pre-Oka prices, to negotiate with Kanesatake on
most of the issues and we are hoping to bring the matter under
control and calm the matter. I am sure that is what all members
want, to bring the matters under control in a reasonable manner.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, can the minister
tell us exactly and directly what measures he has specifically
taken to stop the cutting of trees in the pine grove and the work
on the golf course road?
(1135 )
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I was running out of time. I am
glad you asked me that.
We are working with the peacemakers in the other two First
Nations to come in and give a hand. We are working with the
RCMP and with the Sûreté, but mostly we are working with the
people of Kanesatake. It serves no useful purpose to do these
inflammatory things.
Oka served no purpose at all that helped the people. I am
going to do my best and my officials will do their best, so will
our negotiator and mediator, to convince the people of
Kanesatake that is not the way to proceed.
If they want to help the people, the leadership there has to be
more calm in the situation. We are making progress and I hope to
report in the next couple of weeks.
The Speaker: Just a simple reminder. It has been a long week.
All questions and answers should be directed to the Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday we questioned the government on both the
accountability and the effectiveness of CIDA. Contrary to what
the parliamentary secretary has told us, the Auditor General did
not praise CIDA with a glowing report as was suggested.
The Auditor General exposed serious deficiencies in CIDA;
for example, a poor managerial system, a lack of focus,
conflicting objectives, not to mention a lack of accountability.
Will the minister now make a commitment that CIDA will
become responsible to Parliament through real legislation?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that
question.
As I mentioned yesterday, although maybe I did not make it
too clear, CIDA is responsible to Parliament and very
accountable through the annual estimates. The committee on
foreign affairs and international trade can call the appropriate
ministers before it. We can question the ministers and the
bureaucracy of CIDA through the estimates.
I mentioned yesterday that the Auditor General's office did
audit three CIDA projects in three Asian countries. It chose
three countries because it thought they would reflect the rest of
the countries.
4522
In its report it had some severe criticisms of CIDA, et cetera,
but what I want to stress is when the Auditor General and the
director of CIDA appeared before the accounts committee and
the foreign affairs committee, the Auditor General praised
CIDA for how quickly it acted to the recommendations of the
Auditor General.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that
response but I still think it comes down to legal accountability to
the House.
It is one thing to say that the accounts are there, but I think all
of us realize how difficult it is to really look at those and to
really analyse those as to the costs.
Can the minister commit to making a legal accountability
directly to the House?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how more
authoritarian one can make an accountability than through
Parliament which is elected by the people of Canada. That is the
ultimate accountability.
I welcome the hon. member's intervention. He and I are on the
foreign affairs committee and, as he knows, we are doing an in
depth foreign policy review. I hope he will raise that in
committee again-he has already-so that the committee can
take that under consideration when it is making its report to the
government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. Last May 12, the
opposition asked the Minister of Finance if he could confirm
whether negotiations were under way with provincial
governments to combine provincial sales taxes and the GST into
a single national sales tax. The minister replied, and I quote:
``The answer is no''.
Yet, we recently learned from the Canadian Press that a task
force of federal and provincial officials was set up last March to
try to establish a single national sales tax.
(1140)
Does the minister not realize that he misled Quebecers and
Canadians by stating that no negotiations were under way with
provincial governments to create a single tax, when in fact a
federal-provincial task force has been looking at the issue since
last March?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Not at all, Mr. Speaker. First, we have
always said clearly that we believe, like the vast majority of
consumers and businesspeople, that harmonizing federal and
provincial sales taxes was desirable.
I am sure the hon. member realizes that discussions are
always taking place between federal and provincial officials.
There are many issues and we certainly have to get ready for the
report of the GST committee, on which the hon. member sat. I
certainly hope that my officials and those working for the other
ministers of Finance are getting ready for that report!
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, if
provincial sales taxes and the GST were replaced with a single
tax, do the federal government and the Minister of Finance
realize that they would be encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction
and directly interfering with its fiscal autonomy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, again I say not at all,
and the hon. member knows it full well since he worked rather
hard on that issue. What we are trying to do is to give consumers
and businesspeople across Canada, including Quebec, what they
want.
By setting up an harmonized tax we are certainly not invading
an area of provincial jurisdiction. This is merely an
administrative agreement between two levels of government to
better serve Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
On May 5 the minister stated: ``The next legislation that will
be before the House dealing with aboriginal people will clearly
show that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply''.
Last week at the Liberal convention here in Ottawa the justice
minister said: ``Individual rights of natives under
self-government need not be guaranteed by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms''.
Will the minister of Indian affairs affirm that the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms will apply to any legislation regarding
aboriginal people?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Minister of
Justice said last week. I know that the Minister of Justice did say
in the House to a question a week or so ago that the charter of
rights should apply, and in the supplementary said clearly the
charter of rights will apply.
4523
The legislation that will be tabled will not specifically
mention the charter of rights but will be pursuant to the
Constitution of Canada which encompasses the charter of rights
and the charter of rights will apply.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
Many Canadians would judge that the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms perhaps goes to the very heart of what being a
Canadian is and why Canada is such a desirable place to live. If
we would allow different versions of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms for different groups of Canadians we would perhaps
destroy what it means to really be a Canadian.
Will the minister of Indian affairs state that the same charter
will apply to all Canadians?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking to the
wrong minister. I agree with him entirely. There is one charter.
There are certain basic rights that are common to most people
and cherished by most people. I cherish them and I am sure the
hon. member does, as he has so stated. I agree with him.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Fédération des communautés francophones et
acadiennes complained about the federal government's
indifferent attitude and asked the government to do what it is
supposed to do. A tall order, Mr. Speaker!
So far, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has responded
rather contemptuously by dismissing the executive of the
Federation as a bunch of malcontents.
My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Considering the ravages of assimilation and the widening
income gap between francophones and anglophones, would the
Acting Prime Minister agree that instead of attacking
francophones who invited the leader of the opposition to explain
his position, his government should concentrate on
implementing a comprehensive policy for the development of
Canada's French-speaking community, as requested by the
Federation?
(1145)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada):Mr. Speaker,
we are focusing our efforts on keeping this country together, and
that is the best way to prevent the assimilation of francophones
in this country wherever they happen to be.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, as it
pursues this objective, does the government intend to act on a
request from the Fédération des communautés francophones et
acadiennes to create a central agency responsible for
implementing a comprehensive policy for the French-speaking
community? Yes or no? People are waiting for an answer.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we already have a central agency. We have the federal
government which stands up for the rights of all Canadians
everywhere in this country, not like the Bloc québécois.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Canada is beginning to see some improvement in its economy
due to the promises of the government. Canadians are still
worried, however, about reports of uncertainty in the financial
markets and concerned over the highly unacceptable
unemployment rate.
Would the Minister of Finance tell us what steps the
government is taking to improve prospects for Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member not only on
his question and his tremendous interest in this matter but on his
analysis of the reasons.
I simply point out that the member's position is shared by
many others. Today the Conference Board of Canada released a
report stating that Canada's economy would outperform all
other G-7 members over the next two years.
[Translation]
The Conference Board's report is similar in this respect to a
report by the International Monetary Fund which recently said
that as far as growth and productivity are concerned, Canada
will rank ahead of all G-7 countries.
[English]
I must say the member demonstrates as well how much he is a
true Liberal when he raises the issue of unemployment. The
government is dedicated to creating jobs for Canadians. That is
why the 115,000 jobs we created are so important. Our social
program reform and the rollback in UI premiums-
The Speaker: These are difficult questions we are getting
today.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It was good to see the
minister on TV this morning talking tough in Washington about
American overfishing of Canadian salmon on the west coast.
4524
Could the minister explain why this tough talk to the
Americans has not been matched with a commitment to tough
enforcement of Canada's conservation regulations on the west
coast?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, the question of the hon. member allows us all to
appreciate the work being done in Washington by the minister
who is attempting to get Pacific salmon negotiations back on
track after many months of American stalling.
With respect to conservation measures on the west coast they
are at a very substantial level. There has been no decrease of any
material amount. If the member wishes to be more precise in his
very broad and sweeping statement-I do not think it is a
question-the minister or myself would be happy to try to
answer it. However I would like to have the actual information
on which he is basing his question.
(1150 )
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, there have been
severe reductions in the government's commitment to aerial
surveillance on the west coast, to the coastal patrolmen's
service, and to DFO's enforcement budget.
When will the government accept its responsibility for
enforcement and put it at the head of DFO's list of priorities?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to DFO conservation officers, the number
of fisheries officers has been erroneously reported as being cut
down to 85 by a colleague of the hon. member. In fact there are
153.
These fisheries officers are now specializing in enforcement,
while previously they did a great number of other tasks with
respect to habitat protection, stock assessment and other such
matters. Thirty-three positions have been switched specifically
to stock assessments, habitat protection and other such things,
while 153 positions remain as enforcement and are specializing
in enforcement. There has been no change whatsoever in overall
numbers.
Perhaps he and his colleague, the member from Esquimalt
who seems to believe the numbers have gone down to 85, would
like to check further to find out how in fact they made their error,
because in fact errors they have made.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Minister of Industry stated
that only the prime contractors associated with the EH-101
helicopter contract would be compensated. As everyone knows,
the government has yet to provide any compensation.
Does the Minister of Industry realize that, aside from the
prime contractors involved, several other companies had made
commitments under this contract and that they, along with the
prime contractors, have yet to be compensated for the
cancellation of this deal? Is the minister aware of this situation?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Regrettably, Mr.
Speaker, the previous government made a bad decision when it
agreed to negotiate contracts to purchase the helicopters. In
keeping with the promises we made during the election
campaign and with our conviction that this course of action was
best for Canada, this government had no choice but to cancel
these contracts.
[English]
The people of Canada voted for us, understanding that we
were going to cancel the contracts. It is unfortunate that some
will lose as a result of that. In the final analysis this decision was
made for the right reasons and done on the basis of the support of
the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, only with your indulgence could the minister not
answer my question. Perhaps he will redeem himself by
answering my supplementary question.
How can the Minister of Industry justify awarding
compensation only to prime contractors, for the most part
foreign companies, when right here in Canada and in Quebec,
many sub-contractors do not have sufficient funds to convert to
civilian production? How does he explain this?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, if
members would ask questions that deserved answers they would
get answers.
The point is simply that there are contractual relations the
Government of Canada entered into with contracting parties.
That is simple. Those contracts are being resolved now through
a process of negotiation and discussion. The Prime Minister
made very clear that there would be no compensation beyond
that provided for in contracts.
We are interested in protecting in this matter the interest of
the taxpayers of Canada. They are the people who sent us here.
That is what we should be doing.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the very busy Minister of Health.
Every day ambulance workers and firefighters risk their lives
for Canadians. They also risk exposure to infectious diseases
4525
from the people they rescue. When this happens they want to be
notified so that they and their families can seek quick treatment.
A workshop was set up to establish a process to give
emergency workers this vital information but now the minister's
department says the workshop will not be going ahead, even
though all stakeholders have agreed that things could be worked
out quickly. My question is why.
The Speaker: And don't say because.
(1155)
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I am getting to enjoy health better
than aboriginal affairs.
I have just been advised that it has not been cancelled. It has
been postponed. I hope that advice is accurate.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is still why, but perhaps to help the Minister of Health I
could advise her we have learned that the real reason the meeting
has been cancelled is pressure from interest groups.
Could the Minister of Health tell the House why she is not
willing or someone is not willing to move vigorously to protect
the lives and health of emergency workers and their families?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, this is even fresher than the last
information. I am advised it has been postponed because there
has not been agreement on the agenda. It is going to take place
once the agenda is agreed on.
