TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 15, 1994
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5335
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5336
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5339
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5339
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5339
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5340
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5341
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5341
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5343
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5346
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5346
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5348
Bill C-42. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 5350
Bill C-259. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 5350
Bill C-260. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 5351
Motion for concurrence 5351
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 5351
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 5351
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 5351
Bill C-22. Motion for third reading. 5353
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5360
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5361
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 5364
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 5364
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 5364
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 5365
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 5365
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 5369
Amendment to the amendment 5372
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5374
(Amendment to amendment agreed to.) 5376
(Amendment, as amended, agreed to.) 5376
(Motion, as amended, agreed to.) 5376
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 5376
Bill C-37. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5380
5335
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 15, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold joins me in
extending warmest congratulations to the Ukrainian Catholic
Women's League of Canada which celebrates its 50th
anniversary this year.
The UCWLC has a membership of over 6,300 and takes a
strong interest in today's social issues such as the family and
child violence, to name only two. It has made a major
contribution to many communities across Canada and today we
wish to recognize its contribution to the well-being of our
communities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce that the
Association québécoise des pré-retraités et des retraités is
marking its 15th anniversary. Membership in this association is
growing every year as more people join the attack on the federal
government's unacceptable scheme to impose a graduated tax
on individuals earning more than $25,000 a year.
Senior citizens can rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois will
defend their dearly won rights and will oppose any measure
designed to cut the deficit at their expense, given that so much
administrative duplication between the federal and provincial
governments could be eliminated.
The Bloc Quebecois also intends to keep a close watch on the
government to ensure that it stops giving preferential treatment
to this country's millionaires who can shelter their money from
taxes using the loophole known as family trusts.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, in
August 1992, 73-year old William Dove was lured from his
cabin near Whitewood, Saskatchewan and brutally beaten to
death by two men and a teenager. Unbelievably, Hubert Acoose,
one of the two men convicted of manslaughter, was granted a
day parole last week. This is less than two years in jail for killing
a person. This is the kind of decision that many Canadians find
incomprehensible.
What guarantees can the Solicitor General give Canadians
that Mr. Acoose is not a threat to public safety? Are the Solicitor
General and the members of the Parole Board who released Mr.
Acoose willing to accept personal responsibility and liability for
any crimes Mr. Acoose may commit while on day parole?
Are parole members willing to be personally responsible for
their bad decisions? The government is running a huge social
experiment and Canadian people are assuming all the risks.
Canadians are demanding that the government make public
safety its number one priority, and the government's response is
to let killers out on our streets.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
agriculture is extremely important to the economy of Atlantic
Canada. In recognition of this fact the co-operative
subagreements between the federal government and the Atlantic
provinces have been extended for 1994-95.
However, to date only provincial contributions have been
made to these agreements.
The funding of these subagreements is used for valuable
projects such as land development in my home province of New
Brunswick and in my Carleton-Charlotte constituency. They
are extremely important in building the self-sustaining
economy, a goal which we are all working toward.
5336
I encourage the minister and the departments responsible to
provide the federal funding required for these agreements as
soon as possible so that we might continue to build our
agricultural economy and the self-sufficiency of Atlantic
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker,
some individuals delight in insinuating that the political
situation in Canada and Quebec is the cause of the instability
affecting the Canadian bond market.
It is important to set the record straight and to say that nothing
could be further from the truth. Japanese investors sold off large
numbers of Canadian bonds which they owned in March, after
the budget was tabled and well before the Leader of the Official
Opposition made his trips abroad. The bond divestment was
prompted by the negative reaction of financial markets to the
Liberal government's budget.
Mr. Masakazu Mizutani, Vice President and Treasurer of the
Bank of Tokyo in Toronto, confirms that investors have eased up
considerably on their sales of Canadian bonds and that today,
``they do not have many left to sell''.
In short, the hike in interest rates and the massive divestment
of Canadian bonds in March are the result of ill-conceived
budgetary and monetary policies on the part of the Liberal
government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on behalf of the member for North Vancouver to
remind the House that voting in North America's first electronic
referendum started this morning.
Voting on the Young Offenders Act will continue 24 hours a
day until Monday, June 20. This should give all members ample
time to vote in the referendum using the secret PIN numbers
they received earlier. The Hill phone system will not allow calls
to 1-900 numbers, therefore members wishing to vote must do
so from off the Hill and are therefore subject to the same
user-pay principle as all other Canadians taking part in this
historic event.
(1405 )
North Vancouver voters were also issued PIN numbers to
ensure one person, one vote, but anyone in Canada can register
their opinion on the Young Offenders Act by calling
1-900-451-5033 from their touch-tone phone.
I am confident all Canadians will look forward to assessing
the results of Referendum `94.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, St. Georges
Anglican Church opened its door to Haligonians in 1800. The
church was built by Edward, Duke of Kent, father of Queen
Victoria, then the commander of the Halifax garrison. It was
architecturally a perfect circle and for almost two centuries a
unique landmark in our city.
In 1917 the church was seriously damaged in the Halifax
explosion. It survived and in 1983 the Prince and Princess of
Wales attended the rededication ceremony which stood in
testimony to the devotion of those who undertook the task of
restoring it.
In 1990 it was designated a national historic site.
Unfortunately two weeks ago this magnificent building was
nearly ruined as a fire gutted its walls and destroyed a third of its
structure. It is estimated that the total restoration cost will far
exceed the $1 million in insurance.
To date congregation members have begun a nation-wide
fundraising campaign to restore this historic landmark to its
original beauty.
All Haligonians, all Nova Scotians and indeed all Canadians
want to stand with them and hope that they will restore this great
site.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
my place today to briefly comment on the current debate over
what shape the country's gun control legislation should take in
the future.
Gun enthusiasts in my riding have told me that three
initiatives would help greatly in solving Canada's gun problem.
First, Canada's laws regarding the safe storage of firearms must
be followed through. Two recent tragedies that have involved
guns in my riding occurred when legally purchased firearms
were stolen and used in criminal matters.
Second, I urge this government to look at the form of a picture
ID for firearms acquisition certificates. This would enable gun
sellers to be sure that the individuals possessing the firearms
acquisition certificate are the ones who earned it.
Third, many individuals in my riding support the concept of
needing to use a firearms acquisition certificate to purchase
ammunition. The middle way must be tried.
I urge this House to aim for innovative and modest ideas.
5337
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker,
although we were saddened by the riots in Vancouver last night,
I am very proud and very honoured, as the member of Parliament
for Vancouver East, the home of the Vancouver Canucks, to
congratulate the players, coaching staff and management on a
remarkable play-off season and for nearly capturing the most
coveted of all sporting prizes, the Stanley Cup.
Few predicted that the Vancouver Canucks would have
reached the Stanley Cup finals. They demonstrated
extraordinary maturity, talent and perseverance in overcoming
numerous challenges, including stretching the finals to a
seventh and deciding game.
I would also like to congratulate the New York Rangers. They
were formidable opponents. On behalf of all Canadians,
members of the House of Commons and especially the members
from British Columbia and my constituents I would like to
congratulate the Vancouver Canucks again for their outstanding
performances.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, we are
dismayed, repulsed and made to feel helpless by television
pictures and reports out of Rwanda. The discovery of a mass
grave where close to 20,000 men, women and children were
murdered in a convent near the Tanzanian border has shocked
people all over the world.
This lunacy must stop. The international community can no
longer stand by and watch this venting of hatred, this systematic
genocide that is increasing daily and reflects the worst aspects
of human nature.
The Rwandan situation is critical, and political decision
makers must take the necessary steps to put to an end this
carnage, which historians in the next century will find difficult
to explain. In the midst of all the vicissitudes facing the peoples
of Africa, the killing of Rwandan citizens merely because they
are who they are is quite simply shameful. It is time to do
something about it.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, just as
high government debt and deficits distort decisions in financial
markets, so tax and spend policies distort family decisions.
(1410 )
Monday's CTV poll demonstrates that 3 million Canadian
families would rather have one parent stay at home with the
children but cannot afford to do it.
This year families will have to pay 48 per cent of their income
in taxes and so their lifestyle decisions are effectively dictated
by the state.
Unfortunately, governments are then forced to become more
and more interventionist by giving selective tax breaks and
running expensive national programs. What parents really want
are the resources to do good parenting jobs themselves.
By easing tax burdens on all Canadians, Reformers would
increase lifestyle options within all families. Reform would
empower parents to make employment arrangements according
to their preference; free to work outside their residence or free to
work at home with their own children.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, 50 years ago today the first socialist government in
North America was elected in Saskatchewan.
On June 15, 1944 Tommy Douglas and his team of candidates
from the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation came to
office and with rolled up sleeves, a people first agenda and lots
of hard work they set about the undaunting task of pulling
Saskatchewan out of debt and improving the quality of life of its
citizens.
In Saskatchewan the legacy of Tommy Douglas and his
successors Woodrow Lloyd, who made hospitalization a reality,
and Alan Blakeney, who presided over 11 consecutive balanced
budgets, is is being taken up by current Premier Roy Romanow
and a team of New Democrats who are successfully tackling and
reducing what was the highest provincial per capital debt in
Canada while at the same time establishing progressive health
care reform.
A good future is based on remembering your past. Today we
remember with respect and admiration Tommy Douglas and the
Saskatchewan CCF.
5338
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, we should all
recognize the importance of removing the internal trade barriers
which are obstacles to economic competitiveness and growth in
Canada.
Internal trade barriers raise the cost of doing business. There
are over 500 internal trade barriers in Canada with a cost to
Canadians of approximately $6.5 billion annually in lost
income.
Negotiations under way between federal, provincial and
territorial governments will lead to an agreement by June 30,
1994. The federal government is committed to working toward
the agreement that will start the process of building open,
efficient and stable domestic markets.
The agreements sought will put in place a framework that will
lead to dismantling the barriers that have been erected by
governments since Confederation 127 years ago. It is time to put
an end to the trade restrictions that we would neither tolerate nor
impose on international trade. We have for too long divided our
country into many small restricted segments.
I urge members to support our Minister of Industry and his
counterparts from the provinces and territories in their
challenging and very important task.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the Vancouver
Canucks on an absolutely outstanding season and a brilliant
performance in the Stanley Cup play-offs.
The Canucks exceeded our wildest expectations. They
attained a goal that most teams can only dream about and they
did so by virtue of their great skill and spirit. They have made all
Vancouverites, British Columbians and Canadians proud.
On behalf of the constituents of Vancouver South I
congratulate a hockey team with heart, drive and charisma. In
our eyes you are all winners.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, the ban on religious headgear in some Legions across
Canada is a divisive action.
On behalf of all Canadians who believe in equality I want to
thank my hon colleague from Calgary Southeast who cancelled
her Legion membership over this issue.
I hope that all members who are Legion members also make
their views known.
Understanding each other's religions and cultures is the only
way to put an end to intolerance.
Some members of this House have offered to invite me to
speak at Legion halls in their ridings. I would offer all members
my assistance in this regard to talk to them about the
significance of the turban.
Together we can put an end to intolerance.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, we
welcome the joint declaration by the religious leaders of
different faiths, Serbian Orthodox Church Patriarch, Pavle,
Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch, Alexei, and the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Zagreb, Croatia, Cardinal Kuharic,
calling for an immediate peace in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
(1415 )
This ecumenical initiative could fill the tragic vacuum in
political leadership and at last end the bloodshed in the region.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, last week the
Minister of Transport announced cuts to the freight subsidy on
shipping western grain. As well, the minister indicated that the
government will be rethinking the overall subsidy program in
general, including Atlantic Canada's freight rate subsidy
program.
I have been aware for some time now that the Department of
Transport has embarked on a closed door internal study and
review of the Atlantic freight rate subsidy program. This study
contrasts the open consultative process that the government
promised.
If Atlantic Canadians are to suffer further cutbacks in a
program such as the freight rate subsidy, I would ask that the
minister open up these discussions so that the stakeholders
involved in this program can have full consultation,
participation and input into this very important program which
places 12,000 maritime jobs in jeopardy.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today in defence of the National Action Committee on the
Status of Women. It was the subject yesterday of a churlish
attack by a member of the party opposite who suggested,
incredibly, that this women's group does not really represent
5339
hundreds of women's organizations and millions of Canadian
women. Indeed, it has been suggested that it is merely a special
interest group with its hand out for government cash.
I call on the National Action Committee on the Status of
Women to put these accusations to the lie by immediately
rejecting all government funding, by immediately raising all the
money it needs from its own supporters. I know it can do it. I
know millions of Canadian women will show their support by
their dollars. That way the government will save hundreds of
thousands of dollars which can then be spent directly on the
many women in this country who truly desperately are in need.
_____________________________________________
5339
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, today's
Ottawa Citizen outlines the policy on lobbyists
to be announced tomorrow by the Prime Minister. In its red
book, the Liberal Party promised to tighten controls on lobbyists
by implementing the June 1993 recommendations of the House
of Commons standing committee.
I ask the Prime Minister, on the basis of the information made
public in this morning's Ottawa Citizen, whether we are to
understand that, in fact, the government policy on lobbyists
proposes nothing more than a more or less improved status quo.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock we will table the bill and
answer questions after the bill has been made public.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, after all the time we have been waiting to see where the
government stood on its election campaign promises, we now
have in a respected newspaper an undisputed report on the
contents of the policy. We want to question him today on this
issue.
In particular, I want to ask the Prime Minister how he can
argue that his policy will reinforce controls on lobbyists, when it
allows them not to disclose their dealings related to government
contracts or bills and even to hide the identity of the ministers
they are directly trying to influence.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we had the courtesy to consult the Leader of the Opposition and
the leader of the Reform Party on this issue; the Government
House Leader and Mr. Pelletier from my office have met with
them, told them whom we wanted to appoint as ethics counsellor
and given them an outline of the bill.
The leader of the Reform Party had the courtesy to respond,
while the Leader of the Opposition did not even respond to our
consultations with him.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I am a little surprised by the Prime Minister's
behaviour, when he knows that this meeting only led to a general
exchange of views without anything specific on the contents of
the lobbyists bill. Since the Prime Minister is getting ready to
answer our questions tomorrow, I would like to give him some
food for thought and ask him if he wants his commitment to
impose greater transparency on lobbyists to be taken seriously,
if he is ready today, or tomorrow if he wants, to make a priority
of having the new ethics counsellor really investigate the
actions of the lobbyists implicated in the questionable Pearson
Airport contract.
(1420)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
lobbyists' involvement in the Pearson deal was the subject of a
thorough investigation. The Nixon Report findings are well
known, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the
government's decision to cancel this contract.