I am sure that will satisfy the hon. member's question. I will
bring it to the attention of the Minister of Health when she
returns.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport. It has to do with the sudden and totally unexpected
absence from work of air traffic controllers at the Winnipeg
International Airport located in my riding.
Apparently as many as 38 air traffic controllers called in sick
en masse this morning, leaving behind a small staff to serve an
area all the way from Thunder Bay, Ontario, to Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan.
What is the government doing to assure the safety of air
travellers in that area?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this
matter to the attention of the House. I take this opportunity on
behalf of the Minister of Transport to assure the House and,
more important, the travelling public that the systems are in
place to handle all air traffic completely safely. It may be slower
but it will be safe.
I also advise that the transport management is in contact with
CATCA which will be meeting with the union tomorrow
morning. The union is trying to be helpful in getting the
controllers back to work.
I should also point out to the House that the severity of such
unwarranted job action must be looked into, in the fullest extent
of the collective agreement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, over the past 12
years, retail stores have ignored the recommendations made by
three separate parliamentary committees regarding credit card
user fees and continue to charge interest rates as high as 28.8 per
cent on the outstanding balance of their card statements.
Does the Minister of Industry intend to act swiftly to protect
the interests of consumers in the face of this unacceptable
practice on the part of retail stores, which is leaving some
consumers in a state of chronic indebtedness?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to thank the hon. member for his question because this is a
very important issue. Actually, interest rates on credit cards in
the retail sector are governed by provincial regulations. This is
nevertheless an important issue which I have discussed, in
writing, with the president of the Retail Council of Canada. It is
very important that we find a way to bring down the interest
rates on retail store credit cards as well as those issued by banks.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, since a conspiracy
seems to exist among retail stores to maintain similarly
outrageous interest rates on their credit cards, does the minister
intend to hold an inquiry to determine whether these practices
constitute an offence under section 45 of the Competition Act
concerning anticompetitive practices?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
should draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that a
private member's bill on this matter is before the House. I think
it is coming up for debate shortly and I am sure he will want to
participate in that debate.
(1200 )
On the matter of the level of the rates and whether there is
action to be considered by the director of investigations and
research under the Competition Act, this is a matter on which I
would be prepared to seek the advice of the director. If there are
facts that warrant an investigation, I am sure he will take that
appropriate action and we will be pleased to advise the member
accordingly.
4526
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage who is
responsible for amateur sport.
Recently the minister received a report on the funding of
amateur sport which recommended the elimination of funding
for 19 different sports. The minister acknowledged that having
received the report, he was not prepared to make any further
decisions until the report was examined. Then yesterday, the
minister announced that two of the 19 sports so identified for
funding cuts, biathlon and freestyle skiing, would not have their
funding cut.
Can the minister inform the House what specific criteria were
used to decide which sports would have their funding
maintained and which would have it cut?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): The hon. member is aware
that the minister is currently reviewing the Best report, which is
far from government policy.
The minister did make assurances that all sports will be given
due consideration. The hon. member may wish to wait until the
comprehensive review is done before issuing further criticisms
of the announcement.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to hear there is certainly an intended review by all
parliamentarians.
Will the minister table the report in the House and then refer it
to the standing committee? Then there can be a very thorough
and public review of that report in order to find out the specific
criteria that were in place for those funding cuts.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, I will certainly
be happy to relay the member's request to the minister.
Perhaps it should be the Reform's sport to race to conclusions
without the ball.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. This week, we
were told that neither the Prime Minister nor any other member
of the Cabinet thought it would be a good idea to accept the
invitation extended by the Association canadienne-française de
l'Ontario and attend its annual convention.
How can the Acting Prime Minister explain the fact that
Cabinet members decided to decline this invitation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we believe that this organization is a very important one indeed.
I do not have any detailed answer to give you about the timetable
of the various ministers and the possibility that they may be able
to attend that convention, but I will look into this matter,
because this organization is very important to us, and I speak
both as a minister and a member from Ontario.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, earlier in question period when the hon. member for Don
Valley North asked a question of his finance minister in such
glowing terms, I need a ruling. The question was so flagrantly
biased in a way I need to know-
The Speaker: Questions that are put forward by all members
in my view are legitimate questions. I know that all members are
seeking information during question period. Of course that
question was in order.
_____________________________________________
4526
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1205)
[English]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General
transmitting supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year
ending March 31, 1995, was presented by the Minister of
Finance and read by the Speaker to the House.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 23rd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this report later this day.
4527
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
regarding the main estimates for 1994-95 under human
resources development. The committee has considered the
estimates and reports them without amendment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-32, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, and
the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-252, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(review of nomination papers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, section 82.1 of the Canada Elections
Act requires that each person seeking election have their
nomination papers signed by 100 electors resident in the riding
in which they seek to be elected.
In the last federal election in Scarborough West there were
eight people on the ballot. Four of those people at least had not
complied with section 82.1 and had not in fact had their
nomination papers signed by 100 electors resident in the riding
of Scarborough West. There was absolutely no mechanism to
deal with this flagrant abuse of the Canada Elections Act.
Accordingly I have proposed this bill which would amend the
Canada Elections Act. It would allow an elector of an electoral
district to request the review of a nomination paper when the
elector has reasonable grounds to believe that one or more
persons who signed the nomination paper are not qualified
electors resident in the electoral district. A nomination paper
that had not been signed by the required number of electors
resident in the electoral district provided for by the Canada
Elections Act would be declared invalid.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1210 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (abortion).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a conscience bill. It is
designed to protect health care workers who wish not to
participate in the procuring of abortions. It makes it an offence
for anyone to attempt to dismiss these people from their jobs if
they refuse to do so on moral or religious grounds.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Orders 81(5) and 81(6), I move:
That the forecasts contained in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1995, tabled today, be referred to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development, votes 1(a), 5(a), 10(a), and
35(a).
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
with leave from the House, I move that the 23rd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which
was tabled in the House today, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased and honoured to
present a petition signed by a number of tenants in the Flynn
Gardens apartment building at 48 St. Paul Street, Lindsay,
Ontario. The apartment building is classified as a seniors and
handicapped building.
4528
The petition calls upon Parliament to consider locating a
mailbox in the vicinity of 48 St. Paul Street for the convenience
of the residents of the building and the surrounding residential
district. I fail to understand the role of Canada Post in not
providing the opportunity for people to be able to mail a letter
with some convenience. I fully support this petition.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, these
petitioners in my riding are no doubt joined by thousands of
Canadians throughout the land who want the CRTC to regulate
excessive abuse on radio, television and other media. They
believe the use of foul language, significant violence or explicit
sex is not necessary in order to entertain or to inform.
[Translation]
Abuse in the media often goes against parents' values, and
that is why they are asking that it be controlled.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to stand today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present
a petition on ethanol. In my riding many people are very
concerned about the direction our government is going with
regard to the ethanol industry. Certainly Kent and Essex
counties are areas that do need a boost.
We realize that ethanol will create a very stable agriculture
industry in our country. Realizing all of the environmental
positives ethanol will bring, I humbly ask the government to
exercise its ability to present the exemption on excise taxes on
fuel and forgo that tax for the next 10 years so that this industry
may become strong and survive well in this country.
(1215)
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and
honoured to rise today to present a petition from some of my
constituents. I fully support this petition which reads, in part:
``We, your humble petitioners, therefore pray that Parliament
not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way
and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of
September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide, euthanasia.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, I have some petitions here dealing with Canada's
having enacted legislation providing for the two official
languages.
The petitioners call for a referendum of the people binding
upon Parliament to accept or to reject two official languages.
As their member of Parliament, I am duty bound to present
this petition to the House. It is signed by people from Pembroke,
Eganville, Renfrew, Victoria, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which was
handed to me by residents of the Gaspé Peninsula during public
hearings held by Rural Dignity. The petitioners are asking for a
moratorium on the abandonment of rail lines as well as public
hearings on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me pleasure, on behalf of some of my constituents, to
present two petitions to the House.
The first petition deals with the drug RU486 which has been
used in the abortion of human children at an early stage of
development.
Their concern is that the administration of RU486 has caused
the death of at least one woman to date and has caused serious
health problems in other clinical trials in France, and that the
only proven use of RU486 is in the abortion of young human
beings.
Therefore, they petition the House to withhold the approval of
RU486 and prevent the marketing and testing of this drug.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is also from some of my constituents. It is
with regard to section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada
whereby convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment
without chance of parole for 25 years are now able to apply after
15 years, and whereas they feel that the murder of a Canadian
citizen is a most reprehensible crime, they request that
Parliament repeal section 745.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
it is my duty to present the following petition, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, which has been duly certified by the clerk of
petitions.
Constituents in Lambton-Middlesex and the surrounding
area pray and call upon Parliament not to extend the spousal
privileges and benefits to same sex relationships which society
accords to heterosexual couples.
4529
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to present a second
petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, which has been duly
certified by the clerk of petitions.
Constituents in Lambton-Middlesex and area humbly pray
and call upon Parliament to maintain the present exemption on
the excise portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong
and self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions. The first petition is signed by well over 700
residents of Scarborough and the surrounding areas of
metropolitan Toronto. It deals with the increase in violent
crimes in Canada and also with the Young Offenders Act.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal
Code of Canada and the Young Offenders Act to provide heavier
penalties for those convicted of violent crime.
I am pleased to note that our government is going to be
moving precisely in that vein in June of this year.
(1220 )
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is also from residents of my riding and
surrounding areas and it prays that Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is also signed by people in Scarborough. It calls
upon Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
``sexual orientation''.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from citizens in my riding asking the government to
place a ban on serial killer board games.
The people who design these games must indeed be sick. Here
is a description, it is very short, on one game: ``This game comes
with a body bag, 25 babies and four serial killer figures''. The
object of the game is to commit murder and the person who has
the highest body count in the body bags is the winner.
The game is not in the best interest of children; indeed it is not
in the best interest of the community or the nation. The
petitioners are asking that the government ban serial killer board
games in Canada immediately.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, it is my duty to table a petition in the House
today dealing with doctor assisted suicides. These 33 petitioners
are in favour of doctor assisted suicides. Therefore, these
petitioners request that Parliament change the existing law to
enable doctors to direct an act of euthanasia without fear of
prosecution.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4529
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-30, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, as
I was saying earlier, like the other components of the strategy,
the emphasis is on pragmatic, meaningful measures to target the
real needs of those affected by change and the needs of the
region as a whole at a time of unprecedented transition.
The Atlantic groundfish strategy is, in fact, the opposite of the
band-aid approach that has characterized the previous
responses to the economic crisis in Atlantic Canada. The
strategy represents instead a long term investment in
communities deeply affected by circumstances beyond their
control.
It is also an investment in people, including those older
workers who have invested and contributed so much for so long
to the groundfish industry.
As members are aware, the Atlantic groundfish strategy has
two primary objectives, to re-establish a rationalized,
restructured fishery, and to serve as a catalyst for diversified
economic growth outside the fishery.
4530
As such, the strategy offers a wide range of programs and
options specifically tailored to individual career and
employment requirements.
These options include training activities such as literacy
training, community based adult basic education, university
study programs and entrepreneurial training.
(1225 )
Green projects that connect environment enhancement with
meaningful skill development in an emerging industry.
Employment incentives to encourage participants to find and
accept jobs.
Self-employment assistance to stimulate business start-ups
outside the traditional fishery and support entrepreneurship
training.
A community opportunities pool allowing individuals to
develop and contribute to community based projects and
initiatives where they live.
Portable wage subsidies to allow non-fishery employers to
hire people and provide on the job training.
Mobility assistance to provide relocation support for those
who wish to find work outside their community.
Several adjustment programs for youth and of course older
workers.
I now want to address more specifically Bill C-30, the
proposed amendment to the Department of Labour Act. It is
crucial to note that when we refer to older workers in the east
coast fishery we are talking about those from 55 to 64 years of
age. The Department of Labour Act already has the authority to
make assistance payments to former employees between the
ages of 55 and 64.
However, an amendment to the act is needed to include fish
plant workers who will reach 55 within their Atlantic groundfish
strategy eligibility period.
It is this amendment, Bill C-30, and the compassionate and
pragmatic reasons supporting it that I wish to recommend to the
House today.
The strategy was developed with input from all those affected
by the change: the provinces, business, industry, unions,
communities and, most important, those whose lives and
livelihoods were so closely tied to a diminishing resource. Some
of them will be part of a streamlined future fishery. Others will
take up new opportunities in new fields.
However, for many fish plant older workers there is the real
possibility of falling between the cracks at a critical time in their
lives. That is why the Atlantic groundfish strategy includes
special considerations for their circumstances.
The fact is that because of their long term commitment to the
fisheries many older workers have no realistic prospect of
finding other work or learning and applying the new skills that a
fast changing marketplace demands.
Although they are free to opt for the active training measures
available under the Atlantic groundfish strategy, their
background could limit the benefits to be gained from the
participation in the strategy options and in the long run their
chances of finding employment outside the fishery.
In the public hearings of the Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans many plant workers acknowledged this reality and
asked about the possibility of establishing early retirement
provisions starting at age 50.
This essentially is what the fish plant older worker adjustment
program and the related amendment to the Department of
Labour Act proposed; a realistic, compassionate, income
maintenance option for these workers who have given so much
for so long.
Under this program eligible fish plant workers who are
between 50 years of age and 64 as of this May 15 may receive
income supplement payments.
(1230 )
The program would be administered jointly by human
resources development and participating provinces that enter
into agreements. The cost would be shared on a 70 per cent
federal and 30 per cent provincial basis. Eligible workers will
have 90 days after they are informed of their eligibility to opt
from the fish plant older worker adjustment program. They will
then receive income support until they reach the age of 65.
Income assistance payments will be calculated on the basis of
70 per cent NCARP unemployment insurance benefits averaged
over the three best years of 1988 to 1993 with a monthly
maximum of $1,000. Until these benefits begin fish plant older
workers entitled to TAGS will receive income support
equivalent to their three year average UI NCARP rate less 6 per
cent. The older worker adjustment program will be cost shared
with the federal funding set at 70 per cent and participating
provinces paying the remaining 30 per cent.
For older fish plant workers the maximum cost of this
program to the federal government will be about $60 million.
We believe that 1,200 older fish plant workers in Quebec and the
Atlantic region will participate in this program. About 75 per
cent of those workers are in Newfoundland, 15 per cent in Nova
Scotia and the rest in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and
Quebec.
Let me stress that participation in this program is voluntary.
Fish plant older workers who want to benefit from the strategies,
training and career planning initiatives can do so. The concept
presented under the fish plant older worker adjustment program
is one that our provincial partners and those personally affected
recognize as having specific merit and relevance.
4531
In the past and under previous governments of all stripes older
worker readjustment policies rarely refer to early retirement
because it was thought to perhaps encourage voluntary layoffs
and create pressures for a universal and expensive rush to early
retirement. However because of significant changes in social
values and work patterns in recent years and yes, in the
economy, more people are choosing to retire before they reach
65 years of age.
There can be no doubt that early retirement is an emerging
human resources issue seen variously as a source to reduce
unemployment, as a useful tool in industry restructuring or as a
viable bridge to new lifestyle options. However we do not use
the word voluntary for this program since fish plant older
workers affected by the Atlantic groundfish crisis have not
voluntarily chosen to leave their jobs. The fish plant older
worker adjustment program addresses the fact that these
workers were forced out of the labour force.
Precedents exist for the kind of initiative we are proposing
today, for example, in Atlantic Canada. There is a plant worker
adjustment program which already applies to workers aged
between 50 and 64 years. The program assists older fish plant
workers laid off as a result of fish stock declines in Atlantic
Canada. It is now being terminated as it applies only to layoffs
which occurred until December 31, 1993.
Other examples of income support programs for laid off older
workers exist, including the northern cod early retirement
program and the program for older worker adjustment. The
northern cod early retirement program applies however to
workers aged between 55 and 64. This program was created in
1992 to encourage a permanent reduction in the numbers of
fishermen and plant workers laid off because of depletion of the
cod fishery.
(1235 )
There is also a program named program for older workers
adjustment, POWA, which applies to workers aged 55 to 64 who
were affected by major involuntary layoffs from all industrial
sectors across Canada. The fish plant older worker adjustment
program is a logical application of these initiatives. It is also a
necessary response to a unique and urgent set of circumstances.
I spoke briefly about the kind of contribution fishers and plant
workers made to the economic life of their communities. Now I
want to say a few words about the way of life that their work
supported and carried forward through the generations.
Many if not most of the people who need help now live in
small communities where people count on one another in a very
unique way. Their communities were sustained by a fishery
resource that is no longer available to them. The real resource is
the people and the people are still there.
The future is theirs to create, but we cannot ignore the present
needs. The skills of the past may not be in demand but the
courage, the resourcefulness and the determination of the people
are still there. This program recognizes how important it is for
the individuals involved to maintain self-sufficiency and
dignity in the face of unprecedented adjustment and change in
their livelihood and way of life.
As such, the government sees the proposed amendment to the
Department of Labour Act as essential to fully recognizing the
past contributions and future needs of these older workers. We
have drawn on the knowledge and experience of many groups
and individuals to produce this legislation and this strategy.
It is realistic. It is definitely comprehensive. It reflects the
principles and beliefs of this government so it is a fair and
compassionate approach. It is designed to meet the kind of
emergency which Canadians have not faced since the days of the
Great Depression so it is innovative and effective.
This strategy and its programs are based on sound research
and wide ranging open discussions with the people who are
working to meet this challenge. Those who looked at the report
submitted by the task force on incomes and adjustment in the
Atlantic fishery, commonly known as the Cashin report, know
that serious people examined the situation and came up with
some realistic ideas.
The strategy is the product of two months of consultation with
fishery workers and their associations and unions as well as
representatives from fishing communities and from the
processing industry. We have had the benefit of speaking with
officials from both federal and provincial departments with
responsibilities in this area.
The measures we have brought together under the Atlantic
groundfish strategy reflect that consultation. Premier Clyde
Wells of Newfoundland is one of the provincial leaders who
contributed to the development of this strategy and he welcomed
the measures it proposed.
In addition, the fisheries minister of that province, Walter
Carter, called it a reasonable package and in Nova Scotia
fisheries minister Jim Barkhouse said he was pleased with the
strategy. Union leaders have welcomed the approach the
government has taken both in helping people and in planning the
future of the fish resource.
In the red book and in the speech from the throne, the
government clearly spelled out a commitment to fairness and
compassion in introducing fishery adjustment measures. We
reinforced this commitment a month ago in St. John's. Common
sense and common decency demand that the pragmatic positive
implications of this amendment receive speedy and unanimous
endorsement from all members.
4532
(1240)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-30 reminds me of an old photograph found in
the remains of a house which has burned down, because it is the
reflection of the disastrous condition of the fish industry in
Atlantic Canada, which is mainly due to the mismanagement of
the fishery issue by the successive governments of the last 20,
25 or 30 years. It seems that we could not find a way to get
scientists, fishermen and governments together to deal with this
tragedy caused by the near extinction of some species.
One good thing about Bill C-30 is that it recognizes the fact
that some people are in a difficult and unacceptable situation.
We see workers who, at 50, 52, 53 or 55 years of age, have lost
their jobs. These people had developed some expertise in their
field. These were fish plant workers you could rely on, but they
do not have the skills to find a job in some other line of work. I
do not think you can ask them to relocate, because they often
have lived all of their lives in the same community, where they
have gone through some difficult times and witnessed the failure
of the federal government involvement in the Atlantic Canada
fishing industry.
I would like to remind members that, a few years back, we
often heard, especially when the Conservatives were in office,
about cuts to programs aimed at protecting certain species. I
may recall that at the time there was an agreement under which
administrative responsibility for the protection of species was
delegated to the Government of Quebec, an agreement that was
adopted in 1922. Under Mr. Trudeau's Liberal government, it
was decided to withdraw this delegation-this was around the
beginning of the eighties-and today we see the disastrous
result. In Quebec and throughout the Maritimes, we have seen an
industry collapse, an industry that is no longer able to provide
work for the people in the communities which had made a living
from the fisheries for years.
I often wonder what we are going to do about the industry in
the future. It is all very well to come up with band-aid solutions,
but there is a basic problem, a problem that will not go away and
it is high time the government took the initiative. I think that
along with the compassion reflected in this bill, which lets
people go on living in their communities, we must find new
ways to intervene so that our maritime communities can look to
the future with greater confidence in the potential for their
development.
I think there are a number of questions that should be asked
about what the government intends to do about the fisheries in
the future. What will the fisheries mean to us? Will the people
who worked in the industry only be able to pass on their
memories of days gone by? I am reminded of what happened in
the seventies-and it seems we never learn from our
mistakes-when Forillon Park was created in the Gaspé. The
government forgot that people had their homes there, and they
even asked them to leave. Today, we realize that we could have
called on these people to develop tourism in their area, making
sure that they took an active part in it and earn some money that
way.
(1245)
The measure is interesting, but we can wonder if it will be
applied openly, giving the necessary support to people who have
all kinds of initiatives, such as setting up community projects, or
turning a small village or a town into a tourist attraction. I hope
that they will not have to cut through the same red tape as others
before them with similar projects.
For example, in my riding, some people applied to the
independent workers assistance program. They were told that
there was no money for that. They are on UI and since there is no
money, new businesses cannot be allowed, and yet it would not
cost anything more. Is this kind of treatment going to be applied
to workers who will retire that way? I hope not.
There is another question one must ask. Will the agreements
be signed on an individual basis or will it be a general agreement
passed with provincial governments? Individuals should not
have to face government bureaucracy alone. In their tragic
situation, they must be treated humanely.
This bill brings the retirement age for fish plant workers down
to 50. Do they not deserve a lot more? Let us have a minute of
silence. It is like a death in the family. The parliamentary
secretary said earlier that in areas like Atlantic Canada, the
human resources were the main resource. I do agree, and it is
probably the mistake we made in the past; we dissociated the
human resources from their environment rich in other resources
such as fish and forests. And because people wanted to catch
fish, and mistakes were made in stock management, we are now
in this desperate situation.
Should we not learn from our mistakes and strive for
renewable development at the local level? I believe that there is
a know-how to be found among the people who lived in those
environments and know what it is to earn a difficult living, day
after day, people who have also experienced seasonal work. If
we do not take advantage of what these people can teach us, we
will have missed the boat, we will not learn from the sad
experience of these victims of our poor management of fish
stocks. This bill is the result of the shortsightedness of past
governments.
The situation in the fisheries is also preventing the next
generation from learning the trade. People will be retiring
thanks to a bill which will give them a minimum income, but we
should use their knowledge to give young people the desire to
fish, perhaps for species presently underused, and also to
develop know-how in the processing of these new species in
order to provide employment.
4533
I believe that it is an acknowledgement that government
intervention in the fisheries failed in Atlantic Canada and in
Quebec.