* * *
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Today, the provincial social
services ministers gathered in Halifax will issue a joint
statement to warn the Minister of Human Resources
Development not to make his action plan on programs reform
public without first consulting them and more importantly,
without having addressed their concerns. So, the deadlock
between Ottawa and the provinces persists because, as the Nova
Scotia Minister of Community Services put it: ``I do not think
that we have backed down. We will stand very firm. We are not
wimps.''
My question is as follows: Will the Prime Minister recognize
that this stern warning from the provinces is an indication that
social programs reform, the only major project initiated by this
government since coming to power, is stalled because of his
government's obstinacy in imposing its views on the provinces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the lead minister has consulted on several occasions with the
ministers in question. In the joint statement released earlier
today, all the provincial ministers agreed that a Canada-wide
reform of social programs was required and they invited the
minister to discuss the process with them. He has done that in
the past and intends to do so again in the weeks to come. The
deadlock exists only in the hon. member's mind, because
consultations are ongoing and these consultations are the reason
why things are taking longer. Last week, we were criticized for
not imposing immediately our choice of a solution and the
5340
reason for that was simple: we were not through consulting with
the provinces.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): What the provinces
want, Mr. Speaker, is to be consulted all together, not
individually and one pitted against the other.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that the provinces have
taken the legitimate stand that they have because they refuse to
bear the brunt of a reform that would result in lower federal
transfer payments and enable Ottawa to off-load once again part
of its deficit onto them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
when the Minister of Finance tabled his budget, he made it quite
clear that we were not going to reduce transfer payments. This
was clearly indicated. The provinces were also said to want
some idea of what the spending would be like over the next two
or three years, and the Minister of Finance provided them with
just that, a precise account of the expenditures for this year, next
year and the year after that. The provinces know exactly what
funds are currently available, pursuant to the commitment made
to include in transfer payment arrangements procedures
allowing for the necessary planning by the provinces. The
budget is perfectly clear on this issue. I do not understand the
provincial ministers' concern. In fact, that is what the minister
will reiterate in the meetings, bilateral or multilateral meetings
as the case may be, he will be having with the provincial
ministers.
* * *
(1425)
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
On numerous occasions spokespersons for the government
have referred to the small business sector as the major engine of
the economy and a major job creator. Yet a recent survey of
small business conducted by the Financial Post reveals that only
14 per cent believe that the government's small business
initiatives will create jobs and 87 per cent believe that the
government is not representing their interests particularly with
respect to the deficit.
When will the government formally recognize that the only
thing most small business people want from the federal
government is for it to get off their backs and out of their
pockets?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly noticed the survey that the leader of the Reform Party
mentioned. It did indicate, although clearly according to the
polls that were included in the survey this was not, you might
say, our natural constituency, we were gaining in support even
among that constituency in every part of the country, save for
one province. That indicates that the program the government
has put in place is winning support among the small business
community.
It might be helpful to the Reform Party to understand that we
do understand exactly the point that removing burdens from
small business will help them succeed. That is why in the
February budget the Minister of Finance announced that we will
be reducing the payroll tax on unemployment insurance
premiums. That is a key way to help small business create jobs.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of burdens then, 70 per cent of the entrepreneurs
surveyed by Arthur Andersen said that the biggest single
obstacle they faced was high taxes. The next largest group said
that their biggest problem was intrusive government legislation
and regulations. These are the obstacles that small business
people themselves say prevent them from expanding and
creating more jobs.
I ask the Prime Minister what new measures the government
is prepared to take to remove the two greatest government
created obstacles to job creation in this country which are high
taxes and red tape.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker,
over the last few months in the ongoing work in the industry
committee, which in fact I appeared before yesterday to discuss
small business issues, we have seen a very co-operative effort
among members from all three parties with respect to focusing
on the issues which concern small business.
With respect to the level of taxes and the regulatory burden
together with issues such as access to capital and the ability to
apply new technologies, there is a co-operative effort under way
to particularly address the issues that concern small business.
It is clear from the studies with respect to the impact of small
business on the Canadian economy that is where the job creation
will be. If we can continue to work co-operatively with our
friends across the floor looking for solutions that address
particular problems, then we can put together a package
building on the initiatives the government has already
announced, building on the promises we made in the red book
and which we are fulfilling to help that sector create jobs.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a further supplementary to the Prime Minister and to the
minister.
Canadian entrepreneurs say the best thing the government
could do to promote job creation would be to reduce government
spending and provide tax relief. According to the Arthur
Andersen survey 97 per cent of the entrepreneurs surveyed said
that the government should have cut more deeply in the federal
5341
budget and 86 per cent of them did not believe that the
government is serious about deficit reduction.
If the government is serious about reducing the deficit, if it
wants to send a strong, clear message to these job-creating
entrepreneurs over the summer, will the Prime Minister commit
to bringing in a minibudget in the fall which redoubles the
government's deficit cutting efforts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, having spent a reasonable amount of
time in that particular sphere to which the leader of the Reform
Party addresses, I happen to know that the one thing
entrepreneurs want from their government is a firm commitment
to their objectives and credibility.
They want us to hit our targets. They do not want a panic
reaction. They do not want minibudgets. They wanted us to
bring forward a budget that would attain its target. We did that.
(1430)
Next September, as we promised in the House, we will be
setting our new economic scenarios as a prelude to the
consultations for the February budget. Again at that time we will
give an indication of where we are going. We are on target. We
are going to hit our target.
The only thing I really have to say I will say to the Prime
Minister. I do not want to wash any dirty linen in public but I
would disagree with the Minister of Industry. He said that
according to the survey we are leading in nine out of the 10
provinces. It is my understanding, Mr. Prime Minister, that we
are leading in all 10.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We have learned that in
connection with the thirtieth summit of the Organization of
African Unity in Tunis, an immediate cease-fire agreement was
reportedly concluded between the forces of the provisional
government in Rwanda and the Rwandan Patriotic Front.
This cease-fire would end the massacres in which more than
half a million people may have been killed, including 60 Tutsi
children slain yesterday after they were taken from a church
where they had sought refuge.
Does the minister confirm that a cease-fire agreement was
reached between the belligerents and can he tell us where
matters stand on this subject?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, of course we hope that a cease-fire between the parties
will be respected. Like the hon. member, we already had word
that a cease-fire had been declared. Unfortunately, subsequent
information told us that it had already been violated, in fact.
So at this time I cannot give more specific information than
the latest reports that the parties had concluded an agreement
which would allow a United Nations contingent to come soon to
help the parties in question observe a cease-fire and restore
order in that country, which has been particularly affected in
recent weeks.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, in view of the
information which the minister has just given us and which does
not seem to be complete, I nevertheless ask him if, in case a
cease-fire is declared, he can tell us if he intends Canada to play
a role in a United Nations mission in Rwanda and can he also tell
us if the Canadian government intends to increase its
humanitarian aid efforts in that country?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the hon. member's first question, I must
inform her that the government is now considering a request that
the United Nations made not only to Canada but also to some
other countries. A decision on this will be made in the next ten or
fifteen days.
As for the hon. member's second question, I can assure her
that the Canadian government is ready to step up its aid program
for the Rwandan people who have been greatly affected by this
conflict.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the Fraser Institute announced that tax freedom
day, the day when Canadians stop working for the government
and begin working for themselves, will not come until June 23 of
this year. This is four days later than last year and represents a
total tax load of 48 per cent compared with 44 per cent last year.
Instead of fiddling with the method of taxation, as the
minister is preparing to do with the GST, when will the
government eliminate the deficit so that the level of taxation can
be reduced?
(1435 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we fully appreciate the terrible burden
of taxation that Canadians have had to bear as a result of the 39
separate tax increases introduced by the previous government. It
is one of the reasons why in the last budget we did not seek to
increase taxes but rather sought greater tax equity.
I am sure the member opposite understands the absolute
necessity of building fairness into the tax system. In fact, in the
last budget we announced certain potential tax decreases. I
5342
would never disagree with the Minister of Industry and in his
previous answer he talked about the reduction in unemployment
insurance premiums. That is a tax decrease.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for his answer. I address my supplementary
question to him as well.
Recently the International Monetary Fund pointed out the
connection between persistent deficits, deeper recessions and
unemployment.
Does the minister agree with the IMF when it says that
deficits cause unemployment and recessions and therefore the
deficit must be the number one priority if Canada is to
experience lower unemployment and economic growth?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the relationship between high deficits,
low productivity and consequent high unemployment is one
with which no one would disagree.
However the reduction of the deficit must come in many
ways, certainly a reduction of government spending, but at the
same time an increase in employment. By far the best way is by
putting Canadians back to work, in addition to cutting spending.
I would also say that I agree with the IMF, so ably cited by my
colleague, when the IMF said that Canada next year would lead
the industrialized world in job creation, economic growth and
productivity.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, the
composition of the extraordinary challenge committee in the
Canada-U.S. lumber dispute is the subject of lively debate
between Ottawa and Washington. The Americans are casting
doubt on the representativeness of Canadian experts sitting on
this committee, and some are even calling for Canadian
panelists to be investigated by the FBI from now on to determine
how unbiased they are.
Will the Minister for International Trade undertake to
indicate forcefully to the United States that its position and
claims in this matter are quite simply unacceptable and that its
attitude threatens the very existence of the panel system for
settling trade disputes between our two countries?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, we reject the statements that were made with
regard to possible FBI investigations of panellists under the
NAFTA and the FTA. I would only add that it is a matter that the
Solicitor General would be able to address if the member wishes
to delve further into it.
Certainly under the FTA and NAFTA there is no provision
whatever for the type of activity that the hon. member has cited
and we reject any such practice.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister agree that the American attitude constitutes a new
delaying tactic by the United States to allow it to maintain
countervailing duties, the brunt of which is being borne by
Quebec lumber producers who, it has been proven, receive no
subsidies?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why the United States
representative would have said such a thing. Perhaps she offered
it as a comment in the heat of the legal discussion, but it
certainly has no substance in practice. We would not accept any
such practice as described by the hon. member.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
I found this quote in the October 29, 1990 edition of the
Toronto Star. It reads:
I am opposed to the GST, I have always been opposed to it and I will be
opposed to it always.
The Prime Minister should recognize these words, they are his
own.
Will the Prime Minister finally admit that his promise to
eliminate the GST in his first year of office was foolhardy and
that Canadians had better get ready for a modified GST from this
Liberal government with a brand new name?
(1440 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
not only did I say that in 1990, it was in the red book. It stated
clearly in the red book the conditions for a replacement of the
GST. We have always said that because it is the policy of the
government.
We have a committee on the GST and the member sits on it. I
remember it was some time ago when the leader of the Reform
Party made a promise, a solemn commitment, that he would get
rid of the GST. He changed his mind.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. We would get
rid of the GST and we would balance the budget within three
years. Just give us the chance.
5343
This past weekend, the vice-chairman of the Standing
Committee on Finance said that he favoured extending the GST
to include both groceries and prescription drugs for certain tax
benefits.
Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians if the vice-chairman
was speaking on behalf of the government? Is his government
planning to tax both groceries and prescription drugs under a
new, broadened version of the GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we are waiting for the report of the committee. We are very
interested. We have made a commitment that the GST will be
replaced within two years.
We were elected less than eight months ago and we have made
a lot of progress. We said we would establish a committee on
this subject very early in the process. It will report next week I
understand. We will study the report and make a decision about
the replacement. There will be no spectacular flip-flop like the
one made by the leader of the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, the trawler
Rally 2,
which belongs to a company named Madelipêche, recently
experienced serious mechanical problems which endangered the
lives of its crew members. These problems seem similar to those
which, in November 1990, resulted in the sinking of a sister
trawler,
Le Nadine, and in the death of eight crew members.
Will the Minister of Transport confirm that the federal office
responsible for transport safety is conducting an investigation
on the mechanical problems experienced last week by the Rally
2 in the Magdalen Islands? Otherwise, will the minister pledge
to shed light on that incident?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I want to assure the hon. member that since I also come from a
region where fishing is a very important activity, and since I am
aware of the importance of safety for those who make a living at
sea, we will take every possible measure to ensure the protection
and safety of fishermen.
I can understand the hon. member's concern; he is certainly
aware that a coroner's report was prepared and that
investigations were conducted. We will continue our efforts to
ensure that a tragedy such as the one which occurred in 1990
does not happen again. We will conduct all the investigations
necessary to find out what happened this time.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, it may be the
distance separating us, but I did not hear clearly whether the
minister intends to hold an inquiry on the most recent
mechanical problems.
In the marine sector, and the minister will surely agree since
he also comes from a maritime region, a sister ship can help find
the cause of an incident.
Here is my second question: Could the minister take this
opportunity to reopen the investigation on Le Nadine,
considering that its sister ship is involved and that allegations
were made concerning the captain of that first ship? Since
allegations were made to the effect that some information may
have been withheld, I ask the Minister of Transport to reopen the
inquiry on Le Nadine.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I can assure the hon. member that we will not rule out any
inquiry or possible solution.
(1445)
As regards the ship which is still in operation, studies or
investigations will be conducted and it would certainly make
sense to look back at the first incident. The Department of
Transport has the responsibility to ensure the safety of those
who work in such industries and sectors.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The minister has been informing us about activities planned to
celebrate National Public Service Week.
Does the minister feel comfortable holding such a celebration
after the government's extension of the wage freeze, an action
the head of the Public Service Alliance of Canada refers to as
``hypocritical?''
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
think our employees fully understand the fiscal realities
governments in Canada find themselves in.
The need to bring down the deficit and for better control of the
debt is what we promised to do in our red book and what we
promised to do as a result of the budget and bringing the deficit
down to 3 per cent of GDP. This has become a necessary part of
that kind of control, and I think it is understood by our
employees.
I also think they understand the other part which is to help
create and maintain jobs. That is certainly what we wanted to do
in the case of the public service.
Having said that, National Public Service Week gives us the
opportunity to recognize the valuable contribution our
employees are making through the provision of services to the
people of the country. The member for Ottawa West initiated it
through Parliament some two years ago so that we could
recognize the dedication and commitment of our public servants
5344
and at the same time tell Canadians about the valuable services
they are providing in a more cost effective fashion.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, an Angus
Reid poll published in this week's
Maclean's affirms that the
well-being of the family is important to all Canadians.
Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance stated that he was satisfied with the way the tax system
treats families. Yet in some cases families where one parent
stays at home to look after their children can be penalized by as
much as $3,000 to $6,000 a year. It may not seem like a lot to
him or his cabinet colleagues, but there are many parents who
think that $3,000 to $6,000 is a lot of money.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he agree that the
current tax system discriminates against families that choose to
care for their children at home?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I answered the question
yesterday when it was put to me. I remind the hon. gentleman
that the treatment of families is a very difficult aspect of
taxation.
If he were to design a tax system I would ask him, and I am
sure there is a supplementary question coming, to please state in
his supplementary question exactly what he means by family.
Maybe he would like to give us a definition.