(1250)
This bill is more or less an acknowledgement by the federal
government that it did almost irreparable damage. We also
realize that it is preferable that the people affected be allowed to
retire rather that try to retrain them for work in other sectors,
because it is too late.
I believe that the government should try, as much as possible,
to humanize its action, particularly when dealing with the
people targeted by the bill.
Bill C-30 is somewhat like reparations, something we do
because we feel guilty for what we have done. I think we should
see beyond that. In conclusion, I hope that people affected by
this measure will enjoy to the maximum the years that lie ahead.
I hope they will see in this situation an opportunity for a new
start and will put their own professional experience to good use
for the future development of their community.
I lived in the Gaspé Peninsula for a few years and I know that
people in that region have good common sense, a quality which
sometimes gets scarce the higher you rise in the bureaucratic
machinery; I think we should listen to what they have to say in
order to arrive at more acceptable solutions.
Allow me to make a parallel with the forestry workers. In the
area of forest management, the situation is similar to that of
fisheries ten years ago. We are beginning to feel the real threat
of a shortage. Some workers in the forest management
communities have presented various proposals for a
restructuration of forest harvesting that would allow the
resource to renew itself and would prevent a situation similar to
that of the fisheries.
The government always finds a solution for people who are
really at the end of their rope, who have nowhere else to turn to,
and I hope it will do the same in this case and listen to the
message being sent so that it will not have to pass the same kind
of bill for the forestry workers in seven, eight, ten or twelve
years from now because that would be absolutely absurd.
In his speech for the tabling of this bill, the parliamentary
secretary praised the whole government action program for
Atlantic fisheries. I think we should also seize this opportunity
to see what could be done in other areas so that a situation like
this one will never be repeated.
Other sectors of industry are facing somewhat the same
situation. Workers who are 50, 52 or 55 years old and who have
experience in a specific field cannot easily be slotted into other
jobs. I hope that this example will serve to make the government
more aware of the importance of treating other groups in this
manner and of being as attentive to their concerns as they were
in this particular case.
There is no doubt that the government is less responsible for
the situation that prevails in other industries. However, fishery
is one sector for which the government has primary
responsibility. Other players have always been asked to do their
part and co-operate, but the guidelines have always come from
the government. Moreover, it was the government that turned a
deaf ear to the warnings that were repeatedly issued, either by
the fishermen or by scientific groups, about the repercussions of
actions taken in the fishery.
In conclusion, I hope that the workers who have lost their jobs
will be able, as a result of this measure, to continue living in
dignity, to weather the crisis and to ensure a bright future for
their local community. I hope that governments will listen to
their concerns and that they will be given the necessary means to
get their communities back on track.
(1255 )
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill
not because we do not care but because we do not believe that it
is as realistic or as compassionate as the government would have
us believe. We suggest that the bill is defeatist, that it shows a
lack of faith in people.
We believe that happy people are people who are productive
and people who have some control over their own destiny, men
and women who earn a living and provide for their families.
People do not want to be pushed aside and told: ``Here is $750
or $1,000 a month. We understand you are only 50 years of age,
but that's it. Your life is over. You can no longer provide for your
family and in fact you cannot provide a positive example for the
younger members of your family''. We do not think that is what
people want in any part of our country, let alone in Atlantic
Canada.
We have a government which in the last election promised
jobs and now all it has to offer is early retirement. The
government estimates that there are 1,200 older fish plant
workers who will participate in the early retirement program
and that the cost will be $6 million to the federal government. It
claims that 75 per cent of the eligible older fish plant workers
will be from Newfoundland.
It is okay to criticize what the government is doing but I think
what is called for here are some suggestions on what we can do
to make things better for these people. If I could I would like to
share how I felt when I visited Newfoundland.
When you get off the plane there and make a purchase you are
going to pay almost 20 per cent in sales tax and GST. If I were an
entrepreneur and I arrived in Newfoundland and I had to pay
almost 20 per cent sales tax, I would probably get back on the
plane and head right back out of town. If I stayed around long
enough to take a look at what the personal income taxes were I
4534
would swim to get off the island. I think that is where the
problem is here.
There is a problem wherein we have a province that is not
economically attractive to entrepreneurs to establish
businesses. What we need is more fundamental change in the
economy to make it possible for the economy to grow.
What we do not need are more handouts. More handouts do
nothing for people. They destroy people. They destroy their
spirit and their will.
On this issue I am preparing a private member's bill which
will make suggestions for cutting capital gains tax which I think
will be very helpful in this regard.
Bill C-30 provides legislative authority for one part of the
Atlantic groundfish strategy, the part to be delivered by human
resources development. I assume the department believes it has
authority for those other components of TAGS that it will be
delivering.
Bill C-30 therefore responds to one of the recommendations
of the Auditor General in his latest report with regard to the
previous Atlantic groundfish package. The Auditor General
stated this:
The government implemented a program for which in our view no clear and
satisfactory authority existed. At no time did it go to Parliament to seek proper
substantive authority for its actions. Parliament was denied thereby proper
opportunity to review and debate the government's proposed program as part of
the normal legislative process, to decide on its objectives and to approve
expenditures to achieve those objectives.
The Auditor General went on to state:
The government should present to Parliament legislation that will provide a
proper authority for this program and for any future programs of a similar
nature.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is to be
congratulated for the introduction of this bill as recommended
by the Auditor General. But where is the rest of the bill? Does
this bill really give Parliament the opportunity to debate the
program's objectives? No, it merely attempts to patch TAGS
into a pre-existing legislative authority.
Unfortunately this is not its greatest deficiency. Where is the
legislative authority for those parts of TAGS that DFO is
delivering?
(1300 )
DFO will be attempting to retire fishermen, their licences,
and to create industrial renewal boards. This part of the TAGS
program is without legislative authority and I call on the
government to bring in the remainder of the required legislative
authority to cover it.
DFO officials tell me that the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans intends to use the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
as part of the authority. The Auditor General has already ruled
that the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act is an inappropriate
legislative authority. That act, the Auditor General noted, was
passed in the mid-eighties to permit the government to
implement the Kirby commission's recommendations.
It is important to note that the Kirby report and the Atlantic
Fisheries Restructuring Act were founded on the expectation of
a doubling of the groundfish harvest. The Kirby report saw the
problem of the fishery as one of finding ways to market the
growing supply of fish, the oversupply, not the lack of supply.
TAGS expects to reduce the catch capacity by 50 per cent. The
underlying assumptions of TAGS and the Atlantic Fisheries
Restructuring Act are incompatible.
The Kirby report said that one of the bright spots in the fishery
was the outlook for the harvest, that by 1987 the cod catch would
be more than triple the 1976 harvest. The total groundfish catch
will have more than doubled.
The act expanded the catch potential and the fish were caught.
Now there are none. Let us have done with any talk of using the
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act to deliver any part of
TAGS. I call on the government to bring in to the House a
comprehensive bill that would outline its objectives and would
give it the necessary authority to carry out the needed changes in
the Atlantic groundfishery.
Dwindling stocks, caused in part by a failure to manage the
fishery, created the need for TAGS. While the government is
spending nearly $2 billion on TAGS due to this failure to
manage the fishery, it is not even maintaining existing
surveillance and enforcement programs on the east coast.
No better case exemplifies the willingness to allow this
important infrastructure to run down than the letting of the
contract for the fisheries observers in the Scotia-Fundy region
earlier this year. The government did not even follow its own
tendering rules. The tender requirements were manipulated in
order to give the contract to a company that had no experience
with foreign vessels and the offshore fishery.
The company has been allowed to use observers without the
necessary experience. There has already been overfishing as a
result. There have been published reports in sector 3-0 of
vessels without observers catching undersized fish and dumping
the unwanted fish at sea. There have been problems with Cuban
vessels in the silver hake fisheries which by law must have
observers on every vessel. The Cubans are fishing in Canadian
waters without experienced observers on board.
4535
This makes a mockery of TAGS. The improprieties in the
letting of this observer contract are too numerous to list today,
but I do want to comment on one further problem that came to
my attention this morning.
Fisheries observers this morning told me that those fisheries
observers who appeared before the standing committee only a
few weeks ago have been blacklisted by the new observer
contractor who has refused to hire them simply because they
came to Ottawa and addressed the committee on the
improprieties on the letting of this contract. If that were not bad
enough, there is also an investigation under way into allegations
against the chief of the fisheries observer program in Halifax as
to his involvement in the letting of the observer contract.
The investigator was to have submitted his report today. The
investigator told my office this morning that the investigation
had been delayed for perhaps two weeks.
I call on the government to explain the status of this
investigation into the chief of the observer program and to
explain why DFO has delayed the completion and release of the
investigator's report.
In his report the Auditor General noted two other items I think
worth mentioning. He said that the government had difficulty in
targeting payments only to those clearly affected by the
moratorium. What he means in this regard, as I understand it, is
first that it is very difficult to define who those plant workers are
who were directly involved, and second many people who are
not covered by this program were as well seriously affected by
the decline in fish stocks.
(1305 )
The other point that he makes, and I think again it is very
appropriate, is that fewer people than expected were taking
training that would lead to work outside the fishery or were
taking up retirement options in response to the adjustment
component of this program.
What we have to do is help people overcome the difficulties
that have been forced on them by this program, not simply to
give them a handout and say: ``Here it is, take this, go away. We
do not want to hear from you again''. We must provide
opportunity for people so that they can lead successful and
happy lives.
We on this side of the House envision an east coast fishery that
is viable, self-sufficient and sustainable. We believe that the
fishery can and should be a cornerstone of a more diversified
economy in Atlantic Canada. We are confident Atlantic
Canadians can compete in a world economy.
The government would have Atlantic Canadians living
dependent on government handouts and in a constant state of
instability. It is the desire of Reform members to encourage the
implementation of a comprehensive program of change which
would see the people of Atlantic Canada not only working but
working in an environment that is both profitable and satisfying.
On the other hand the implementation of the government's
plans will be to perpetuate the tragedy that is currently taking
place in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak on this bill, a bill
that has great significance to me and to my riding, indeed my
province and my section of Canada.
I had to redo the presentation that I prepared because I was
assuming that this bill would get unanimous support in the
House. I was surprised and I might even say disturbed to find
that this bill does not have the support of the Reform Party.
Perhaps if I had been here last week I would have known about
this. I fail to see the logic of why it cannot accept this bill.
Perhaps later during the debate today some hon. members from
that party will be able to express to the people of Newfoundland
and to Atlantic Canada why they do not find it in their hearts to
support this bill.
I think it is a very important bill. It is important to the people
of Newfoundland. It is important to those plant workers in this
particular case who have been employed in the industry all their
lives, generations, who have not been able to and are unlikely to
find work with the devastation of the industry.
Rather than speak directly on the bill, perhaps with the idea of
having the Reform Party revise its outlook on this, I would like
to give some indication of the proportion of this tremendous
catastrophe that has befallen us. I am not going to attribute
blame. I am not going to talk about the politics. I am going to
give the dimension of it.
I can appreciate that those outside the fishery would find it
very difficult to understand what has befallen those people in
Atlantic Canada through the loss of the groundfish. They know
now the industry may not be allowed to rebound for a decade.
The best scientific advice is five to seven years.
To understand the proportion of this catastrophe, in terms of
the Cashin report it is a called a famine of biblical proportions. I
do not think that is an exaggeration.
The sea is to those who fish like land is to those who farm.
Any farmers here or representatives of farmers would appreciate
what that statement means. Fishing, like farming, is more than a
job because the relationship of the fisher to the sea is more than
economic. It is organic. It is a way of life. It is a community.
I come from a family which has been in the fishing industry
for seven generations. My grandfather was in the business until
he was 66. He was in it from the time he was a young man.
4536
(1310 )
There is a sense of belonging. There is a sense of
accomplishment. There is a sense of community. There is a
sense of past, present and future involved in this kind of organic
relationship, in this case, to the sea and to the fishing industry. I
cannot think of any more global terms or inextricably linked
terms in which to put it.
Having said that, the devastation of the industry affects not
just one industry towns. It is not a question of Catalina,
Bonavista, Port Union, Melrose or a single town, it is a whole
coastal area. In the cases I just talked about, it is the whole
Bonavista peninsula. The plant in Port Union that employed
1,200 people supported 65 communities. That plant's closing
down essentially means that most of the working population for
men and women will not have jobs, not just in the three or four
communities that are served by this plant but by 65
communities. I know that is hard to realize.
Again I would like to express the importance of the industry to
Atlantic Canada. The parliamentary secretary said that in the
case of this bill, 75 per cent of those affected are from
Newfoundland. I want to concentrate on Newfoundland because
that is the area I know the most about.
We have very few centres in Newfoundland that are not
dependent on the fisheries. I will give the exceptions in case
there is any doubt in anybody's mind. We have three pulp and
paper towns, Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Stephenville. There
is one mining town in Labrador City. There is one town that is
based on hydroelectricity and that is Churchill Falls. There are a
handful of very small farming communities. I have a few in my
riding, I suppose the best known is Codroy. There are also
several administrative and business centres like St. John's and
Gander.
Almost all of the other 800 communities in the province
depend entirely on the fisheries. Indirectly, even the
administrative and the business centres that I talked about
depend on the fisheries as they exist in large measure to provide
services to the fishery dependent communities. The loss of
groundfish fishery for a period of five to ten years can trigger the
collapse of whole coastal areas, as I talked about earlier.
Let me be more specific and quote figures for those who may
not be as familiar with this as some others in the House. Almost
every fourth person in the goods producing sector in
Newfoundland relied on the fishery-one in four. Regarding the
plant worker, viewed from the manufacturing sector, every
second person was engaged in fish processing, which is now
virtually wiped out.
Let me talk to my colleagues from Ontario and perhaps from
Quebec. If a calamity of similar magnitude befell Ontario's
manufacturing industry some 800,000 people would lose their
jobs. In Newfoundland 16 per cent of the total workforce
depends on the fishery for all of its income compared with 2.6
per cent in Ontario in manufacturing, auto industry.
If you compare 16 per cent in one province with 2.6 per cent
related to the auto industry, putting this another way, the
devastation of the fishery in Newfoundland has the same effect
as five times closing down the automobile industry in Ontario.
You are from Ontario, Mr. Speaker. I do not have to tell you
what that would mean. That is another indication of the kind of
proportion that we are talking about.
Let me go back a few years, the year that I was elected, 1988.
Harvesting and processing in the fishing industry provided
employment income to about 48,000 people, which generated a
total income of approximately $700 million a year.
In 1994, 1995 and beyond much of this purchasing power,
sustaining thousands of families in hundreds of communities
along the coastal areas, will be severely reduced.
I have 260 communities in my riding. Everyone relates to the
factors that I mentioned. As a result, the majority of these
people and their families will suffer sustained income loss. I am
just talking about the families and those who are directly
affected.
(1315)
I want to talk now about the cumulative effect. What is the
second, third or fourth order effect? The multiplier effect will
reverberate through an already weak economy. The official
unemployment rate hovers at about 25 per cent, but the
unofficial rate is over 50 per cent. I do not have to tell many
people in the House that this is the case.
People say to me that I have Hibernia in my riding. Hibernia
cannot be viewed as a significant offset to the devastating
problem in the fishery. It cannot absorb all the communities. It
cannot absorb the unemployed. In many cases it cannot even
cope with the training period, the training opportunities and the
skills that are developed. It could cope with some, yes, but
Hibernia at its height could not even cope. We are talking about
48,000 people.
If no compensation measures are taken, the large and small
fishery dependent communities I talked about will face total
economic and social collapse. There are other results as well:
the compensation expenditures, the retail trade, and the
financial viability. I have had people say to me that they
appreciate my standing up for fisherpersons and plant workers
but that there are construction workers and other people who do
not have jobs. I appreciate that and try to do what I can for them
as well.
4537
The point of the matter is that if I do not support those in the
fishing industry and the compensation is not there, the corner
grocery stores will shut down and the butcher shops will shut
down. I suppose eventually the schools will shut down because
there will be no pupils to send; there will not be any people left.
This money does more than compensate those directly
involved. It keeps stores going and all the second, third and
fourth derivatives. It is not only that. If there is no
compensation, government revenues will decline. There will be
another effect which does not affect us directly in the House of
Commons. As a Newfoundlander I concern myself with its
provincial budget. In 1992-93, $180 million was spent on social
welfare in large part to look after people who had not been able
to get compensation in the fishery or who had gone through their
unemployment insurance related to the fishery and could not
qualify.
In the budget of March 17, 1994 tabled by the Newfoundland
government it was noted that 13.6 per cent of all expenditure in
Newfoundland would be for social welfare. That is a sad note. It
is even sadder to say that in this coming fiscal year there will be
$29 million more needed than the year before to look after social
cases, those unfortunate people who have not been able to
qualify. I could go on but I think I have made my point.
It was suggested that maybe governments of the past had
made mistakes. I know they have made mistakes. Governments
are not perfect but governments have responsibility for these
kinds of disasters. The government certainly has responsibility
now to help affected individuals adjust to the calamity of losing
their livelihood and with no hope of it being replaced.
Plant workers who were 50 years of age as of last May 15 or
would be 55 years of age over the course of TAGS, the Atlantic
groundfish strategy program, very much apply in this case. It is
the responsibility of the government to look after them. It has a
responsibility toward fishery dependent communities to help
them adjust. This is true throughout Atlantic Canada but
particularly in those coastal regions primarily dependent on
groundfish.
The southern and northern coasts of Trinity Bay, all of
Bonavista Bay and in many cases the northern part of
Conception Bay have been wiped out. I mentioned the Bonavista
peninsula earlier.
There is a responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. They have a responsibility themselves because they
are dramatically affected as a society. To adjust to the disaster or
the economic and social consequences is a necessity. It is not
something that is just desirable or could be done; it is something
that should be done and has to be done.
(1320)
We cannot take conventional approaches to these kinds of
adjustments. I agreed with something said on the other side a
few moments ago, that some old methods of the past have not
worked. I do not disagree with that.
In the summary of the report of the fisheries committee,
particularly with respect to witnesses from Newfoundland on
March 31, the chairman said that we would fail if we tried to be
100 per cent successful. I agree. We are not going to be 100 per
cent successful.
I appeal to the Reform Party that is not going to support the
bill that Bill C-30 is a measure of success which I do not think
should be downgraded or denigrated. It should be viewed in the
total package. It is one part of the package and I happen to think
this part is successful.
The task is too great to be undertaken in the way things have
been done in the past. The key to shaping the fishery of the
future and dealing with appropriate adjustment programs will be
involving the affected people through their own programs and
through their own institutions: fishermen and industry
organizations, co-operatives and community organizations.
That was done in the Cashin report. That was done in the
fisheries committee when it was reviewing this matter. That was
done by the minister and his staff. That was done by the human
resources minister in advance of the bill.
Sending in outsiders, however well intentioned, to sit fishery
workers down in classrooms and tell them about the future in
itself will not inspire confidence among those whose livelihoods
have been destroyed. Unless governments in partnership with
the industry and the people affected can shape a credible vision
of hope, the coastal society of Atlantic Canada will be consumed
by anxiety and despair. I do not believe there is one member of
any party or an individual member of the House who would want
that to happen.
I have spent most of my time putting the bill into perspective.
I have relied on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources Development to talk about the details of the
bill. Bill C-30 is a very simple bill. It basically says that the
minister may enter into an agreement referred to in a subsection
of the Department of Labour Act to have the act apply to former
employees who are less than 55 years of age. The condition is
that former employees must be 50 years of age or more as of
May 15 past. Significant to the debate is former employees of
fish plants whose employment has been terminated by reason of
a permanent reduction in the workforce at the plants because of a
decline in fish stocks.
I say to those who do not support the bill that I have 57
processing plants in my riding. They will not look kindly on any
member of the House who says that it is imperfect, that it is not
totally the government's responsibility, that Newfoundlanders
are being shortchanged and this is just adding to the situation, or
for any other reason. Those who have run out of dollars to
support their families and who are at an age when their prospects
of finding work in a province where the unofficial unemploy-
4538
ment rate is close to 50 per cent would not take too kindly to that
either.
I stand as a member of the House, as a spokesman for my
party, to say that we appreciate the disastrous proportions of the
calamity that has beset Newfoundland. Whose responsibility is
it? I could spend the rest of the day attributing blame and I
probably would not be right. I might feel a bit better, but it would
not do much for those people who have been affected.
I am saying to all members in the House who do not support
the bill to take the perspective I have given, to take into
consideration the 1,200 people and their families directly
affected by the bill, and to take into consideration the possibility
of anxiety and difficulty of living, of getting up in the morning,
supporting themselves and sending their kids to school. Many of
the 50-year old plant workers have young children. I know them
individually. A proportion of the 1,200 plant workers in the 57
plants in my riding will be watching the newscast on their
televisions today and reading the Evening Telegram or their
local papers. They will be very pleased that at second reading of
the bill this member, this party and this government gave full
and total support to a bill that I believe is one of the most
important bills the House has ever seen.
(1325)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I was very impressed by the passion displayed by the
hon. member in his presentation and the quality of the
arguments put forward, but I would have a brief comment to
make.
I would have liked him to have displayed and to display the
same passion on the UI entrance requirement issue. So, here is
my question: if we are going to be this compassionate and
supportive of plant workers confronted to the difficult situation
of finding themselves jobless and unable to find a new job, how
does he reconcile this position, these impassioned and perfectly
justified remarks with the provisions concerning 50-year old
workers?
How does he reconcile that with the changes made to the
unemployment policy, changes which, as it is, will affect mainly
the provinces he is particularly concerned for?
Let me give you an example. In the Magdalen Islands, last
year, 43 per cent of UI recipients could barely meet the
minimum 10-week requirement. With the proposed changes to
the Unemployment Insurance Act, many of these people will be
forced onto the welfare rolls.
I was wondering if the hon. member would not see fit to make
on their behalf representations similar to those he has just made
to his government regarding the increase in the number of weeks
of work required to qualify for unemployment insurance and the
reduction of the benefit period. Could he not put the same
arguments to his government, and particularly to the Minister of
Human Resources Development, to be realistic and show
compassion for the workers affected because fish plant workers
seldom manage to find work for more than 10 weeks?
Would the hon. member be prepared to make representations
to the Minister of Human Resources Development to at least
restore the status quo with respect to UI benefits and the length
of the benefit period?
[English]
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for
the point the hon. member raised. Many of us have been in the
situation he has been in. I would imagine he comes from a part of
Canada where unemployment is particularly high. He did not
give the rate but I judge from what he said that it is high.
As a member of Parliament representing fishermen I have
suffered the criticism-we all suffer criticism and nobody
enjoys it-of supporting one group against another. That is
certainly not the case at all. When the necessity was there I was
supporting construction workers and other workers peripheral to
the fishery. I refer to truckers and people who have stores that
sell spare parts and maintain fishery vessels large and small. I
could extend it to people in construction work who are not
building piers and breakwaters because the requirement is not as
great as it was.