The Speaker: If I understand, I think we have the sides
crossed here. I hope the hon. member for Kootenay East will
pose a question.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I will be
happy to pose a question. I recognize that is why this is called
question period.
The Angus Reid poll pointed out that many Canadians are
concerned about the future of the family. Canadians know that
the tax system is discriminating against families that choose to
have one parent stay at home.
My question is again for the Prime Minister. Will he instruct
his Minister of Finance and human resources department to
extend the same tax treatment currently given to those who send
their children to day care to those who care for their families at
home?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, once again we have the
spectre of a party that has a problem with tax policy. Its
members have been saying that they want a tax policy that treats
families in a certain way. Yet they will not tell us what they mean
by the word or what their position is on it.
(1450)
They are criticizing the present system, which is an individual
taxation system. Since the institution of income tax in Canada
taxes have not been family based but individually based. If they
are going to take a position that we should have a family based
tax system or a family return, they had better think about it very
carefully because its costs would be very large.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
During the election campaign last fall, Liberal candidates said
they would strengthen gun control laws in Canada and stop the
illegal importation of all types of firearms. Last year, nearly
4,000 guns were either stolen or lost in this country, and the
smuggling of military and para-military weapons remains a
flourishing industry in Quebec and Ontario.
When does the Minister of Justice intend to act on his party's
commitment to, as it says in the red book, strengthen gun control
and counter the illegal importation of banned and restricted
guns? When will the minister decide to act?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, we have started already.
First, I have met with colleagues in cabinet to discuss measures
that can be taken to deal with the smuggling of illegal weapons
into the country.
Second, I have written to my provincial and territorial
counterparts to ask them to see to the enforcement of subsection
85(1) of the Criminal Code which deals with minimum penalties
for those who use firearms in the commission of offences.
I can tell the hon. member as well that we are considering
changes to that section to make the consequences for the
criminal misuse of firearms more severe. At the same time,
through consultations with caucus and in taking into account all
perspectives on the issue, we are going to come forward in the
fall of this year with proposals to strengthen the regulation of
firearms in the country, balancing always the need for safety in
our community with the interests of those who have legitimate
uses for rifles in hunting and on the farms.
5345
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is directed to the Solicitor General.
In more than 80 per cent of crimes involving the use of guns in
Canada, the weapons were smuggled into the country. What
concrete measures has the Solicitor General put in place to deal
effectively with the illegal importation of guns into Canada?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the national action plan against smuggling, announced and
implemented in February, included action not just against
cigarettes but also against drugs and firearms.
The additional efforts of the mounted police and other police
forces are targeted against the importation of illegal firearms.
This effort is continuing and increasing.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The
commissioner of the coast guard has stated the annual savings
associated with destaffing lighthouse stations on the west coast
is $7 million.
On June 2, in an appearance before the Senate transport
committee hearings, officials stated the total costs of servicing
B.C. light stations at $3.4 million for salaries, operating,
maintenance and direct costs.
How can the minister achieve $7 million in savings by cutting
a portion of a $3.4 million program that would need major
capital spending to implement?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I do not think the question of destaffing lighthouses should only
be dealt with on the basis of exact and specific savings. It goes
far beyond that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Young: The question is coming from a party that is
always looking for savings but does not want to listen to how we
can achieve it.
(1455)
We are saying that the technology available in Canada and
around the world has resulted in the automation of this kind of
facility in many countries. In the United States there is one
lighthouse left; it is a historic one at Boston. In Australia and in
the United Kingdom there has been destaffing of lighthouses. In
the maritime provinces of Canada we have destaffed
lighthouses.
We understand the impact of that action on the people, the
men and women who have worked in this traditional activity for
many years.
The Department of Transport has a fiduciary responsibility
for the safety and security of those who use the sea as a means of
navigation. We will are going to that obligation. We are going to
make sure that the Canadian sea navigation system is as good as
any in the world. Unfortunately, as we move into the 21st
century, some of the practices of the past will have to be
changed.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The local population knows the value of these lighthouse
keepers to public safety. Lighthouse keepers are designated as
an essential service. In making this designation the federal
government has explicitly recognized the crucial role lighthouse
keepers play in marine safety.
Could the minister explain how the government on one hand
declares lighthouse keepers an essential service and on the other
hand announces an intention to eliminate them?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians understand that the lighthouse system, the
navigational aid systems that have existed in Canada were based
on systems that came in from Europe.
For example, the United Kingdom by 1997 will have
completely destaffed its lighthouses. Australia and other
seafaring nations around the world have understood the need for
change. We recognize how important it is to the people who are
directly affected.
If the hon. member is asking whether we are concerned about
the impact on the human beings who are going to have their lives
disrupted, lose their jobs or be shifted into other occupations,
the answer is yes. Our responsibility is to deliver modern
technological navigational aids to Canadians and those who use
the sea. That is what we are going to do.
It would be far more useful if hon. members opposite, who are
always looking at ways to try to improve the efficiency of
services provided by Transport Canada at a reasonable price,
would support us rather than play petty politics.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker,
last week the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata
mentioned the CRTC's decision to issue two licences for special
channels to Astral and said that this company was, and I quote:
``-from Toronto''.
On behalf of the employees of this important company in the
cultural sector, would the Minister of Canadian Heritage clarify
5346
this statement and tell us whether the company is from Toronto
or is, as I am inclined to think, a national company with
headquarters in Montreal?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the Astral headquarters have always been in Montreal.
The company's top management, including the president, are all
from Quebec and live in Montreal. Astral employs more than
800 Quebecers and, thanks to federal assistance, it is investing
$17 million in a technical centre on Sainte-Catherine street.
That is the type of company that the hon. member from
Rimouski-Témiscouata judges not to be concerned with
Quebec's interests.
I will not hold that against her. I am sure that she is much more
familiar with Saint-Germain Street in Rimouski than with
Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal.
* * *
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, last Wednesday, the Minister of Natural Resources
indicated that a major international public relations campaign
was needed to convince foreign buyers that British Columbia's
forestry practices were consistent with the imperatives of
sustainable development.
Yet, when they testified before the natural resources
committee, Canada's ambassadors to the European Union as
well as to the Federal Republic of Germany stated that the
companies involved were not doing what they could to defend
their own interests on the international market.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Does
she agree with the views expressed by these two ambassadors
and does she believe that the forestry companies in question
could be doing more to defend their own interests?
(1500)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Let me say
that my department is working very closely with provincial
departments of natural resources and forestry and with industry
to ensure that we clearly get our message of commitment to
sustainable development out in Europe and wherever else we
have markets for our forestry products.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister for Canadian
Heritage opposes discrimination on the basis of race. We in the
Reform party agree with him. We oppose discrimination of any
kind.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women
supports special interest groups that discriminate if she thinks
that they are in the interest of society. It is clear the government
will only fight discrimination when it favours its policy.
Will the Prime Minister explain exactly what criteria the
government uses when it decides to discriminate or not to
discriminate?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, of course I listened carefully to the observations made
yesterday by the Secretary of State Responsible for the Status of
Women. I share her view that women in Canada are not an
interest group. They are half the population. I would add that the
other half would not exist were it not for the help given by the
both halves.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would like to draw your
attention to the presence in the gallery of His Holiness Serbian
Orthodox Patriarch Pavle.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, because I care about intellectual honesty and
transparency, I would like to correct an error that I unwittingly
made on June 8 last.
In my question that day to Minister of Canadian Heritage, I
stated that the Astral communication group was from Toronto.
After verifying my sources, I wish to inform the House that the
principal shareholder in Astral is the Greenberg family of
Montreal.
Obviously, the minister was no more aware than I was that
Astral was owned by Montreal interests since he did not correct
me when I put my question to him. However, I can see that he has
read the copy of the letter which was sent to me as a result of the
information provided in this House. Furthermore, since I was
born in the Plateau Mont-Royal neighbourhood, I can say that I
am just as familiar with rue Ste-Catherine as I am with rue
St-Germain in Rimouski.
The Speaker: That is quite a correction.
[English]
I have a point of privilege arising from Question Period from
the hon. member for St. Paul's.
5347
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of privilege with respect to certain statements made about
me by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. If he had read the
article in its entirety, which is always a good idea before
commenting in this House, he would have found that the author
of the story indicated and I quote, ``Mr. Campbell refused to
comment on the recommendations of the committee''. I made no
statement to the author of the story about my view on the
question. Further, the reporter has apologized to me for the
misleading headline and misleading story.
I would ask the hon. member for Calgary Centre through you,
Mr. Speaker, to withdraw this statement.
(1505 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member mentioned, it was the front lead story in the Toronto
Star of Saturday. It was under a big banner. I read the story like
everybody else. I was only referring to what was said in the
paper. The fact that the reporter misquoted him and the fact that
he has a problem with the reporter, I am sorry, but that is not my
problem. I just read what was there and I presented my question
based on that fact.
The Speaker: My colleagues, from time to time we do read
facts in newspapers which could be more accurate than others. I
would ask hon. members to be patient and courteous with one
another. I do not know that there is a point of privilege there. It
surely is a point of correction.
I believe the hon. member has done that. I would hope that the
newspapers would check their facts before they make any
statements attributable to anyone else.
Would the hon. member for St. Paul's have anything to add to
this?
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is not so much about the
reporter checking his facts as it is about the hon. member
opposite reading the story to completion.
The Speaker: I would rule that there is no point of privilege
but surely the correction will have been made or the
misunderstanding corrected.
_____________________________________________
5347
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to
rise in the House to advise fellow parliamentarians of the
signing of the second international protocol on sulphur dioxide
emissions. Canada signed this new United Nations agreement in
Oslo, Norway yesterday. It is a major step forward in the
ongoing battle against acid rain.
The first international agreement on sulphur dioxide was the
1985 Helsinki protocol. Under that agreement Canada pledged
to reduce its sulphur dioxide emissions by 30 per cent starting in
1993. Thanks to excellent co-operation by the provinces,
environmental groups, consumers and industry, Canada has met
its commitment. Our sulphur dioxide emissions have now fallen
below the 3.2 million tonne limit set for Canada in the
agreement. By the end of the year emissions in eastern Canada
will have been reduced by more than 40 per cent from 1980
levels. That is a success story.
The 1985 Helsinki protocol set the foundation for the
Canada-United States air quality agreement.
[Translation]
The fact of the matter is that sometimes, very complex
international agreements can make a difference and do make a
difference. Canada wants to remain a leader in acid rain control
and that is why we signed a new protocol in Oslo yesterday.
This international agreement was signed following extensive
consultations with the territories and the provinces.
I am very pleased to report that the international negotiators
have adopted an important concept developed by Canadian
scientists from Environment Canada. This new concept which
was adopted in Norway is that of critical levels.
What this means in simple terms is that beyond a certain level,
sulphur dioxide emissions become harmful to the environment.
This level can vary from one part of the globe to another and,
within a country, from one region to the next.
(1510)
[English]
It is important that we are now moving to set sulphur dioxide
emission levels based on science and regional targets within
countries rather than just national limits. This allows Canada
and other countries to direct their efforts to where the real
problems exist. We believe that the provisions of the Helsinki
agreement will lead to improving the effects of reduction of acid
rain in the areas of Canada where the problem lies, namely in the
seven eastern provinces of our country.
5348
However, the Helsinki protocol, good as it was, will not end
acid rain in the long run in about 10 per cent of Canada.
[Translation]
Canada has accepted to set a ceiling on emissions in that part
of the country which requires a longer term commitment. We are
therefore creating within Canada a sulphur dioxide management
area, with specific goals attached to it, which take us well into
the 21st century. In the long term, we want to bring sulphur
dioxide emissions in the southeastern part of Canada down to an
environmentally benign level. We will focus on the area most
affected, that is to say the area south of a line going from the
St-Lawrence estuary to the bottom of James Bay and on to the
northern part of Lake Superior.
This new area will include southern Ontario, the southern part
of Quebec as well as all of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Prince Edward Island, the latter provinces being really seriously
affected.
[English]
Our target for this area is sulphur dioxide emissions below
1.75 million tonnes beginning in the year 2000. This is an
important breakthrough in international negotiations. The
problem was that the national levels were arbitrary, particularly
for a country as large as Canada.
Our environmental problems are not the same in every part of
the country and this new agreement recognizes that. The new
Oslo protocol also sets tough new standards for reporting and
compliance by countries. This agreement is a major step
forward but it is not the total answer to the entire acid rain
puzzle.
The United States has not yet agreed to sign the protocol. The
Government of Canada believes and hopes that this new
agreement will act as an impetus to the United States just as the
previous protocol opened the way to our bilateral treaty on air
quality.
Indeed, I have scheduled meetings next month in Washington
with the director of the Environmental Protection Agency in
which we will be discussing very specific air quality issues like
carbon dioxide emissions and in particular sulphur dioxide
emissions to look at what bilateral actions we can take, not at the
exclusion of multilateral activity but to complement it.
We have set new long term limits for the region of our country
that produces sulphur dioxide flowing into Canada and the
United States. We want the United States to take reciprocal
action to reduce its sulphur dioxide flowing into Canada.
If there is one thing Canadians are unanimous about, it is that
our country must take a leadership role on the problem of acid
rain and the problem of air quality generally. By signing the
Oslo protocol, we are continuing to do so.
May I conclude by saying that Canada's representative at the
signing ceremony was appropriately the hon. member for
Davenport who serves as the chairman of the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
Anyone who knows the hon. member will know that he was one
of the first Canadians to wear the pin which was so strongly
identified with the coalition on acid rain activity that actually
led to the first international agreement.
He has pushed longer and harder than any other member of
Parliament for control on sulphur dioxide emissions. By
identifying our problem area and agreeing to long term emission
limits for our region, Canada is accepting its responsibility to
protect our lakes, maple sugar producing trees, wildlife, fish,
buildings, forests and above all, its citizens from the dangers of
acid rain.
We will continue to work with concerned Canadians and
provincial governments in the ongoing development of the
national strategy on air issues. There are no overnight solutions
but there are some solutions. I think on this file we have found
some real solutions that have improved the situation and will
continue to do so.
(1515)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, as the
Official Opposition critic on the environment, I want to salute
the federal government's initiative in signing yesterday in Oslo
the new UN protocol on sulphur dioxide emissions.
The new international agreement sets for the first time
emission quotas for each country based on nature's resistance
capacity in each of the signatory countries.
The approach used in the protocol shows once again that
countries, peoples and regions facing the same problem must
sometimes apply different solutions taking into account their
environment and social characteristics. It goes without saying
that this is in line with the aspirations of Quebecers, who believe
that the Quebec government should have all the powers of a
sovereign state while co-operating with its neighbours on
international issues.
The signatory countries have different goals to reach in the
coming years. I would like to give you a few examples. Germany
plans on reducing its sulphur emissions by 87 per cent compared
with the 1980 levels by the year 2005, by renovating the obsolete
factories and thermal power plants of the former East Germany.
Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Austria will join in this effort
by reducing their emissions by 80 per cent by the end of the
century.
Greece and Portugal will only have to reduce their emissions
by 3 to 4 per cent because their soil is rich in limestone, which
neutralizes the acidity of sulphur dioxide naturally. This
approach is more interesting than that of the 1985 Helsinki
5349
Protocol, under which the signatory countries had to cut their
sulphur emissions by 30 per cent compared to the 1980 levels by
this year.
Canada, for its part, must create a sulphur dioxide
management zone including the Atlantic provinces, southern
Quebec and Ontario.
It goes without saying that all the initiatives affecting this
management zone will first have to be approved by the
provincial governments concerned. With respect to the sharing
of environmental responsibilities, we know that the initiatives
against acid rain in Canada are put forward by the provinces,
which pass regulations by negotiating voluntary agreements
with polluters.
The federal government, for its part, tries to reduce the acid
pollutants that make their way into Canada, from the United
States for instance.
Problems such as acid rain call for the co-operation of all
stakeholders. Sulphur dioxide is a colourless and very odorous
gas. It comes mainly from oil and gas processing, mineral
smelting, and coal and heavy oil combustion. Each day, the
chimneys of our incinerators spit out tons and tons of this gas
into our atmosphere.
(1520)
Many reports have been made on the very harmful effects of
acid rain, especially on forests and particularly Quebec's maple
trees, as well as the problems for human health that can in many
cases lead to increased sensitivity among those who suffer from
asthma and bronchitis and make breathing more difficult for
some people. We must also mention the deterioration of green
spaces and the damage done to very valuable cultural artifacts.
I think that there is a very serious problem with the Oslo
Protocol: the United States did not sign it. You know as well as I
do that the United States is a huge consumer, and whoever
consumes produces waste. As Lavoisier said so well, in nature,
nothing is created and nothing is lost. And, as if by some
unfortunate chance, warm winds from the United States blow
regularly towards Quebec.
I seriously wonder how come the Minister of the Environment
was unable to convince our powerful neighbour to sign this Oslo
agreement. She just said that she will go to Washington next
month, so I hope that she will return with good news for Quebec
because you understand as I do that the acid rain we have does
not come only from Quebec smokestacks. Most of it comes from
Ontario or the United States.
Clearly, for Canada this means that the scope and
effectiveness of the protocol will be less. Indeed, it is essential
to co-ordinate action on both sides of the border.
According to the 1992 report of the Sub-Committee on Acid
Rain of the Standing Committee on the Environment, although a
unilateral Canadian program to fight emissions that cause acid
rain is morally or politically defensible, any permanent solution
must include the United States. That is why we support the
environment minister's efforts, which coincide with Quebec's
interests, in her talks with the American authorities about acid
rain.
The Bloc Quebecois is proud of this Oslo convention but we
also have high hopes for the environment minister's visit to
Washington next month.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I too would
like to salute the minister on the signing of this agreement.
Clearly, as she said in her statement, if there is one thing that
Canadians are unanimous about it is that our country must take a
leadership role in the problem of acid rain.
At the same time I would like to make special mention as she
did of the hon. member for Davenport. He has been a thorn in the
side of people who have been satisfied with the status quo. I
would like to commend him for his efforts, particularly on this
issue.
The minister stated it is important that we are now moving to
set sulphur dioxide emission levels based on science and upon
regional targets within countries rather than just national limits.
This is particularly important.
(1525 )
What she is stating as I understand it in plain English is that
the standards are going to be based on science. Very frequently
in environmental issues we have the problem of emotion; if it
looks bad it must be bad, if it smells bad it must be bad. This is
very bad science and so again I commend the minister and the
department on the fact that the standards are going to be based
on science.
I also reflect the comments made by the member from the
Bloc and underscore the fact that the United States has not
signed the protocol. I underscore that fact primarily from the
point of view of competitiveness. Surely as human beings, as
Canadians and as Americans, we must have an awareness-we
do have an awareness-a consciousness of the fact that we can
no longer continue with the old ways where we end up with
trees, forests, indeed streams and rivers being polluted or dying.
We cannot continue with that and surely Canada is taking a
leadership role.
However, the fact that the United States has not signed the
protocol I believe is a major problem from the point of view of
Canadian competitiveness. We have to be very conscious and I
would encourage the minister in her discussions with the United
States envoys and the negotiators to make sure that Canadian
business interests are protected because if not these are our jobs.
5350
At the conclusion of the minister's statement she said we will
continue to work with concerned Canadians and provincial
governments in the ongoing development of a national strategy
on acid rain.
Two items continuing with the thought that we will continue
to work with concerned Canadians, we have to make sure that
among the stakeholders whose point of view is being considered
that businesses are deeply and heavily involved in the process,
they are fully consulted and that the impact this has the potential
of having on our competitive Canadian position, business wise,
is fully taken into account.
She mentioned the fact that there will be further consultation
and an involvement of the provincial governments.
For exactly the same reason we can have within Canada
duplication of standards based on very well-meaning laws and
rules and regulations and legislation that may be brought before
this House or provincial legislatures and by the very fact that
there is duplication, again we end up putting an extra burden on
the businesses in Canada.
I do not stand here speaking for business for the sake of
business. I stand here speaking for business because it is
business that employs Canadians. It is business that generates
real wealth, that can be taxed. It is business that drives the
finances of our nation and when we forget that we stray an awful
long way from the reality that we must be careful that we are not
killing the goose that is laying the golden egg with a very
benevolent attitude toward these concerns.
The minister concludes there are no overnight solutions but
there are solutions and again I commend the minister, the
department, on the signing of this accord and I do believe it is a
major step in the direction of reducing sulphur dioxide
emissions to a reasonable and responsible level.
* * *
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both
official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee
on Finance dealing with Bill C-32, an act to amend the Excise
Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Income Tax Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 29th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the membership of committees.
By leave of the House, I intend to move concurrence in the
29th report later today.
(1530)
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development regarding Bill
C-30. The committee has examined the bill and has agreed to
report it with an amendment.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-42, an
act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (miscellaneous
matters).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-259, an act respecting a national
grandparent's day.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member
for Calgary Southeast for seconding my motion.
I am pleased to table a bill whose purpose is to recognize
Canadian grandparents by establishing a national grandparent's
day.
It is appropriate in this Year of the Family, 1994, to pay tribute
to our grandparents who have laid the foundation of our family
structure and future well-being, to encourage all Canadians,
particularly children and grandchildren, to remember and
appreciate their grandparents and to honour all grandparents in
acknowledgement of their contribution to Canadian society.
I recommend the second Sunday in September to be declared
national grandparent's day.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
5351
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (replica firearms, theft, import or unlawful sale
of firearms).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for
Yorkton-Melville for seconding my private member's bill.
There has been a great deal of concern expressed in the House,
in the media and by ordinary Canadians about the criminal use
of firearms. There is only one effective way to combat the
criminal use of firearms and that is to go after the criminals who
use them.
I was pleased to hear in the House today that the Minister of
Justice is considering changes to the Criminal Code to deal with
this issue. I would suggest that this private member's bill gives
the government the option of dealing with the matter
immediately.
The purpose of this bill is to amend section 85 of the Criminal
Code. The bill would remove the difficult onus on the crown of
having to prove that the object used in the commission of a
criminal offence meets the legal definition of a firearm. This is
accomplished by adding replica firearms to the section. In
addition, the minimum sentence for a first offence is increased
from one year to five years and for subsequent offences the
minimum is increased from three years to ten years.
This bill also creates two new offences. The first is theft of a
firearm, which will carry a minimum sentence of three years.
The second new offence is the unlawful importation of a firearm
for the purpose of using it in the commission of a criminal
offence or to be illegally sold. This offence will also carry a
minimum sentence of three years.
The last part of this bill would go after those individuals who
sell firearms illegally. They will now be deemed to be a party to
any offence that the buyer commits with that illegally purchased
firearm.
(1535)
The bill sends a clear message to criminals. If they use a
firearm in their criminal activity they are going to go to jail for a
long time.
If the House is serious about going after the criminal use of
firearms, let us put the right target in our sight; the criminal who
uses firearms.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:
That the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That between the hours of 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. this day no dilatory motion or
quorum call shall be receivable by the Speaker.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition with 179 signatories from
Vancouver Quadra, my constituency, and from Vancouver
generally, including many senior citizens.
The petition asks that the House refuse the repeal or
amendment of section 241 of the Criminal Code and expresses at
the same time approval of the Supreme Court decision of
September 30, 1993 refusing assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, I have four petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36,
which have been certified correct as to form and content.
The first petition deals with abortion and proposes that we
amend the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed
by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, the next two petitions deal with sexual orientation.
They ask Parliament to amend the human rights code to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, my final petition is on euthanasia. It asks Parliament to
make
5352
no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today from my
constituents in Port Moody-Coquitlam.
The first is in memory of Dawn Shaw and it requests that
Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to
provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and
to ensure the conviction of offenders.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition from my constituents asks 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 and
euthanasia.
(1540 )
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to
present a petition on behalf of 53 Canadians.
The petition asks Parliament to amend the Income Tax Act to
exclude child support payments from the taxable income of
custodial parents.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table a petition signed
by close to 1,500 residents from my riding of Chicoutimi and the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.
The petitioners oppose the repeated attacks on retired
people's income, and they ask Parliament to reject any measure
which would adversely affect retired people's income. In
Quebec, over 52 per cent of the retired population is already
living below the poverty level.
I fully support that petition and I urge the government to
follow up on it.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present
petitions on behalf of my constituents to request Parliament to
not amend the human rights code, Canadian Human Rights Act
or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include the undefined
phrase sexual orientation.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I would like again today to add more petitions on
behalf of Canadian grandparents who ask Parliament to amend
the Divorce Act to ensure the right of access of grandparents to
their grandchildren.
It is the hope of this member that all members of the House
will support our grandparents and bring about the necessary
changes to protect both the grandchildren and the grandparents.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure
to present a petition under Standing Order 36 on behalf of the
member of Parliament for Kent. His constituents petition in
regard to the building of an ethanol plant in his riding which will
create 1,100 person-years of work.
They petition the government to maintain the present
exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade. This
would allow for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry to
develop in Canada.
On his behalf I present this to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, since
this is my first experience at tabling a petition, I simply want to
mention that this petition is not against bilingualism and the
Official Languages Act, as is regularly the case with petitions
tabled by Reform Party members, and nor is it a petition such as
the one tabled by the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, which aimed at-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I believe I am
entitled to ask the hon. member to table his petition in
accordance with the form and practice in use in the House, and
not get into a debate.
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition signed by
thousands of Canadians asking the government to continue to
subsidize VIA Rail.
These Canadians, who are members of the association called
Rural Dignity of Canada, demand that the federal government
hold public hearings and consultations before making any
decision on cuts and abandonment of lines proposed by VIA
Rail.
Quebec and Canadian citizens also demand that a one-year
moratorium be immediately imposed on the closure of any
railway line.
5353
[English]
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting to the House a
petition which carries over 4,700 signatures.
The petition was initiated by Connie Murray of Clifford,
Ontario in the memory of the tragic shooting and death of
25-year old Joan Heimbecker.
The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation which would grant no parole for convicted criminals
and that life sentences be carried out for the full duration of the
convict's life.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, particularly today when I
introduced my private member's bill, to present a petition from
103 constituents.
The petitioners feel that the government's attempt on gun
control against legitimate gun users is not the route to go. They
ask that Parliament not accept that proposal but to bring forward
legislation that would deal with the criminal use of firearms.
It is my pleasure to present this petition to the House.
(1545 )
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have
before me a petition which has been signed by 32 members of
my riding of Peace River. The petition deals with the subject of
assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Section 241 of the Criminal Code states that everyone who
counsels a person to commit suicide or aids and abets a person to
commit suicide whether suicide ensues or not is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 14 years.
The petitioners therefore pray that Parliament not repeal or
amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a
petition signed by 150 residents throughout southwestern
Ontario. These petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to
amend the National Energy Board Act in order to provide
intervener funding when residents are involved in proceedings
relative to a pipeline.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from almost 300 people in the township of Smith and
other parts of Peterborough county. It concerns the selection of
waste disposal sites.
I will summarize this extremely well phrased petition. The
petitioners feel that the problems of selecting waste disposal
sites are not being properly addressed at present. They also
believe that good agricultural land is not being protected.
The petitioners request that Parliament refer this matter to the
ministers of environment and agriculture in the hope that
discussions with the provinces will result in a national approach
to waste management.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I have a
second petition from 107 people in Peterborough riding. These
people are concerned about the sale of the so-called killer cards.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the laws of
Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and
manufacture of so-called killer cards in law and to advise
producers of killer cards that their products if destined for
Canada will be seized and destroyed.
I have signed both these petitions.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of
papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all notices of
motions for the production of papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to inform the
House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government
Orders will be extended by 21 minutes, pursuant to Standing
Order 33(2)(b).
_____________________________________________
5353
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for the Minister of Transport)
moved that Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements
concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and
2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, be read the third
time and passed.
5354
(1550 )
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak at the third
and final reading stage of this most important bill. This bill is an
act respecting certain agreements for the redevelopment and
operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International
Airport. In layman's terms that means it is the bill to formally
cancel the agreement which was entered into by the former
government. This issue has been debated at length in this House
and in committee.
This bill reflects another election commitment made by this
government. During the course of the election, our leader who
was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, gave notice that
after the election the agreement would be reviewed by the
incoming new government.
True to his and this government's word, upon election of the
Liberal government we had Mr. Nixon review the agreement to
ensure that the public interest was being served. His conclusions
and recommendations which formed part and parcel of the
Minister of Transport's recommendation has resulted in this
bill.
To make it clear to everyone, including the opposition parties,
the bill effectively and formally cancels the agreement. Both
opposition parties agree with the government that the agreement
should be cancelled. There is unanimity in this House with
regard to its cancellation. There seems to be no dispute
whatsoever as to whether or not this agreement needed to be
cancelled. I am happy to thank both opposition parties for
supporting this legislation.
Having said that, the opposition parties have given their
qualified approval but have voted against the bill at report stage.
They will probably also vote against it tonight because in their
opinion they have serious reservations with regard to the bill.
Therefore, it is only appropriate for me to take the opportunity
to try to answer the questions put by both opposition parties and
the improvements which in their minds need to be done to this
bill.
The Bloc Quebecois throughout the course of debate on this
bill seems to be fixated with putting blame, or finding out where
the blame lies. The government side understands that is
important and essentially that is why we introduced the bill to
cancel the agreement. We knew the agreement was flawed in its
process and its substance. The process was questionable not in
legal terms but in terms of the role of the lobbyists in putting
together such an agreement.