The situation is not entirely the same. In this case a total
industry was wiped out by an act of God or whatever. I really did
not plan to attribute blame. It is not just the responsibility of the
communities. Responsibility rests with communities, which
means individuals. It rests with the provincial government. It
rests with the federal government. This catastrophe or loss of
work is so great that the effort required is not just a regional
effort but is a national effort as well.
In my response to the member I say that the disastrous effect
of a complete wipeout of an industry does not get the same
response from government or individuals in other sectors who
are not affected to such a large degree.
(1330 )
If I were the member I would say that does not really do much
for my workers. I appreciate that. I guess the points made by the
Minister of Human Resources Development were that the
resources are limited and the present system, it has been proven
by a number of experts in the field, does not do anything to get
people back to work, so the adjustments that have been planned,
that have been programmed, are not similar to those that are
being discussed in this particular bill.
4539
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 1.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4539
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved
that Bill C-203, an Act to provide for the review of postal rates
and services and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this bill to
the House of Commons today. This is not my first attempt; as
you may know, I presented this same bill in the 34th Parliament,
but unfortunately I was not lucky enough then in that my name
was not drawn by lot, as is required for debating such an
initiative.
I would like to take a few moments to give you the background
of this bill. In June 1988, the minister who was then responsible
for Canada Post announced the creation of the Postal Services
Review Committee, PSRC, which I am proposing to the House
today.
In August 1988, the government tabled a bill, C-149, to create
the Postal Services Review Board. Unfortunately, when the 33rd
Parliament was dissolved, the bill died on the Order Paper.
Meanwhile, in November 1989, the PSRC made public
several recommendations, most of which were not acted on by
the Conservative government of that time. In 1990, the Minister
of Finance in his budget abolished the review committee.
At present, Canada Post must publish its new or amended
regulations in the Canada Gazette, after which the interested
parties have 60 days to make their comments to the minister
responsible.
After the Board of the Corporation reviews the regulations,
the proposal is sent to the Governor in Council, who in turn has
60 days to accept or reject it. If no decision is made within that
time, the regulation is deemed to be accepted and approved.
Under clause 18 of the bill I am proposing to this House today,
Canada Post would have to submit a copy of any proposed
regulation to the board for review at least ten days before it is
published in the Canada Gazette. The board would have 120
days to hold a public hearing into the merits of the proposed
regulation. The public would be notified of the times and places
of each hearing at least 30 days in advance so that they can
submit their recommendations in writing to the board.
(1335)
The board would then publish its recommendations and
comments in the Canada Gazette as soon as possible. The
corporation would have 30 days to notify the board in writing
whether or not it accepts the recommendations and, if not, to
outline the reasons of its decision. This response would also be
published in the Canada Gazette. The proposed regulation in its
original form or, if amended as a result of the board's
recommendations, in its amended form would then be submitted
to the Governor in Council. If the Governor in Council has not
approved or rejected the proposed regulation 30 days after
receiving it, he shall be deemed to have approved it. It is similar
in this regard to the current practice.
All major service proposals from Canada Post would be
treated the same way. The corporation would have to send the
board a copy of its corporate plan at least 180 days before
submitting it to the government. The board would have 120 days
to review the proposal, including a 30-day public notice, hold
hearings and send its recommendations to Canada Post.
Again, the public would be informed of the recommendations.
The corporation would have to respond to the board within 30
days and the response would be made public. This response
would be in line with the proposal that the corporation would
attach to its corporate plan and would be forwarded to the
minister to be approved by the government. It would then be up
to government officials to make the final decision concerning
the rate increase and other major changes to postal services. In
other words, the government would keep its decision-making
authority. However, we would have this quasi-regulatory
process I am proposing today.
The main thing is that this process will be as open and public
as possible. Canadians will be kept informed, they will have the
opportunity to make comments, to know the recommendations
made by the Board, as well as the response of Canada Post and
the decision reached by the public authorities.
Besides the regular reviews of the postal rates and services,
the Board will conduct other examinations at the request of the
minister. In other words, the minister will have the authority to
ask the Board to undertake additional reviews on any issue
related to Canada Post. This way, the minister will be able to ask
the Board to hold public hearings on any issue. In such a case,
the Board would present its recommendations either to the
minister or to the Canada Post Corporation.
4540
[English]
The bill that I have produced today, Bill C-203, has its origins
in a previous Parliament. It was designed to address a number of
concerns related to Canadians that reflected the previous
government's broader agenda.
We all know that government, the Tory government, cut many
services to Canadians in the name of balancing the books, not
just postal services but many other services as well; VIA Rail,
the CBC, I could go on and on, but especially the post office and
especially in rural Canada.
In essence the Conservative government thumbed its nose at
Canadians, particularly rural Canadians, and slashed programs
without considering the impact on the people of our country.
What a change with the compassionate and caring government
that we have now.
That environment at the time fostered resentment and
suspicion among Canadians that they were being shut out of
decisions affecting their daily lives. There was a strong
perception that the former government and by extension federal
institutions in general were not serving Canadians as they were
intended to do but were ignoring their concerns.
(1340 )
Even though this is a crown corporation and not a government
department, Canada Post is the most visible federal government
presence for many Canadians, especially in rural areas and small
towns. Consequently the general dissatisfaction with the former
government's method of operation caused people to question
how the corporation serves them and whether their interests are
being adequately considered in decisions about postal service.
I remember those awful decisions of years gone by when
Canada Post decided in communities in my riding to shut down
the post office.
[Translation]
That reminds me of something that happened in St. Albert, a
community in my riding where the famous St. Albert cheese is
made. This is a very dynamic, fast growing community with its
three farm co-ops. So, obviously, no one could argue that St.
Albert did not need postal services any more. However, the
previous government decided to close the post office in that
community. Why? Was it because it was not needed any more?
No. Was it because the people did not need postal services any
more? No. Was it because the post office was losing money?
Absolutely not! It was closed because the postmaster had
retired. Can you imagine making business decisions like that?
Can you imagine closing down a plant because the manager
retires? Fortunately, that government, and its attitude, were
replaced by a more reasonable one.
For rural Canadians, the best day since the last election was
when the minister responsible for Canada Post rose in this
House to say that there would be no more post office closures in
rural areas. That was an important day for my fellow citizens
living in villages and small communities.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate again the
minister responsible for Canada Post.
It is the lack of concern shown by the previous government
regarding the needs of Canadians living in rural areas and, to
some extent, in urban centres, which prompted MPs like me to
table bills such as this one. The purpose of this legislation is to
ensure accountability and services to Canadians in rural areas.
Mr. Laurin: It suits your own needs!
Mr. Boudria: The hon. member opposite is alluding to
sovereignty again. I want to tell him that the day after he was
sworn in, the Minister responsible for Canada Post made another
important decision. He told Canada Post officials-and I am not
blaming them, I am blaming the previous government-that
from now on, the Canadian flag would fly over post offices. This
had always been the case in the past and the tradition was
reinstated. The only federal symbol in rural areas is again
present, thanks to the minister who, on that day, fulfilled his
responsibilities toward Canadians. He displayed that same sense
of duty when he said that enough was enough and that no more
rural post offices would be closed. From now on, the Canada
Post Corporation will be there to serve Canadians. This is what I
call leadership! This is the kind of decision Canadians expect
from their government, and I congratulate the minister for
taking those initiatives.
[English]
As we all know, Canadians resoundingly rejected the previous
government's exclusive focus on the bottom line. Might I add
they rejected pretty soundly the previous government, period.
The fact that there are only two members bearing that party's
affiliation in this House is testimony to that.
(1345 )
The purpose of Bill C-203, as I said previously, is to enable
the public to play an important role in the establishment of
postal rates and the provision of postal services. It would put in
place additional safeguards to give Canadians a greater voice in
how Canada Post serves them and to avoid the possibility of
unilateral and arbitrary decisions by Canada Post, decisions that
were made in the past because of the lack of political leadership.
I remember asking questions of the minister responsible for
Canada Post. Remember that word, responsible. When I would
question the then member for Calgary Centre, Harvie Andre,
who was the minister at the time he would say: ``Don't ask us
about Canada Post. It is a crown corporation. I'll not do
anything''. Those were the kinds of answers we were getting.
4541
Those answers were not satisfactory for my constituents. Rural
Canadians did not like those answers.
Is it a coincidence that in rural Ontario, actually all of
Ontario, where the Conservatives shut down so many rural post
offices that all MPs are Liberals, except one? Rural Ontarians
and Ontarians in general understood that kind of Tory mindset
and the lack of leadership they provided in that regard just was
not the way. That is why they elected this government. That is
why this government took those two very important decisions I
brought to the Chair's attention only moments ago.
What are Canadians' expectations of their postal service?
First, they expect fair and reasonable rates for mail delivery.
Canadians want some assurance that Canada Post will deal with
them fairly, particularly when the price of a postage stamp
increases or the price of other services increases. There may
well be valid reasons for proposing a postal increase. Everyone
knows that has to occur from time to time. Everyone recognizes
that costs can go up and they do.
Canada Post must be financially self-sufficient whenever
possible, but if a rate increase is proposed Canadians want an
opportunity for input. They want to know that Canada Post has
not unfairly taken advantage of its customers.
In fairness to the corporation I must point out that the rate
increase for letter mail since January 1992 has been at a lower
level than the cumulative increase for the consumer price index
during that period. However that is not the only issue. Canadians
want to know they can participate as I said previously.
Second, Canadians want to know that Canada Post is fulfilling
its mandate to provide a vital service. Notice those words, a vital
service.
As a member for rural Canada I know the postmaster is not
just a person who gives you an envelope. The post office is the
place where forms are picked up for old age pensions, passports
and a whole number of other services. The post office is a
meeting place where Canadians congregate. I do not apologize
for that; I think that is wonderful.
The postmaster is a person who is by statute of Canada
assigned specific responsibilities such as vouching for
someone's passport. You do not do that by simply replacing the
post office with a service somewhere in the corner of a
drugstore. A postmaster has specific responsibilities and
important ones, particularly in rural Canada. That is why I am
glad this government has said that the post office is in rural
Canada, it is not there temporarily, it is there to stay.
Canadians have clearly said they reject the previous
government's single-minded focus on cutbacks.
(1350 )
If changes to the post office are proposed, Canadians have the
right to be consulted. They have the right to have their views
considered seriously. We must ensure that the framework within
which Canada Post operates provides Canadians the
participation in decisions about the level and types of postal
services available to them.
That is why I proposed this bill to the House today. I will say it
again in closing, I am proud to see the things done so far by the
minister responsible for Canada Post. I know everyone realizes
we have only just begun and that more will be done in the weeks,
months and years to come.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his speech. I do not know
whether he remembers, but we once met at the Saint-Clément
post office, one of the post offices that was closed. I agree with
the hon. member that the previous government lacked the most
elementary respect for every aspect of rural development and
for the vital role played by post offices in rural communities.
I agree with his objections to the policy of also making
closures contingent on the age of the postmaster. I do not think
the policy made much sense.
In any event, the moratorium ordered by the Liberal
government was also mentioned by the Bloc québécois during
the last election campaign, and in fact, we can say it probably
came as a result of the will of the community and the leadership
provided by people like members of Rural Dignity and the
postmasters' association.
I think we have them to thank for this decision, and I believe
that Quebecers and Canadians sent a very clear signal to the
government that they rejected this somewhat ruthless policy.
Where the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
and I differ is on the quality of the moratorium. The one we have
now is full of holes. I will give you an example. The minister has
refused to reconsider past mistakes. The member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell talked earlier about the post
office in St. Albert and I am talking about the post office in
Saint-Clément.