Bloc Quebecois members have insisted that a public inquiry
by a royal commission was needed to find out who was to blame
for putting this agreement together in the first place. We could
go on a wild goose chase to find out who was to blame. At the
end of the day however even after a public inquiry by a royal
commission, legislation would still have to be put in place to
effectively and formally cancel the agreement, not to mention
the millions of dollars and the time that would be wasted in such
an exercise.
The Canadian people themselves gave a verdict to the people
involved in that deal, namely the former Conservative
government. The agreement was signed two weeks before the
election, after being given notice by the present right hon. Prime
Minister not to do so but to wait for the new government to
review it. Despite that warning, the former Conservative
government signed the deal. We know what happened to that
government. Public opinion was that what had occurred was not
in keeping with what was perceived as good government
practices. Hence, that government was defeated. There were
many other reasons for that but I suggest this agreement was part
and parcel of it too.
(1555)
With respect to the other parties that signed this agreement,
the testimony at committee hearings and Mr. Nixon's report
makes it clear that while we may not have liked the process and
we might question the roles of the government, the partnerships
and the lobbyists, the fact remains that an agreement was signed
legally and formally by another government and another party.
During the hearings this government and its members did not
stand in the way of asking for witnesses to come before the
Standing Committee of Transport to question the people who
were directly involved. I heard someone mention yesterday that
perhaps all the parties did not avail themselves of that
opportunity. That is perfectly true.
The solicitor from the Pearson Development Corporation was
there. The Paxport people were there, including Mr. Don
Matthews. The former president of Paxport was there, Mr.
Hession, and a number of other witnesses. However, a number of
witnesses, including former government members and
lobbyists, indicated they could not or would not appear before
the committee. That is regrettable because the government and
the people of Canada deserve to know all the facts. We would
have wanted that, but that did not occur.
There was some mention of putting subpoenas before
witnesses as suggested by the Bloc. As worthy as that might
seem however, that process was fraught with peril in terms of
time and of whether or not we would ever get to the bottom of the
story.
One fact is clear: The government, the opposition parties and
the Canadian people agree that this deal should be cancelled. So
what would be accomplished by going on a so-called witch hunt
to look for that person who may or may not have done something
right or wrong? Mr. Nixon said that nothing illegal occurred,
that in fact, as we have all agreed, the process and the substance
was flawed.
5355
This bill has essentially tried to do a number of things. First
and foremost however it was necessary to cancel the deal
formally because there was no cancellation provision in the
contract. The government needed to do that formally.
Second, the bill outlines what can or should be paid to the
parties to this agreement. The bill does provide guidance and
restrictions to the Minister of Transport.
This government has said it does not believe that the process
was as it should be and that lobbyists played a very big part,
perhaps too big. In the next day or two the Minister of Industry
and the parliamentary secretary will introduce changes to the
lobbyists act to ensure that the rules are clear to everyone as to
what lobbyists can and cannot do with government or members
of Parliament. It will put in place a code of ethics among other
things.
However, the purpose of Bill C-22 is not to debate or discuss
the role of lobbyists. That is a bigger issue which will come
later. The bill does say the government will not pay one cent in
lobbyists' fees. We will not pay one penny toward lobbyists'
costs.
The bill also says we will not pay for the lost profits or lost
opportunities that Pearson Development Corporation or the
limited partnership might think that in cancelling the agreement
they are entitled to.
(1600 )
This government has said clearly no lost opportunity, no lost
profit. The only thing that we think this government will pay and
should pay is legitimate out of pocket expenses that can be
justified, that in fact show value for work received because there
are a number of third party claimants that are part of the whole
apparatus. They are to a certain extent innocent parties to an
agreement, parties which might have done some architectural
work, engineering work or other legitimate work which was
invoiced to the partnership. The government is prepared to
consider those invoices and to meticulously look at them to
ensure that in fact they are legitimate, that they were for the
purposes of Pearson airport and not for something else.
We have a negotiator presently looking at each and every one
of those invoices. Some 60 volumes of paper need to be gone
through to ensure that, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Transport said, the government does not pay a penny more than
what needs to be paid. We want to ensure that our process can
withstand the scrutiny of the public, the opposition and the
Auditor General.
We want to make sure that the cabinet by order in council only
pays those invoices that are in fact legitimate. That is the
process. There is a negotiator and that is what is happening now.
The Reform Party has had some problems with respect to the
question of transparency. What is it that we are paying? Who
should decide what should be paid? It was suggested that the
parliamentary committee on transport look at those invoices and
make recommendations to the minister and in fact have a
hearing on what invoices should be paid. Those are legitimate
questions.
The minister and I and others have stated that the system, the
bill, the process within this House of Commons and government
operations are transparent. Before even one cent is paid the
Auditor General will obviously be very interested in this.
There is a public accounts committee of this House of
Commons, chaired by the opposition that can ask for all the
documents to be brought forward. There is the accountability of
government. The cabinet is accountable to the people of Canada
for making those kinds of decisions. There is an apparatus in
place to ensure that the process is transparent, that
accountability is clearly to the government.
The minister indicated, and I think we passed an amendment
by the Bloc at committee, that he will table with this House all
the documents that he can table respecting freedom of access to
information and guidelines and rules as to what can and cannot
be made public. There was a commitment made to this House
that would take place.
The bill says, yes, we might pay something, but you will have
to prove to us that each and every invoice is legitimate. One
must take this bill in its context. This is a very unique bill,
unheard of really in terms of Canadian history, where a
government would move so boldly as to cancel an agreement
and say no loss of profit and no lobbyist fees. It says something
much more important.
It says that we need to get on with managing the future of
Pearson because it is an important transportation hub in this
country. It is a nationally significant airport that impacts the
west, the east, Quebec and Ontario. We need to get on with
planning the future of Pearson. This bill is absolutely necessary
for us to do that. We cannot plan its future unless we formally
cancel the agreement and deal with this matter once and for all.
(1605 )
The bill also says that if there is no successful completion to
negotiations, 30 days after proclamation of the bill there shall be
no payments at all. That is a pretty strong stick for this
government to use to try and bring all the parties at the table to a
reasonable completion to the negotiations. That is an important
aspect to this bill because we cannot and I am sure the
opposition parties would not want us to continue to carry on
fruitless negotiations. This bill does put in place a sunset
provision that says 30 days after proclamation, if there is not a
negotiated settlement there shall not be one penny paid.
5356
It also protects the government against lawsuits. We cannot
take it to the courts because we believe we need to get moving on
it.
I know that the debate will continue somewhat today and that
both opposition parties will try to make their case again for more
transparency, more accountability. The Bloc will suggest that
we cannot deal with this bill because we do not really know the
true facts about what happened behind those closed doors. That
is true and it is regrettable but we have to deal with reality. The
reality is that we need to get on with planning Pearson's future,
dealing with the bill. There will be other opportunities to discuss
the influence of lobbyists and so on and that will come in a
subsequent bill.
I want to touch base on a couple of points that I think are
absolutely necessary. Talking about expediency, when the bill
moves to the Senate where it will go through a similar process,
we hope that the Senate will respect and move expeditiously in
passing this bill. It is in the best interests of the country to do so
in order that the government can get on with planning for the
future of Pearson and assisting the travelling public as much as
possible.
We believe that this is a very unique bill in Canadian history
because of some very unique circumstances. Hopefully they will
never occur again.
I believe we all will have learned from this process what
governments can and should do prior to an election, especially
on nationally significant issues. Perhaps decisions do not have
to be made in the last minutes before the end of a government's
mandate, especially on an issue that captured the attention of
this House some one and a half years before the election. Our
party spoke very often and very forcefully to the government,
raising concerns about the process and as to whether we ought to
divest ourselves of a nationally significant piece of property
which serves millions of travelling Canadians as well as people
visiting this country.
I know how frustrated we were. The Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Industry will tell you that we were very
frustrated because we had no opportunity to discuss whether or
not the concept of privatization of Pearson should even proceed.
We were not given the opportunity. It was done in a very
heavy-handed way by a former government. It paid the price for
those kinds of actions that Canadians saw as being very cynical
and having caused an awful lot of problems for politicians in
general as well as the House of Commons with regard to its
credibility and integrity.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to accuse us of essentially doing
the same thing as the former government. Heaven forbid. The
fact is that we are cancelling this contract. We will not pay
compensation to lobbyists for profit. We will only pay invoices
that are legitimate. They will perhaps say there are some
Liberals somewhere in there that we are trying to protect.
This government before, during and after the election and up
until now has made one commitment to the Canadian people. It
did not fudge, hedge, or anything else.
(1610 )
This bill does cancel the agreement totally. The only thing left
is to decide if there is any compensation to be given to the other
party that signed that agreement.
I would hope that the opposition parties, as I said at the
beginning of my remarks, support the government in cancelling
this agreement and also recognize that no bill is ever perfect.
We agree that amendments sometimes are made. In fact the
committee did report an amendment and the government side
supported it. We agree. Yes, there were amendments put
yesterday by both opposition parties. I tried to tell the
opposition parties that transparency and accountability are built
into the bill as well as built into the system.
Yes, we are all mistrusting of the system. We have been here
only seven or eight months on the government side. We will
have to show members and restore everyone's faith in the
system. There are checks and balances in the system to ensure
that only those invoices that need to be paid shall be paid and we
will, as a government, be subject to the court of public opinion.
I am not sure that the public wants us to write a cheque to rid
ourselves of this problem. Of course not. The minister and the
Prime Minister have said that we will not pay a penny more than
we have to. It was a legally signed agreement. As repugnant as it
was that a former government should even do it two weeks
before an election, it did it. That government did it.
Therefore we have obligations. When a government does
what it is doing today by this bill, it has to consider its impact on
future contracts, on the international reputation that we have as
to whether or not a government can be trusted that once it enters
into an agreement, it will in fact fulfil its contractual
obligations. That is a worry and members should understand
that.
That is why it allows the discretion in the bill to pay for the
legitimate expenses. I hope as we wrap up debate on this issue
that the opposition parties will understand that this government
wants to get on with planning the future of Pearson airport and
the aviation industry in this country.
The only way we can do that is to finally put this agreement
behind us and get on with completing the negotiations. In fact, if
the negotiations are not completed and this bill is proclaimed 30
days thereafter there shall be no compensation.
We hope that our friends in the other place, the Senate, do not
play any games with this bill and the public interest is best
served. We hope it expedites this bill as quickly as possible so
that we can get on with again planning the future of Pearson.
5357
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, I stand
before you today somewhat disappointed, but not beaten. On
Tuesday, June 14, this House adopted the report of the Transport
Committee, despite the amendments proposed, warnings given
and negative vote entered by the Official Opposition and the
third party. Yet the amendments we presented would, we hoped,
have enlightened our colleagues on the compensation which the
government intends to give to the former directors of Pearson
Airport, namely the Pearson Development Corporation.
I was very disappointed to see and hear the Chairman of the
Transport Committee tell this House yesterday that he did not
intend to spend a million dollars to call witnesses who, in one
way or another, would repeat what we already know. He also
mentioned that even if witnesses were called, the result would
be minimal because the process is too cumbersome and it simply
would not be worthwhile. He informed us that the last time
witnesses were subpoenaed was in 1913, when the matter had to
be taken to the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms was sent to get
the witness. The outcome was that the person wound up in jail.
This is not what we are requesting. What we are asking for is the
application of quite recent precedents, one of which was set on
Tuesday, August 20, 1991, before the finance committee, where
the following motion was introduced. I will read it in the
language of Shakespeare so that everyone can understand:
[English]
On a motion by René Soetens, it was ordered, that-Diane Woodruff, from
Price Waterhouse, Frank Kolhatkar and James Goodfellow, from Deloitte &
Touche, be summoned and required to appear before the Committee.
(1615 )
[Translation]
Another precedent was set on Monday, October 21, 1991,
when the hon. member for Windsor, the current Government
House Leader, who was in opposition at the time moved:
[English]
That Anwar Khan be summoned to appear before the Committee.
After debate, the question being put on the motion it was by a show of hands,
agreed to: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 2.
[
Translation]
The motion was agreed to. More recently, on Tuesday,
December 8, 1992, the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs agreed to summon the Minister of
National Defence to appear before the committee on February 2
to discuss the Auditor General's 1992 annual report.
I wanted to set the record straight and I can tell you that both
the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
and the chairman of the transport committee were aware of these
facts yesterday because I had made the same presentation in
committee. The chairman of the transport committee and the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport refuse to
spend $1 million to make the truth known to Canadians.
At the same time, their party is considering paying as much as
$250 million perhaps to friends of the two older parties -the
Liberal and the Conservative Party- although we do not even
know yet if we should pay a single penny in compensation or if
Pearson Development Corporation should not be reimbursing
the government instead.
Also, my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Transport in this Liberal government, has no qualms
paying the bills Pearson Development Corporation may submit,
because, as he indicated: ``The Auditor General has a job to do
and he will report any irregularity in the bills paid by the
government.'' Let us not forget that, as is always the case with
reports from the Auditor General, observations are made after
the fact.
That is why we in the Official Opposition, wanting to prevent
such occurrences and ensure that the taxes of Canadians and
Quebecers are used wisely, have reacted. We proposed that a
commission of enquiry be established to uncover the truth. That
is not serious.
I trust the Auditor General and his recommendations but I am
not confident that the current government will take them into
account and recover the amounts actually spent, even if it was
recommended by the Auditor General. If this government is
really serious, it should read the Auditor General's latest report
and make the requested corrections immediately. We may then
believe that it is possible to act first and then to make the
recommended corrections.
Yet some members of the transport committee such as my
colleague from the Reform Party asked only for incremental
measures, a certain openness and a transparency that the
Canadian people want to see right away. Liberal members do not
seem interested in seeing again Tory ghosts like Otto Jelinek, as
my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West, stated in
response to my speech on June 13.
I am not interested either in seeing these ghosts again. In any
case, we only have to look at how often the current leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party and hon. member for
Sherbrooke sits in this House to be convinced that if we saw him,
we would have the impression of seeing a ghost. That is true, but
I would like to compel them to come before the transport
committee to shed light on the previous government's actions in
awarding the Pearson Airport privatization contract.
5358
(1620)
We are now at third reading and I am trying one last time to
inform my colleagues properly on the history of the Pearson
Airport privatization. Together let us look at some important
dates.
On April 8, 1987, the government published its policy on
airport management in Canada and recommended that airports
be operated by local authorities. On June 22, 1987, the
Government of Canada designated Airport Development
Corporation, Claridge, to build and operate terminal 3 at
Pearson.
In September 1989, Paxport presented a proposal to privatize
terminals 1 and 2 which was rejected by the government. On
October 17, 1990, the government invited the private sector to
help modernize terminals 1 and 2. No details were provided at
that time.
On February 21, 1991, terminal 3 began operations under
Claridge Holdings Incorporated. On March 11, 1992, the
government officially called for proposals to privatize terminals
1 and 2 at Pearson. A single sentence, no prequalification.
Early June 1992, bidding closed. Two bids were received: one
from Paxport, the other from Claridge.
On December 7, 1992, Paxport's proposal was selected; it had
until February 15 to show that its proposal was financially
viable. This condition was not met.
On February 1, 1993, Paxport and Claridge merged in the
T1T2 Limited Partnership. From February to May 1993, the
financial viability of the project and Air Canada's lease were
discussed.
In May 1993, official negotiations began and Claridge took
control of the T1T2 Limited Partnership. On June 18, 1993, a
memorandum of agreement was signed on the privatization of
terminals 1 and 2. On August 30, 1993, the Minister of Transport
announced a general agreement between the two parties and
promised a final agreement would be signed in the fall.
On September 8, 1993, the Government of Canada called an
election. On October 7, 1993, the legal agreement on privatizing
terminals 1 and 2 was signed. On October 25, 1993, the federal
election was held. On November 29, 1993, the Nixon report was
published, and on December 3, 1993, the Prime Minister
announced the cancellation of the agreement to privatize the
airport.
Before the final signature, the leader of the Liberal Party of
Canada and present Prime Minister warned the parties that he
would not hesitate to cancel this agreement. Following that
statement, the chief negotiator asked for written instructions to
proceed to the signing of the contract. The then-Prime Minister
requested specifically that the transaction be completed that
same day. Mr. Nixon found in his report that the lobbyists' role
in this matter went beyond the usual normal bounds. In fact,
lobbyists were directly responsible for the reassignment of
several senior public servants and the request from some others
to be replaced.
The 90-day call for tenders was surprisingly short, and it was
impossible for groups other than those already involved in the
administration of the airport, such as Claridge and Paxport, to
submit a valid bid. This explains why only two bids were
received. Paxport had previously submitted a privatization plan
in 1989, and Claridge was already operating terminal 3.
It is surprising that no prior financial analysis was required in
this proposal. It is not usual democratic practice to sign a
transaction of this magnitude during an election campaign,
thereby binding the soon-to-be-elected government to a policy
established by the previous government.
From a financial standpoint, as previously mentioned,
Pearson is the only profitable airport in Canada. The agreement
prohibits Transport Canada from making investments that might
have a detrimental effect on Pearson's traffic in any airport
within a 75-kilometre radius of the Pearson Airport; this clause
gives preference to Pearson over other airports in the region.
My purpose in reviewing the events of 1987 to 1993 in this
matter, first of all, is to make sure that my colleagues in the
House are aware of the importance of the decision we will be
called upon to make-a decision that will make people aware of
the kind of democracy in which they live.
(1625)
Parliament has all the instruments it needs to find out the truth
and decide accordingly. But we must be prepared to forget
partisan considerations and to probe some apparently disturbing
facts. We have four instruments: the House of Commons, the
committees, royal commissions of inquiry and finally, the
justice system.
In this particular case, the Prime Minister quickly cancelled
the privatization contract because he thought there might be
misappropriation of funds. However, since he made that
decision, what did we find out? Not much, but it was not because
the opposition lacked the political will. Here in the House we
asked for a royal commission of inquiry. Our request was turned
down. In committee, we invited witnesses. What happened?
They did not appear.
Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I will go through the list of 17
witnesses I tabled in the transport committee. We invited Ray
Hession, who agreed to appear. We invited Robert Nixon, but
our Liberal colleagues said that his detailed report was clear
enough. Ramsay Withers refused. Herb Metcalfe refused. Fred
Doucet refused. William Rowat refused. Huguette Labelle
refused. Former minister Jean Corbeil refused. In the case of
Robert Wright, our Liberal colleagues made the point that since
Mr. Wright was responsible for negotiations between the
parties, it was perhaps irrelevant to invite him to appear before
the
5359
committee. We agreed. Jodi White, the former prime minister's
chief of staff. Doug Young, the Minister, who agreed. Robert
Bandeen refused. Peter Coughlin refused. Don Matthews
agreed. Former minister Otto Jelinek refused. Representatives
for Air Canada agreed to appear, and finally, Liberal Senator
Leo Kolber refused.
That was the list of 17 witnesses I invited to appear before the
committee.
When we look at the connections of these people, I understand
why my Liberal colleagues refused to let people testify before
the committee, when we are talking about certain
representatives or lobbyists who are close to the Conservatives.
I disagree in the case of people with very close connections with
the Liberal Party. For instance, Otto Jelinek, a former
Conservative minister who is now president of the Asian branch
of the Matthews group, and Ray Hession, a former Deputy
Minister of Industry and senior executive at Supply and Services
under the Trudeau governments.
We could add Herb Metcalfe, a lobbyist with the Capital Hill
group, a former representative for Claridge Properties and a
former organizer for Jean Chrétien. We could mention Ramsay
Withers, a Liberal lobbyist with very close connections to Jean
Chrétien and a former Deputy of Transport.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order! I wish to remind
hon. members that the proper procedure is to refer to a member
of this House by his title. For instance, when speaking about the
Hon. Jean Chrétien, members should refer to him as the Prime
Minister.
I would also mention at this time that the same holds true for
our colleagues in the other place. I wanted to point this out as we
begin this debate.
Mr. Guimond: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. In the heat of the
moment, I forgot the rules, most likely because of my lack of
experience.
I was speaking about Mr. Ramsay Withers, a Liberal lobbyist
with very close ties to the current Prime Minister, and a deputy
minister of transport during the tender process for Terminal 3 at
Pearson Airport.
Let me also mention a member of the other place, Mr. Léo
Kolber, who also happens to be a member of the board of
directors of Claridge, according to the Financial Post Directory
of Directors. This same person hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner
at his Westmount home. On hand for the occasion were, among
others, Charles Bronfman and the current Prime Minister, who
was in the midst of the election campaign.
(1630)
Finally, another player in the deal is Mr. Peter Coughlin, a
senior official with Claridge Properties who has twice refused to
testify before our committee. I suggested that we subpoena him,
but my proposal was defeated by the Liberal majority on the
committee. The same thing occurred when we wanted to
subpoena former minister Otto Jelinek.
So, since the witnesses did not appear, and since we had
unsuccessfully asked the committee chairman to insist that the
witnesses appear, I asked the transport committee to employ the
means provided by our ancestors to find out the truth, namely to
subpoena the witnesses and thus force them to appear. The
motion was again defeated in committee.
Even if we would have had to take the matter again before the
House, even if the Sergeant-at-Arms would have had to take the
necessary steps to bring the witnesses before the committee,
even if it had cost a million dollars-which I seriously doubt-,
we should have made use of the tools at our disposal to shed light
on some worrisome facts, as the Nixon report indicates.
Democracy has its costs. If we want to preserve democracy,
we must be prepared to assume those costs. It is the only
possible way to protect society from certain abuses by
individuals who would do anything for their own personal gain.
To prevent certain people from appropriating public assets to
which they are not entitled, it must be made clear to those people
that the government will use whatever means are available to it
to ``air out the dirty laundry'', so to speak.
By failing to act like a responsible government and to assume
its responsibilities, the government is encouraging certain
groups to bypass normal channels and to try to turn quick profits
without worrying about tomorrow.
Why is the present government in such a hurry to pass this
bill? Is it worried about having to pay a few dollars in interest on
unpaid invoices? But perhaps there will not be any
compensation. How could there be any interest if there is no
compensation? Or is the government rather afraid of losing
contributions to its election fund?
The government cannot, for partisan political reasons,
suppress such a scandal that might impact upon previous and
future generations of politicians. We must clear up this matter.
We must show that we act openly. We must restore the trust of
Canadians. The money owed to the government must be
recovered, and we must stop making handouts in this matter.
For the sake of social justice, we must let the public know the
truth.
5360
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise today on third reading of Bill C-22.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for London
East about the process that we are going through. I am sure he,
like many other members when they were campaigning in the
last election, was absolutely distraught at the level of cynicism
that we found among the voters as we went door to door. I must
admit the mistrust they had of politicians put me at an all time
low.
Bill C-22 really focuses on the mistrust and the cynicism that
people have toward politicians. I believe that mistrust was
reflected in the fact that we had such a huge turnover in members
in the 35th Parliament. When we start talking about the Bloc
looking for blame, or the Reform Party looking for
transparency, really what we are talking about is trying to
establish the credibility of politicians and returning the trust
that has been lost in this place.
(1635)
I am sure the Canadian people applauded the decision to
cancel the Pearson contract because during the campaign it was
obvious it was under a cloud. I would suggest that those same
people would not be very happy with the fact that the
negotiations for any possible compensation are proceeding
under what appears to be a cloud.
It was suggested that the Nixon report did not say that there
was anything illegal. While that is true, a lot of questions were
raised in that report. Indeed, beneath the questions that were
raised there may be something illegal. We will never know how
things are proceeding because of this reluctance to open up the
process to public scrutiny and working toward restoring trust in
ourselves and in the system.
I see two contradictions with the red book in Bill C-22. First,
the government was elected on the premise of jobs through
infrastructure development. Here we are talking about what
arguably could be the biggest piece of infrastructure in Canada.
Much needed development is being held up because of
negotiations regarding compensation which are going on behind
closed doors. Six months have passed since the contract was
cancelled and nothing has happened toward construction or job
creation.
Mr. Nixon stated in his report that construction should
proceed. I would like to quote from his words on page 13,
para-graph 4:
I further recommend that Transport Canada continue for the time being to
administer Terminals 1 and 2, and proceed with necessary construction. Thereafter, I
recommend that Transport Canada recognize the airport authority. Once operational,
the airport authority would receive from Transport Canada, the responsibility of the
day to day operations of the airport complex. It would also deal with the planning,
financing and construction of airport infrastructure. In particular, this would include
Terminals 1 and 2 and the runways, taxiways and aprons at Pearson.
To this point, nothing is happening as far as construction goes.
The other contradiction is the reluctance to open up the
process to the light of day. This again flies in the face of the red
book promise of governing with integrity. I would like to quote
from chapter six of the red book, which deals with this particular
issue. I think it fits very well with what we are talking about
tonight:
This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with
the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of
political leadership. The people are irritated with governments that do not
consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the
public business behind closed doors.
That is very significant in what we are doing here in Bill
C-22.
We in the Bloc have attempted to open up the process. The
Canadian people should be aware of what is going on. They are
the ones who will be paying whatever compensation may or may
not be agreed on.
As I mentioned earlier, the Nixon report raised a lot of
questions and yet provided few answers. We owe it to the
taxpayers to answer those questions. We owe it to the people
who were identified in the report. They should have an
opportunity to clear their names and reputations.
However, transparency is not to prevail. The cloud over the
initial deal under the Tories is now covering the compensation
that may or may not be paid.
Why are we even considering one nickel of taxpayers' money
to a group that does not deserve a penny of hard earned dollars?
Let me review. The deal was signed on October 7, 1993, just 18
days before the election was called, knowing full well that the
deal likely would not survive a change of government.
We were not dealing with people who were political novices,
unfamiliar with the system. We are dealing with both Tory and
Liberal supporters, politically well connected people who
apparently were about to line their pockets at the Canadian
taxpayers' expense. When you consider the challenge, you have
a government run operation generating some $70 million of
profit each year.
(1640)
An hon. member: Some years more.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Some years more.
Governments do not have that reputation for making money. In
fact the reverse is true. There have been cases where they have
taken over money making propositions and soon run them into
the red. Here is an unbelievable opportunity, a government run
venture about to be turned over to the private sector.
5361
Under normal circumstances there should have been a
stampede to bid on this project. The term, a licence to print
money, is very appropriate here; a sure winner, you cannot lose.
Making money with this deal is as sure as death and taxes.
The original Tory group made a big issue in its proposal that
there must be competition in terminal 3. That was a key part of
its proposal. This was the only way to ensure protection for the
public using this facility. When it was discovered that the group
did not have the financing or financial ability to proceed, it went
looking for a white knight.
Again, when you remember the fact that this was a guaranteed
money maker, you would have thought that there would be no
problem finding a suitable backer for such an airtight money
making project. We do not know how many people sought to
become a part of the plum, but what we do know is that the
operators of terminal 3, the Liberal connection, turned out to be
the white knight. Out the window goes competition. Any
possible challenge to future profits was removed and the
taxpayers and the travelling public are now in the hands of a
monopoly.
Canada's most important piece of infrastructure is now shared
by both Tory and Liberal supporters. A suspicious mind might
consider this to have been a very smart move to insulate the deal
from political interference.
What is interesting about the Nixon report is that it did not
deal with the Liberal connection with the same intensity to
which the Tory group was subject. They might have been
successful had the public not reacted so strenuously to this deal.
A shady deal by the Tories is no different than a shady deal by
the Liberals. The Canadian taxpayer does not know the
difference in shades of dirt.
Let us go back to the deal for a moment and see if we can find
any reason for paying taxpayers' dollars to anyone. No evidence
exists of any work being done between October 7 and the
cancellation date; not one load of gravel, not one shovel in the
ground. In my opinion, nothing happened during that period
because of the uncertainty.
The original Tory group had presented an unsolicited bid for
this project back in September 1989 and no compensation was
requested or paid when it was rejected at that time. No doubt a
great deal of work went into this proposal and it placed the group
at a very distinct advantage when the government in March 1992
decided to request proposals for privatization.
The fact that 90 days only had been allowed to produce these
proposals gave the original group of 1989 a tremendous
advantage, a point not missed in the Nixon report.
Our problem is that no compensation as opposed to something
in the order of $25 million to $30 million for out of pocket
expenses or $180 million if we buy the ridiculous argument of
lost profits. Why not let the principals prove in an open forum
what money was spent on this project between October 7, the
signing date and December 2, 1993, the cancellation date. If any
costs were to be justified, this is the only timeframe that should
be considered.
Today's Toronto Star reports that this review could cost
taxpayers as much as $98,000, a further expense in salaries and
expenses to Bob Wright, the lawyer appointed by the
government to handle this wrap-up. Mr. Wright is a former
fundraiser and law partner of the Prime Minister. I would
suggest without questioning Mr. Wright's integrity or ability,
the public perception is not the one we wanted them to have.
Here we are trying to restore this level of trust and confidence
and with an appointment like this one the public perception is
that it appears to be more of the same.
(1645)
One has to ask why the Liberal government is going out of its
way to protect the previous Tory government. If the deal is half
as bad as the Nixon report speculates, the taxpayers of Canada
deserve a full explanation. If more time were required to
accumulate witnesses who were prepared to attend, why not
allow for it? For reluctant witnesses, why not use the subpoena
process available to committees to force their appearance?