The Liberals, who were then in the opposition, supported the
reopening but, as soon as they were elected, they declared a
moratorium. The Liberals now completely discard the
possibility to examine those cases where real flaws have been
identified, even the ones they denounced when they were in the
opposition.
4542
I have a short message to convey in this regard. The people of
Saint-Clément are very patient. They take their time but they
usually win and they have taken steps to have the post office
reopened.
This will be an opportunity to see if the Liberal government,
with this moratorium, really wants the communities to have
their post office, because the will shown by the people of
Saint-Clément will be supported by those of the area
and-which will be very different from the last time-by the
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup who supports
people of Saint-Clément, rather than the opposite.
The moratorium declared by the Liberals also has other flaws,
for instance the fact there will be no post office closing in
municipalities with less than two post offices. This may look
fine, but I am witnessing in my own riding another situation
rather absurd, I must say, where it has been decided that a part of
the mail going to Rivière-du-Loup would be sorted in
Rimouski, approximately 100 kilometres away.
So they do not close the post office in a municipality-the
moratorium forbids it-but they dismantle it from within. It
certainly does not look like the best solution.
I feel this is more like playing on words. They are not
respecting the essence of the moratorium by doing things like
that, but there again they launched a process which I hope will
succeed in guaranteeing the future of the post office in
Rivière-du-Loup and will, at the same time, contribute to the
economic development of the region.
(1355)
As we said before, I think good common sense would dictate
that the post office not be closed simply because the postmaster
is reaching retirement age and that we do not, for no reasonable
cause, send a postmaster to sort mail in a post office elsewhere
when in fact there is work to be done sorting mail in his own
municipality.
I believe the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is
very persistent since he is tabling the same bill again, but his
government does not have the same kind of backbone. In fact,
the government could have proposed such a bill; the Bloc
Quebecois would not have been opposed to the implementation
of a regulation mechanism for the operations of the Canada Post
Corporation. Provided that the system we set up is not too
bureaucratic, I believe that, indeed, the action plan of an agency
like Canada Post Corporation needs to be reviewed by the
elected representatives of the people, because the objectives
given to the corporation are not necessarily social, whereas
government objectives could be.
I am glad that this bill has been introduced, but I am sorry that
it is not a votable item, because there will be no real follow-up
on it. Moreover, it is not introduced by the government, and the
government should be criticized on that score.
What we need in this area is a real policy, a comprehensive
policy that would show that we want to behave differently from
the Conservatives. If we had a system guaranteeing openness of
actions and mandate, if we had a board of directors made up
differently, for example with representatives of the regions of
Quebec or Canada, Canada Post would be more likely to listen to
the regions and to consider more than strict productivity.
I believe that the employees of Canada Post do their jobs.
They do them well, but according to the mandates they receive.
If the board of directors was made up of people concerned with
rural development they would certainly act differently.
Also, and this is quite obvious, we really need to change the
approach to human resource management. Do you know that
presently, in the post office of a medium-size town, there is no
postmaster? Someone is in charge of sorting, someone else is in
charge of marketing, but there is no real boss. That means that
within the same organisation someone is only concerned about
costs whereas somebody else deals with sales. No small
business managed that way would last more than a year. There is
nobody to balance both sides of the operation and that puts us in
a ludicrous situation.
Moreover, there is a long history of bitter labour disputes, and
a great degree of openness is needed to create a different climate
at the Post Office.
Everything remains to be done at the Canada Post
Corporation. We must salute the efforts made by the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and recognize the need for an
adequate regulation process that would not be overly
bureaucratic, but we must go further than that. It is now up to the
government. It must give a clear message. We need more than a
moratorium full of loopholes which allows the Canada Post
Corporation to pursue its down-sizing process without regards
for the needs of regional communities. The government must
make its position known and state unequivocally that the Post
Office, as well as VIA Rail and other transportation companies,
are regional development tools.
It is only when we receive this kind of message from the
government, through its minister, that we will be able to say that
the mission has been accomplished. In the meantime, everything
remains to be done.
(1400)
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in this debate this afternoon. It
is a concern of mine and has been for some time.
I join in the debate to support the concept of periodic reviews
of Canada Post Corporation and its proposals to change the
postal rates. I believe it is high time that Canada Post Corpora-
4543
tion became answerable in some public way to somebody other
than cabinet.
The postal service in Canada has been the subject of much
debate and public displeasure for many years. In the late 1970s
and early 1980s there was concern expressed over large deficits
and accumulated debt in the post office. Then the solution
seemed to be to set the post office up as a crown corporation.
This was going to bring efficient management to the post office.
In some ways it may have brought some form of efficient
management but it was a management that did not care about the
people of Canada.
The people of Canada depend on the post office, on mail
delivery. This is a vast, mostly rural country where mail delivery
to the door or to the mailbox at the end of a farm lane is taken as
a given in Canadian society.
Not any more. We have superboxes for homeowners in new
suburbs to walk to and we have post office closures by the
hundreds in rural areas. This has already happened.
Many rural Canadians have been saddened by the closure of
their rural post offices because in many of these small
communities their local post office was a spot where one could
meet and chat with neighbours and their local postmistress or
postmaster. It served a real social purpose in the community as
well as a postal service.
In Lake Errock, one of our small postal communities in my
riding of Mission-Coquitlam, the residents have worked hard
over the last two years trying to get Canada Post to recognize the
rights and necessities of their part of rural Canada.
To Canada Post I suggest just looking at economics is not
enough. The post office is set up to serve the people and it is
hoped that the present government will be concerned about all
Canadians and continue to recognize rural post offices.
The other problem faced by Canadians was the intermittent,
or should we say the regular strikes or work stoppages by the
postal workers. Who in the House can forget the regular nightly
images on our television screens of the postal workers' union
heads, Joe Davidson and later Jean-Claude Parrot, spelling out
their ludicrous demands on behalf of their workers while we all
suffered with mail delivery shut down?
I used to send out many Christmas cards and about that time I
stopped sending out Christmas cards and I have not done so
since.
I agree, the post office perhaps more than any other crown
corporation needs a watchdog that can review price increases
and internal matters to ensure that Canada Post is properly run
and that taxpayers are at least in this instance getting their
money's worth.
As I said, to this extent I agree with the thrust of Bill C-203.
However, set up a new bureaucracy to monitor the post office, a
new board supported by a secretariat, personnel and all the
attendant trappings? Maybe when there was more money in the
treasury and maybe when the public was less cynical about
government appointments to tribunals such as this, but surely
not now.
The previous government was infamous for the proliferation
of boards and tribunals to which it would appoint its friends and
supporters. The Canadian people voted last October to stop this
kind of practice and we in the Reform Party respect the wishes of
the Canadian people.
As I said earlier, the thrust of this bill is a good idea. Surely
the types of things that the review board was going to do in this
bill can be done by the government operations committee of the
House of Commons.
Canada Post Corporation is within the mandate of that
committee. The committee deals with the estimates of Canada
Post Corporation and if the inquiries are structured properly this
committee should be able to do the job of Bill C-203's review
board.
I served for a short time on the government operations
committee and it seemed to me at the time that after the
estimates were reported back from the various departments
which reported to this committee, this committee would have
sufficient time at its disposal to deal with Canada Post
Corporation.
My suggestion puts the responsibility for the post office
operations where it belongs, in Parliament. It is the fundamental
function of all of us here to serve the Canadian people. One way
of serving them is to put the subject of mail processing and
delivery in the hands of elected representatives.
(1405 )
To be precise, Canada Post would at least 10 days before
publishing a proposed regulation in The Canada Gazette send a
copy to the clerk of the government operations committee for
review. The committee would have 120 days within which to
hold public hearings on the merits of the proposal and make
recommendations to Canada Post. The committee's
recommendations would be published in The Canada Gazette
and the corporation would have 30 days to report to the
committee in writing.
The recommendations of the committee and the response by
Canada Post would be submitted to cabinet. If cabinet did not act
within 30 days the regulation would come into force.
Again, when Canada Post wishes to make major changes in
service these corporate plans would be submitted to the
government operations committee for review. Surely that is one
of its purposes.
4544
Ultimately after a public hearing process the
recommendations of the committee would be sent back to
Canada Post and then the entire package submitted to the
minister in charge of Canada Post for final approval.
With respect to rate increases, while the final decision would
be up to the cabinet, a full public hearing process would have
taken place on the subject and the rate increases again by the
government operations committee. An important issue that the
government operations committee in its review of the post
office may wish to inquire into is whether, as alleged by the
Canadian Courier Association, Canada Post is using the
revenues gained because of its exclusive role as a mail courier to
subsidize the purchase and operation of courier systems. Such
an inquiry would be a good first step in establishing that the
members of the House of Commons were serious about holding
the Canada Post Corporation to account.
The Canadian Courier Association in a letter dated October
29, 1993 sent to all members of the 35th Parliament set out its
concerns about Canada Post. It recited the findings of the
Nielsen task force and the inquiry of Alan Marchment carried
out in 1986 to support their case. I suppose it was the purchase of
Purolator Courier that prompted this outrage by the Courier
Canadian Association. Who can blame it? Canada Post used its
unique position to subsidize its areas which compete with the
private sector so Canada Post can charge less than the private
sector.
As I said, this would be an ideal matter for the government
operations committee to investigate.
In conclusion, while I support the thrust of Bill C-203, I do
not support the means to accomplish the end. I would support
amendments to the bill which would put the government
operations committee as the review agency and would also
support whatever changes would be necessary to the rules of this
House to allow the government operations committee to
perform this task.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-203 was introduced to address the concerns of
the Canadian public over postal service in Canada. It is a
commendable effort on the part of the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
As we have heard, this bill is substantially the same as Bill
C-207 which was introduced during the previous Parliament.
Since that time and since the introduction of Bill C-203,
considerable progress has been made following the
implementation of government policies designed to meet the
needs of Canadians while enabling the Canada Post Corporation
to carry out its mandate.
[English]
In 1981 Canada Post Corporation was given a broad mandate
that included achieving self-sufficiency while acting as a
commercial arm's length crown corporation, becoming part of
the business marketplace, and providing a federal presence in
communities across Canada. Since then Canada Post has been
taking measures to reach these objectives and has made
considerable progress. It is imperative that Canada Post
maintain its ability to fulfil its mandate.
Much progress has been made since Canada Post Corporation
was created in 1981. At that time Canada Post faced economic
uncertainty and was losing $600 million yearly. Twelve years
later Canada Post Corporation declared profits in the last four of
the five fiscal years and has paid dividends to its shareholder,
the Government of Canada.
By improving its efficiency, updating technology and
improving labour relations Canada Post has managed a
remarkable turnaround. Furthermore, its on time delivery of
mail to Canadians has been under regular and open scrutiny
through an independent consulting firm.
(1410 )
Canada Post has moved forward and will continue to do so as a
competitive, lean corporation that not only delivers mail on time
98 per cent of the time but delivers an important service to all
Canadians.
[Translation]
The government supports the positive changes made by the
Canada Post Corporation with a view to meeting the postal
service needs of Canadian consumers and businesses. The
moratorium on post office closures announced at the beginning
of the year by the hon. minister responsible for the Canada Post
Corporation is one of the best examples of positive change.
If you have ever visited or lived in a small town or rural
community in Canada, you will understand the devastating
impact of the closing of the post office on the community. The
post office is the nerve centre of small communities in Canada
and guarantees a federal presence and an important
communication link with the rest of the country and with the
world.