In closing, while many voters supported the government's
decision to cancel the project, those same taxpayers are sure to
be offended at the way the compensation package is being
negotiated. The fear we share with so many Canadians is that
there is the potential for possibly millions of hard earned tax
dollars to be paid to people who are more deserving of criticism
than compensation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We now move to the next
stage of the debate where members will have a maximum of 20
minutes for their interventions, subject to 10 minutes for
questions or comments.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity
to participate in third reading of Bill C-22.
Before I get into the main body of my remarks I would like to
say to the member from Simcoe in the Reform Party through
you, Mr. Speaker, that the bill states quite clearly under
subclause 10(2) entitled ``No compensation'':
No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in
relation to
(a) any loss of profit, or
5362
(b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder, within the
meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act,
in connection with any agreement,
The Minister of Transport said quite clearly in the House last
week that not a nickel's worth of taxpayers' money would be
spent unless it was directly related to the contract.
All this is subject to the auditor general, which ultimately
means that the Reform Party will have access to it. We will be
publicly accountable for any decision the government takes in
terms of using taxpayers' money with regard to Bill C-22.
It is never after the fact when one is talking about a
transaction like this one. The previous government paid a very
heavy price because in opposition we took a very strong stand on
the issue of privatization of the Lester B. Pearson airport. I am
happy to say that I have not wavered on the issue. I have always
considered the Lester B. Pearson airport not to be a metro
Toronto airport. It is not even an Ontario airport. It is an
international airport.
There is a great misunderstanding about the contribution of
the Pearson International Airport to the economy of Canada as a
whole. That is one of the reasons I personally do not support the
Toronto Star position of handing over the Pearson International
Airport to an LAA, a local airport authority.
I acknowledge the member for Simcoe Centre was absolutely
correct when he mentioned that it was a very profitable
operation. The profit from Pearson International Airport has not
just gone into the Toronto region. Traditionally the profit from
Pearson has been used to help other disadvantaged airports in
this country.
(1650)
The airport system, whether it be North Bay, Hamilton or any
other part of the country, is inextricably intertwined with
Pearson International Airport.
We said this in opposition and we said this during the
campaign and we said to the Prime Minister of the day, Ms.
Campbell, not to proceed with that contract.
I am proud to be part of a government which immediately
upon assuming office the Prime Minister appointed someone
with real credibility to look at that contract and it was
discovered that it was not a good contact.
There are a couple of things that bug me about the previous
government's contract on Pearson. The thing that bothered me
the most was the flip clause. There was a flip clause in this
contract which meant that there was a possibility that if Claridge
Holdings Inc. or the Matthews Group Limited wanted to sell
Pearson that option existed in that contract. The possibility
existed in that contract which we have cancelled that we could
have been in a situation in which Pearson would have been
owned by the Taiwanese or by the Libyans. Think what could
have happened.
I was very rigorous in my opposition to selling off Pearson
International Airport. I believe that selling off Pearson is no
different that selling off the East Block or the West Block. I
believe that Pearson is an instrument of government which does
not just look after air travel but is intertwined with some of the
disadvantaged regions of our province and of our country. I also
believe it is an instrument which can affect our tourism policy,
our trade policy. It it not only the gateway to Toronto but one of
the major gateways to our country. I believe this is the room, this
is the Chamber that should be ultimately responsible for making
decisions on how Pearson is managed.
There are times when we have been very tough on the
bureaucrats who have operated Pearson international. Is it not
interesting that these same bureaucrats, and the member for
Simcoe Centre acknowledged this, managed to always make a
profit at Pearson International Airport?
The argument from the private sector will be: ``We could
make a lot more''. I accept that point of view from the private
sector that there probably is room for improvement at Pearson
International Airport. I think we should consider bringing in the
experts. Hire some people, give them a four or five year
management consulting contract.
Why should we give away Pearson when we can give a
management contract? If the management expertise wants to
compliment or support the officials of Transport Canada in
increasing the profits or developing other options of
profitability and testing them, bring in the management
consultants and give them a contract. If they meet certain levels
of profitability pay them. If they go beyond their budgets and
produce more profit then pay them a bonus.
With all due respect to captain Messier of the New York
Rangers, and he made a tremendous contribution in helping the
team win the Stanley Cup, you will give him a good salary but
you will not give him the franchise.
(1655 )
That is where I have strong views on this issue. The catering is
done by a very good firm in terms of the way it manages and
operates it and gives a percentage back to the Crown; the
parking, the taxi service, the construction. We do not want the
construction. Put all of that out to the experts, but the notion of
giving to the private sector an instrument of public policy-it is
an instrument of public policy, not just for the Toronto area but it
affects every region of this country-I believe is not the way to
go.
Another thing I want to touch on is the way these public
servants who are managing the airport tend to be
underestimated. Is it not ironic that the manager of the airport,
Chern Heed, is now respected as one of the top three airport
operators in the world and is now running the Hong Kong
airport?
It is a pity that we lost such a great airport manager and I hope
there will be a day when we can bring him back as a public
servant to participate in managing the Toronto international
airport.
5363
I want to go back to this notion of a local airport authority. A
local airport authority usually is made up of representatives of
the city and the surrounding boroughs in the greater Toronto
area. I am sure we would have some representation on that
board.
My concern with that is twofold. When you are only
concerned with issues as they relate to your own city, you tend to
be a little parochial. The difference between being involved in
city politics or provincial politics versus national politics is
centred around the fact that when we deal with issues in this
Chamber, it is our responsibility to not just think of our own
communities, our own ridings, but we have to think of them in
terms of how they would affect each other's ridings on a national
basis.
My concern about a local airport authority stems from the fact
that I do not think that unit would have the capability of really
dealing with the national interest. That is point number one.
Point number two is the member from Simcoe Centre in his
speech talked about a sum of money of revenue somewhere in
the neighbourhood of seventy-odd million dollars for 1993.
That was a bad year. Our passenger count is down by a
tremendous amount right now. Imagine when the economy
comes back and we can develop some more efficiency in that
airport.
Think four or five years from now when that airport could be
generating a couple hundred million dollars a year. Imagine how
we would feel as national members of Parliament if four or five
years from now we saw a local airport authority that was
generating close to a couple hundred million dollars a year. The
private sector would say we are getting the first $25 million or
$30 million. Forget it, this airport is there for the national
interest.
I am speaking now as a member from Toronto. Four or five
years from now, after we have renovated the airport and cleaned
it up, because I really do hope that the money that the airport
generates between now and then can go into the renewal and go
in the deal, on the point the member from Simcoe Centre was
making, we have to get some jobs going in Toronto.
(1700 )
We have talked about infrastructure. The member is right. The
airport is a terrific area where we can begin. Let us plough some
of that money back into the airport and renovate it, renew it, do
the things we have to do. Four years from now after those
renovations have been made it still will be the Government of
Canada operation working in partnership with terminal 3 which,
by the way, is a private sector operation. That to me is a pretty
good compromise.
Personally I would not have supported the privatization of
terminal 3. Ideologically I do not support that thrust. However,
there could be a compromise, a private sector operation in
terminal 3 and Government of Canada in terminal 2. I do not
think we can sustain terminal 1 the way it is right now. It is a
mess.
The point is that is a good competitive synergistic approach.
Let us be proud of the fact that five years from now when all of
those renewals are done the cash flow coming from that airport
can go into other projects in the national interest.
I say to members of the Bloc, the notion of a royal inquiry is
only going to delay the process. We already know it is not a good
deal, so why kill a dead cat? The Prime Minister announced that
the deal is cancelled. Why take another year and a half, spend
millions of taxpayers' dollars to find out what, that there were
some Liberal lobbyists involved?
Well Liberal lobbyists were involved. Naturally some of my
best friends are Liberal lobbyists. Do you think they did not try
to lobby me to change my mind on the airport? That is their job,
but it is up to us to either agree or challenge their lobby. What do
you want to do? Is it going to be such a big deal?
The member from the Bloc mentioned some Liberal lobbyists
so the Bloc wants to have a royal commission of inquiry into
what happened. We are going to bring a bunch of Liberal
lobbyists forward and they are going to say they lobbied the
member for Broadview-Greenwood or other members. That is
irrelevant. It is not important because we stopped the deal. We
took a stand; the lobby did not work on us.
A public inquiry is not going to produce anything different
from what the Auditor General's analysis will produce. The
Auditor General is going to look at the disbursements the
Minister of Transport will make in terms of settling this deal. He
will analyse those things. Opposition members will analyse
them. The press will analyse them. If there is a nickel's worth of
taxpayers' money which has been spent inappropriately they are
going to raise hell in this House which is fair ball.
I have to talk about my city for a minute. Toronto is going
through a very difficult economic period with close to 600,000
people out of work. We want to put this file behind us so we can
come back at it with a renewed thrust in order to get something
going. As Mr. Nixon has recommended I believe that the airport
is a good place to get some activity going, but we said not at any
price. That is why we stopped the deal. It was tough to say no to
that deal when there were so many jobs, but we just cannot give
it away at any price.
5364
It is important that we get this behind us so we can come at it
with a renewed and fresh approach involving the Government of
Canada. Once we get the renovation and renewal done on the
whole Pearson operation, then let us hope that three to five years
from now the cash flow that place throws off can help every
other region of the country.
I encourage hon. members to please let us put this bill behind
us so we can start with a fresh slate.
(1705 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before we proceed to
questions and comments there is a matter of other business we
have to deal with.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the
House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Yukon-Aboriginal affairs.
_____________________________________________
5364
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to
inform the House that a communication has been received as
follows:
Government House
Ottawa
June 15, 1994
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Peter de C. Cory, Puisne
Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor
General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 15th day of June, 1994,
at 1700 for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the
following bills without amendment: Bill C-26, an act to amend
the National Library Act; and Bill C-27, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Excise
Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, and certain related
acts.
5364
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, in his
speech the hon. member talked about stalling this project and
trying to expedite this matter as quickly as possible. There are
repairs to be made to terminal 1, it is in pretty bad shape.
Could the member update us as to when Pearson started to
make money? The Canadian people probably put a lot of money
into it before it actually started to make money. At what point in
time did this airport start to make money?
I know it is a big generator of jobs in Toronto. There must be
at least 20,000 people working there.
Also, how quickly would they get the runways and the
infrastructure on terminal 1 going?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know the precise year Pearson started to make money. It used to
be Malton Airport before Prime Minister Trudeau named it
Pearson on December 13, 1983. It was his last supper in Toronto
when he announced the name as Lester B. Pearson. I do know
that the now Pearson International Airport was making money in
1980.
The member has touched upon a very good point. He is
alluding to the fact that over several years Canadian taxpayers
have invested millions and millions of dollars in developing the
airport and infrastructure, bringing it to the point it is at today.
About five or six weeks ago there was a study which ranked
Pearson airport in its current state as seventh in the world. We
are tough on Pearson, but the operators of terminal 3 have done a
very good job. It is working well.
(1710 )
I agree with the member that terminal 1, the terminal in the
middle, the original terminal, is not in good shape. We all
recognize that. However terminal 2 has gone through a constant
renewal, both in terms of construction and efficiency. The
officials at Transport Canada have done a remarkable job.
The member has raised a very good point. When we talk about
20 million passengers a year, all of them are not from Toronto.
They are from every part of the country.
5365
5365
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
Translation]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the
immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the
honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the
Senate Chamber.
(1720)
[English]
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate
chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in
Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill S-2, an act to implement a convention between Canada and the Republic
of Hungary, an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Zimbabwe, a convention
between Canada and the Argentine Republic and a protocol between Canada
and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation and
the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to income taxes and to make related
amendments to other acts-Chapter No. 17.
Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of
the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994-Chapter 18.
Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act-Chapter 19.
Bill C-26, an act to amend the National Library Act-Chapter 20.
Bill C-27, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application
Rules, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the
Excise Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and certain related
acts-Chapter 21.
Bill S-5, an act to incorporate the Canadian Association of Lutheran
Congregations.
_____________________________________________
5365
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
carefully to our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Industry, and I still do not understand why he is
refusing to convene a royal commission of inquiry to look into
this very dubious affair, the likes of which I have not seen in the
20 years that I have been in this country, and to examine the
lobbying issue as well. Some light needs to be shed on this affair
and on the role played by lobbyists. In my opinion, all of these
issues need to be clarified.
Tomorrow, the government will be introducing a bill aimed at
regulating lobbying activities. I hope that they will be very clear
and that we will have the opportunity to debate this very
important bill.
I also fail to understand why the bill is so contradictory. On
the one hand, the government says no compensation will be
awarded, while on the other hand, the bill allows the minister to
grant sums of money to the parties involved. Could the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry enlighten
me on this apparent contradiction?
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, through
you I say to the member for Bourassa that we should be perfectly
clear and should not leave the impression with the people of
Canada that there will be any compensation for lobbyists.
The bill states very clearly in subclause 10(2):
No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in
relation to
(a) any loss of profit, or
(b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder-
We should make sure that point is clear. Somehow the Bloc
mixes the lobby issue with disbursements that might be paid for
the leadup to the conclusion of the contract. Lobbyists will not
be paid.
(1725 )
There is a point we have to make. I believe my colleague and
seatmate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport, tried to make the point about the seriousness of the
bill to the Bloc. The bill has no precedent. We have taken a
contract that was signed by a previous government, as the
member acknowledged, 18 days before election day.
There is a convention in our country that in the last period of
an election campaign senators are not appointed, deals are not
signed, and we await the outcome of the election. The previous
Conservative government broke that convention and the victim
was that private sector firm.
Now we have to be fair to the victims, the subcontractors and
other people who led up to the packaging of the bid which was
called by a duly elected government. We are trying to
communicate to the opposition, not the Reform Party but to the
Bloc Quebecois, that there will be no compensation for future
profit and no lobby money will be paid. We believe the small and
medium size operators that were part and parcel of the bid and
5366
had some legitimate expenses that went into that consummated
transaction should be treated fairly.
We are trying to strike a balance which is accountable. We are
accountable once it is over. I want to say to members opposite
through you, Mr. Speaker, that a royal inquiry will take millions
of dollars and another 18 months. During that same period we
could have the renewal and renovation of an airport which is so
vital to the national interests of the country looked after.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased again to be able to speak on Bill C-22 at third
reading. I will not hide from you that the Bloc Quebecois is
against this bill, especially the part that allows the government
to pay the compensation it sees fit to those who signed the
contract for privatizing Pearson Airport, without releasing full
information on the circumstances which led from the decision to
privatize the airport to the signing of the contract.