[English]
Since 1987 close to 1,500 federally operated post offices,
almost one-third of all federal post offices in Canada, have
enclosed or converted. The minister's announcement earlier this
year put an end to the closures of post offices in rural areas and
small towns across the country, an initiative introduced by the
former government which turned a deaf ear to the loud and
emotional outcry of Canadians who risked losing an important
link to the rest of the nation.
The moratorium protects the majority of post offices across
this country. As long as this government remains in power,
4,000 communities across the country are guaranteed the
benefits of a Canada Post operated post office. Further, post
offices located in large urban centres will not be closed without
a public
4545
consultation process conducted through the postal service
customer councils.
This demonstrates the ongoing commitment by the Liberal
Party in saying no to the policy of post office closures, a policy
that seriously hindered Canada Post in carrying out its mandate
to provide a federal presence in communities across Canada.
This brings me to the subject of exclusive privilege that has
been granted to Canada Post. Some would argue that Canada
Post's exclusive privilege for the delivery of letter mail gives it
an unfair advantage and justifies the creation of a monitoring
agency.
However, in today's environment the exclusive privilege is
perhaps more accurately described as an exclusive
responsibility. Only Canada Post has the responsibility to
provide all Canadians throughout the country with postal
services. Its competitors can pick and choose where they can
operate profitably, ignoring Canadians in those regions of the
country where small populations and great distances between
communities would limit the return on investment or result in a
loss.
[Translation]
The Liberal government believes that for all Canadians,
postal service is a right, not merely a privilege. All Canadians
must have access to affordable, reasonable postal service,
regardless of where they live. This essential service is protected
by exclusive privilege which ensures that small communities
and rural regions, the backbone of our vast country, enjoy postal
service at a reasonable cost.
The challenge of providing service to such a vast country is
formidable indeed, Mr. Speaker. I support the principle of
exclusive privilege because it allows for the continued existence
of the necessary infrastructure to provide fair postal service to
all people, regardless of where they live.
Since exclusive privilege affords the Canada Post
Corporation a foreseeable income, the corporation can ensure
universal access to postal service while maintaining its financial
self-sufficiency. This policy is consistent with that followed by
countless postal services around the world.
[English]
Furthermore, it should be taken into consideration that
Canada Post does face increasing competition from the world of
technology such as the electronic transfer of information.
One-third of its business is in competition with couriers, bus
companies, trucking companies, airlines and other such
industries.
In this rapidly evolving environment, competition provides
ample incentive for Canada Post to meet its customers' needs at
an affordable cost.
(1415 )
Other actions that continue to bring Canada Post closer to
fulfilling its mandate include the establishment of a national
control centre and the corporation's new in business to serve
program. The national control centre is located in Ottawa and is
linked to all individual centres across the country as well as to
the dispatching system of airlines and the weather forecasting
network. It constantly monitors mail movement 24 hours a day,
seven days a week in a drive toward even more efficient mail
delivery. It is the most sophisticated mail monitoring system in
the world and has become a model for other postal
administrations.
The national control centre is a great innovation that helps
ensure Canadians receive a high level of postage service.
[Translation]
The future of the Canada Post Corporation looks brighter with
a new approach to client services. The new watchword is ``In
Business to Serve.'' It is also the name of a new program. As I
said earlier, Canada Post has to compete against a growing
number of companies. While some technological
improvements, like the National Control Centre, are helping
Canada Post to keep its place on the market, a new marketing
approach is also needed. With this new ``In Business to Serve''
Program, Canada Post will be able to meet the challenge by
focusing on improved client services and recognizing the
contribution of its employees and partners to this goal.
In conclusion, I would like to stress the real progress made by
the Canada Post Corporation in order to meet the expectations of
all Canadians.
By announcing a moratorium on the closure and conversion of
post offices, the minister has already done a lot to address the
issues raised by this bill. I am sure that the Canada Post
Corporation will find the tools to provide Canadians with the
postal services they need while remaining self-sufficient.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in this debate on a bill the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell introduced in order to impose
some kind of regulation over the closure of rural post offices. In
the last few years, under the previous Conservative government,
many communities in Quebec, in Canada and in my own area
had to fight to try to keep their post office. The people affected
by those closures told us that this struck at the very life of their
community.
Rural communities, of which I have a few in my riding and
many in my area, are often built around the parish church, the
school, and the post office. Those are the usual three institutions
to be found in those communities. In many cases, they have
already lost their school, some do not have a full time priest in
their church any more and their post office has been closed
4546
down. People in these communities are dismayed at the demise
of communities on which their founders had put all their hope.
I am pleased to support the bill introduced by the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell because it provides
some kind of parliamentary control over the closure of post
offices. It is a fact that the Liberal government declared a
moratorium on the closure of post offices in smaller
communities, but a moratorium is no more than that. The
minister who declared the moratorium can lift it just as easily. In
view of the significance of an institution such as the post office
in small communities, I think the Parliament of Canada should
have some control over the potential closure of those offices.
(1420)
I went through an experience last week in my riding. It was
not the closing of a post office, but of a school in the
Saint-Jean-Eudes neighbourhood, in Jonquière.
Saint-Jean-Eudes was once a municipality. After an
amalgamation some time ago, it became a neighbourhood of the
city of Jonquière. The people of Saint-Jean-Eudes had a city
hall, a credit union, a post office and a school; they even had two
schools.
Now, there is no city hall any more, no credit union, the post
office is gone and they have been announced that their school
will be closed.
When I visited these people last Sunday, I could see that they
really had a feeling that a part of their community was going
with their school. I was able to understand the feelings of the
people of Saint-Clément, in Québec, and of St. Albert, in the
riding of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. These
people have seen a part of themselves, have seen major
institutions leave their community, and they are concerned.
I think it is important for the Parliament of Canada to make
sure that justice be done for small communities, that they be
given the necessary means to remain alive and well. Of course,
the argument that they are being given is that their post office is
too isolated, too expensive, not profitable and that cuts are
necessary. It has been said in the case of some small
communities, and it is now being said even for some regions.
For example, some say that the Lac-Saint-Jean or
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region is too far from metropolitan
centres like Quebec City and Canada and that we will no longer
be able to provide some of the services.
As a matter of fact, they are now thinking of abolishing the
passenger service between Jonquière and Montreal because it is
not cost-effective, and the distances involved are too great. And
so they cut a number of services in my region under the pretext
that we are a remote area and that we must understand how the
market operates. When it is not cost-effective anymore, we
must stop spending.
I think that people have good reason to resist arguments like
those because the government's responsibility with regard to
regions, small communities and people in need is still the same.
The government must ensure that its services meet the special
needs of regions, small communities and individuals. It does not
mean that we must give out all kinds of grants and pour money
down the drain, but I think that before closing some institutions,
a post office, a school or some services in the regions, members
of Parliament should really think twice. They must ask
themselves if they must apply only the law of the market or if it
would not be better to be more generous and to take some
initiatives so that these institutions can survive and keep the
wheels turning in our country.
Canada is not made up only of big cities which work well and
are cost-effective. It consists of a great number of communities,
on the North Shore, in southern Quebec, or what have you; all
these communities make up our country. Before taking
measures that would jeopardize communities built by our
fathers and institutions established by our predecessors, I think
the Parliament should think twice and do what it must do so that
these institutions, towns and communities will be able to
survive and expand.
I invite my colleagues to support the proposal of the member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, since I think it seeks to
maintain important things and to help Quebecers and Canadians
live and be happy in their communities.
(1425)
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the
management and control of an entity which is neither fish nor
fowl. In theory it is an independent crown, but because any real
competition is legislatively prohibited there is little incentive to
be cost effective or to provide service. Therefore, it is legitimate
that the post office be subject to government oversight.
However, I do concur with the proposal of my hon. colleague,
the member for Mission-Coquitlam, that this should be
accomplished by the government operation's committee and not
by a new, additional bureaucratic committee.
Canada Post has forgotten its basic mandate which is to
provide a public service. For example, as we speak Canada Post
has proposed to eliminate the special rates for inter-library
loans on books and to replace them with standard parcel post
rates.
Just to give the House an example of what this would mean to
some of our small regional libraries in rural areas, a book which
would now go out under the present rate of 53 cents per kilogram
returned would have to be sent out at a cost of $2.05 per kilo
each way. We are looking at an enormous increase in rates, in
fact an increase that is so great that it would effectively
terminate inter-library loans in rural Canada. Another rural
amenity is going to disappear if this is allowed to go forward.
4547
I have calculated that for the regional library in my
constituency at Swift Current, based on its current rates of loan,
the costs would increase from a current rate of about $14,000 to
a rate of $103,000 a year, almost $90,000 which a small regional
library obviously cannot come up with. If you do not want
people in rural areas to have books then this is the way to go. Let
Canada Post have its own way without any government
oversight and raise these rates as it will.
It is time that we took a hard look at the way this organization
operates. It says that it has to be lean and mean. Well it is mean
but I do not know how lean it is because it does not have to really
compete. Since it is a natural monopoly let us for heaven's sake
exercise the function of a parliamentary democracy and let the
government get a handle on these people.
It is an arrogant, pampered organization. It is time it was
brought to heel, preferably by the government operation's
committee.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I
would be remiss if I did not rise to support Bill C-203 presented
by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
The largest number of rural post office closures in Canada, as
the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell well knows,
happened in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton. That is a big
number to have happen in one riding. I have seen enough of the
senior citizens, handicapped and disadvantaged Canadians who
are suffering for a very basic service, to receive and send mail. It
seems so basic.
The postmaster of the little Britain community centre is a man
of great spirit who has great sense of community. The post office
in Bethany is in a gas station. Lindsay has a sub-post office in a
drugstore. Minden and Fenelon Falls were on the chopping
block.
When I went to Sunderland I could not read the sign for the
post office, it was so dilapidated. It looked like they were
waiting for the disaster to happen. Well, Mr. and Mrs.
Postmaster, I would like you to get your signs painted. Tell the
public that the government will not close any more rural post
offices.
I would also be remiss if I did not mention that I presented a
petition earlier today, which I fully support, allowing senior
citizens in a large complex to mail a letter. Why Canada Post can
send a truckload of mail to a large complex, drop it off, but not
pick any up at the very same location is beyond belief.
I support this bill by the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I look forward to the
strengthening of rural Canada and the strengthening of the rural
post office service.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before closing off the
debate I will give the mover of the motion no more than one
minute if he wishes to wrap up, because this is not a votable
item.
Mr. Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take this
opportunity to thank my colleagues who have spoken so
eloquently on this bill. I am glad to see the attitude demonstrated
particularly by the government in its wish to strengthen the
postal system in rural Canada.
To those who wanted a parliamentary committee to review the
continuing operation of the post office, I am not sure that every
time we increase the postal rate by one cent or the price of parcel
post that a parliamentary committee should have hearings
across the country to review it. I would prefer that hon. members
of the House deal with the substantive issues of our country and
allow an agency such as the one I propose do the task of
reviewing postal rates.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and a word of thanks to all my
colleagues.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
Before adjourning the House I want to take a moment,
colleagues. At this time of year many visitors come to
Parliament Hill and large numbers of young people come to our
capital.
Earlier today I was not able to seize the opportunity at the
time because we were in a serious debate, but one such visitor
was Erica Louise Corbett. She is none other than the young
daughter of William ``Bill'' Corbett who sits at the table as a
principal clerk. It was her day to shadow Dad as part of a school
project. I regret I did not have the opportunity to recognize her. I
understand she is still probably somewhere in the building
shadowing Dad. I want to tell her I am sorry I did not have the
opportunity to recognize her, but I wish her and Bill the best on
her project.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 2.32 p.m. this
House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 24(1). Have a good weekend.
(The House adjourned at 2.32 p.m.)