The Prime Minister promised us a clear, open, rigorous
process to get to the bottom of this failed transaction and to fully
elucidate the involvement of political staff or former political
staff and lobbyists in this affair. Remember the summary report
prepared by Mr. Nixon. He said that political staff and lobbyists
had an uncommon role in negotiating this transaction, but it
stops there.
Some even say that this could be one of the biggest
contracting frauds ever on Canadian territory. The conditions
under which this contract was awarded are suspect and we are
being kept in the dark about them. Bill C-22 even leaves open
the possibility or gives the government complete latitude to
compensate those who might have lost when this process of
privatization was halted.
(1730)
Why not get right to the bottom of this question? It could
prove useful to deal with similar cases in the future, because we
must not lose sight of the fact that in many cases, the political
staff and the lobbyists who were involved in this transaction and
in the whole Pearson Airport privatization process are the same
ones who are now working on other files, whether to promote the
interests of the companies they represent or simply as
professional lobbyists.
As we have said over and over and will continue to repeat for
the next three years if necessary, we from the Bloc Quebecois
are under the impression this is one of the worse cases of
patronage in the history of this country. I am starting to wonder,
and even if I never managed to get an answer since Bill C-22 has
been under consideration, I put the question to the Liberal
government: Is it because it realized that the interests of friends,
former friends or great friends of the party were at stake that, on
the strength of a simple report, the Liberal government now
refuses, or so it seems, to answer to an extensive and in-depth
commission of inquiry into the whole process, a process which
according to Mr. Nixon's summary report, was mind-boggling,
full of inappropriateness, oddities and things never heard of in
this sort of transaction?
This was a contract to privatize one of Canada's most
profitable airports. So, all the considerations, the entire process
which have led to this contract being drafted should be brought
out in the open. The players should also come out in the open.
Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, the names of a few of the
friends of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party who were
involved in this process, this privatization attempt. It is always a
pleasure for me to name names because, so far, the government
has refused to clarify the involvement of these people, when we
know full well that they are very closely tied to the Liberal Party
of Canada and perhaps, in fact certainly, to the party fund as
well.
As you know, the Liberal Party of Canada, like all major
Canadian establishment parties, is not subject to any legislation
on political party financing or rather on the financing of
political parties by the people, unlike the Bloc Quebecois. So it
is quite normal that a contract of this nature or a process leading
to the privatization of the biggest Canadian airport would bring
up the names of people, organizations or business owners who
contribute large amounts of money to political party funds.
Something like that could not happen with the Bloc Quebecois
because our hands are not tied by corporate, anonymous and
impersonal contributions. We are disciplined in this respect and
only accept contributions from real Quebec citizens. I think it is
good for us and for democracy.
It is probably because they realized that friends of the Liberal
Party of Canada were involved in this deal that they refuse to
shed light on it. I repeat, as it can never be repeated often
enough: the list of the people involved may help us understand
not only why the Liberal government refuses to disclose all the
facts but why its bill gives it all the latitude needed to bribe
those directly or indirectly linked to the failed Pearson Airport
privatization process.
You remember Senator Leo Kolber. He was the one who
organized the cosy $1,000-a-plate dinner where the guest of
honour was the Prime Minister. Guests could shake hands with
the Prime Minister in the midst of the election campaign and
talk to him about their little problems, perhaps in connection
with the Pearson Airport privatization or to the money they
would lose if the privatization deal was cancelled. In short,
Senator Leo Kolber was a stakeholder in this event and
especially in the whole Pearson Airport privatization process.
5367
(1735)
There was also Mr. Bronfman, who did not hesitate either to
attend this $1,000-a-plate dinner to shake hands with the future
Prime Minister. Herb Metcalfe was also present. He is a lobbyist
and former organizer for Mr. Jean Chrétien before he became
Prime Minister. He is close to the Prime Minister and was very
involved in the whole process to privatize Pearson Airport.
Ray Hession was also present. He is a former deputy minister
of Industry and senior civil servant with Supply and Services,
under the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Mr.
Hession was also involved in the process to privatize Pearson
Airport.
There were others too, including some Conservatives. The
current government is Liberal. I think it is worth repeating that
we have serious doubts about the purpose of Bill C-22, given the
names of the key players, the contributors who finance the
Liberal Party of Canada, and also the inclusion of a clause
designed to compensate those who may have suffered a
prejudice when the Prime Minister decided to cancel the
privatization process.
In addition to the fact that this government refuses to shed
light on the role of these players, who are known to be very close
to the Liberal Party of Canada, there is also the fact that the
contract for the privatization of Pearson Airport is full of very
unusual clauses.
That document is something else. Let me give you some
examples which are still mind-boggling at the conclusion of the
review process of Bill C-22.
The contract was for a 37-year period expiring on October 31,
2030, with an option to extend that period for an additional 20
years. Why is that? It is because the Ontario legislation provides
that, on leases longer than 50 years, a provincial tax applies to
any transfer of property.
Normally, if the duration of the lease had not been split, those
involved in the transaction would have had to pay around ten
million dollars to the Ontario revenue ministry. Just imagine,
with the federal government's complicity, individuals were
making deals and the terms of their contracts were such that they
could avoid paying legitimate taxes to the Ontario government.
That is rather amazing.
When in this country's history have we ever seen the federal
government paving the way for a party to avoid provincial
taxation? This is quite extraordinary.
Rent is calculated on the basis of gross revenue. According to
the contract, Pearson Development Corporation was to turn over
30.5 per cent of its gross revenues for the previous year to the
government, up to a maximum of $125 million in gross
revenues. For any amount in excess of $125 million in gross
revenues, Pearson Development Corporation was required to
pay the government 45.5 per cent of its gross revenues from the
leasing operations.
Calculating gross revenue is an extremely technical process,
but very important nonetheless because this type of clause is
rarely found in contracts, even in those far less important than
the one to privatize Pearson. For the purposes of this
calculation, gross revenue includes all revenues generated
through the operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson, excluding
ten significant deductions, which reduce the buyer's rental,
accommodation and contracting costs.
The deductions amount to the taxes collected from consumers
and passengers which are pocketed by Pearson Development
Corporation on the government's behalf. Extraordinary sources
of revenues are discounted for the purposes of calculating gross
revenue. This is unusual when determining basic rent in a
transaction such as this.
(1740)
When we look at revenues which, although not unusual, are
infrequent and are not generated through the normal operation
of the terminals, including access sales, we see that these too
were not included in the calculation of gross revenue on which
rent will be based.
The same holds true for investment revenue. The contract
contains a number of bizarre provisions. Unless these are
closely scrutinized and unless those individuals associated with
the privatization process, the principal players in this deal, are
called upon to testify -I named a few of these players a moment
ago, but there are many others -until such time as we can ask
them questions, we will not know the whole story as far as this
deal is concerned. There are many incongruous aspects to the
Pearson privatization contract.
Many questions also arise about the rebates and refunds
awarded by Pearson Development Corporation in the case of
airport equipment. Here again, we find some strange provisions.
There is also something odd about the way the government will
recover the costs associated with the occupation of airport
space.
I will not give you a complete list of all the incongruities since
time will not allow it. During the course of this debate, we have
been able to bring to light a number of the contract's
incongruous provisions which make this deal unparalleled in
Canadian financial history.
We could have also talked about severance pay for Transport
Canada employees. That situation is also disgusting. If you look
at the facts, even dispassionately -passionately it is worse- if
you think that the government of Canada had offered separation
allowances to 160 of its own employees despite the fact they
were guaranteed employment for two years with Pearson
Development Corporation-
5368
Separation allowances totalling $5.5 million would have been
paid to 160 federal employees while allowed to keep their jobs.
That is revolting! It is totally unacceptable, particularly in view
of the unemployment levels and the housing situation, when
people are asking for social housing and getting none. I am
bringing up social housing because I just attended a meeting on
the subject and once again, the government has refused to at
least consider alternatives so that the neediest -some 1.2
million households nationwide- can find decent housing and
not have to spend in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent of their
income on rent.
You can imagine how I feel about a government that does not
want to listen to the complaints or the cries of despair of the
most ill-favoured members of our society, that does not want to
pay any attention whatsoever to the social housing situation in
Canada and is pursuing the very policy it had been denouncing
in no uncertain terms since 1992. I am speaking on behalf of all
their spokespersons when I contrast this with the government
allowing employees guaranteed to keep their jobs for the next
years at least to be paid $5.5 million in compensation. I am at a
loss to know how social justice works in this government.
The latitude the government is giving itself as well as the
almost impudent fashion it presents the capacity the government
has to compensate friends of the system without specifying any
amounts -it could be in the millions- can also be contrasted
with the brick wall we are facing when we want to raise issues
like social housing and unemployment insurance cuts with the
government. However hard I try to stay cool in face of such
injustice and double standard, my blood boils. Friends of the
party -the very rich friends of the Liberal Party of Canada and
contributors to the party fund- get to be treated one way while
those who have no voice, no power and no lobbyists
representing them on the Hill, in ministers' offices or in the
office of the Prime Minister are treated differently.
I think there are enough grounds -and I still cannot see why
the government is so obstinate- for making an effort to bring to
light the whole story regarding the privatization process at
Pearson, with all the dealings involved and all the financial
inconsistencies. I think this deserves an answer from the
government. If it is not true that the friends of the system had
their palms greased and stand to benefit even more under Bill
C-22, then let us get to the bottom of this business and get all the
facts.
(1745)
We want to believe you but not on the basis of a superficial
analysis commissioned by the Prime Minister, which probably
has some value-I am referring to the Nixon Report-but not as
much as a thorough, serious review of all the elements
surrounding this deal and of what it could involve in the future.
I think we will be able to continue this debate beyond Bill
C-22 after the lobbyists bill is tabled. We should find out the
general provisions tomorrow. Let us not forget, however, that
many of the Pearson players, as I pointed out at the beginning of
my speech, are professional lobbyists. These people will
continue to haunt the halls of this building and try to persuade
the government to go back on its decisions, sometimes perhaps
with bad intentions.
I am not saying that all lobbyists have bad intentions. On the
contrary. I know lobbyists who express their clients' views in a
quiet manner, but I also know other lobbyists whose integrity
can sometimes be questioned, especially when they are much
too close to this government and when they represent interests
contributing to the election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against
Bill C-22. We are still demanding a commission of inquiry to
uncover all the facts on this deal, and it is not true that such an
investigation would cost millions of dollars and take a year and a
half. I think that the House of Commons has all it needs to
conduct such an investigation and that, if we act in good faith,
we should be able to proceed rather quickly by having the
principal players in the failed Pearson Airport privatization deal
testify.
I also think it is worthwhile for transparency's sake that the
people of Quebec and Canada find out how the government deals
with such important issues and how much influence lobbyists
exert, often in an underhand way. Lobbyists often cast a shadow
over government decisions, especially when they may represent
the interests of the Liberal Party in some respects.
I hope the government will respond favourably to our request.
It would be a good example of what it claims it wants to achieve
during this mandate, that is, acting with honesty and
transparency and serving the people of Quebec and Canada well.
I think it would be a good start. If members on the other side of
the House share our sense of democracy, they should agree to the
Bloc Quebecois's request.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to what our colleague said. The
hon. member recalls the commitment which the present Prime
Minister made in the last election campaign. First of all, if we
were elected, we would immediately conduct a full review of the
Pearson transaction, which we did, and that we would have a
person of some standing to conduct this inquiry. In fact, the
person who did it is a former representative of Ontario in
London, a former minister, a former deputy premier of Ontario,
someone who is well known, at least to all the provincial parties
in Ontario, as really qualified and of unquestionable integrity.
5369
On this point, the member opposite would have trouble
finding anyone in the Ontario Legislature, in the present NDP
government, in the provincial Liberal party or among
Conservative members at Queen's Park, who would disagree
with what I just said.
So we had a person of that stature to do the work. He
recommended that we end the contract. The government did so.
Then the government said that it agreed to defray only the
expenses of those who entered this contractual agreement with
the previous government but not lobbyists' expenses.
I wonder what the member opposite is driving at. Obviously
the lobbyists will not be compensated; we know that. The profits
that the companies lost will not be compensated; we already
know that. We know all those things. The parliamentary
committee heard just about all the witnesses who wanted to
appear before it, maybe not all the witnesses that my colleague
opposite wanted, but still a good representation of the
population and we did what we promised Canadians.
The hon. member will have to explain to me and to Canadian
voters what more could be asked for. We did what we promised
Canadians. We did it in good faith. We terminated that
agreement which of course was contrary to the interests of
Canadians.
The hon. member must understand that this agreement
concluded by the government was not good and we ended it. Our
government ended it. The hon. member should speak up and
recognize the good decision made by the Liberal government. I
tell you that if the hon. member searches his conscience in the
next few minutes and answers us after Private Members'
Business, he could easily see that he is wrong to oppose this bill.
He could even vote for it a little later today on final reading.
I submit this proposal to you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order! I hesitate to
interrupt the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
but I am certain that the House would like to hear from the
member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot before we move on to
Private Members' Business.
Mr. Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the few
remaining seconds which my colleague wanted to take up.
No one here has ever doubted Mr. Nixon's integrity-far from
it. Mr. Nixon fulfilled the mandate given to him by the Prime
Minister. But the Prime Minister had stated that he would shed
light specifically on the twists and turns surrounding the
Pearson Airport privatization process. So why stop halfway,
after getting a summary evaluation, after even Mr.
Nixon-whose integrity was never in doubt-stated that there
were very weird things in this matter involving extraordinary
influence by former political staff and lobbyists, and that he had
never seen anything like it. So why be afraid to shed light on the
subject. As I mentioned previously, if there is no truth to the
assertion that these are friends of the Liberal Party of Canada,
why be afraid to get right down to it? We want the truth, the
exact truth.
Mr. Nixon identified certain problems that were sufficient to
justify immediately stopping the privatization process. But we
do not know everything there is to know about this whole
process, the players involved, the fact that unseemly behaviour
may have occurred, gross irregularities in the financial
transactions, and we cannot know it without an exhaustive
public inquiry into the specifics of this matter, in which the
people who were closely or remotely connected with the
privatization process would be made to appear as witnesses. But
the truth about this attempted privatization and the influence
wielded by the lobbyists involved will never be entirely known.
This is why we are calling for an exhaustive review, and never
did I or my colleagues cast any doubt on Mr. Nixon's integrity. I
believe that satisfactorily answers my colleague's remarks.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. It being
5.51 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of
Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5369
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 25, consideration of the
motion; and of the amendment.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, on January
20 this year, the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam tabled a
motion whose purpose-and I say this for the benefit of our
listeners who may be wondering where all this started-was to
allow members to express themselves freely and to vote against
the party line, without fear of bringing down the government
should a vote, fortunately or unfortunately, go against the
government, and the hon. member made it clear such a vote
should not be interpreted as a motion of non-confidence.
5370
That being said, there are a number of elements in this motion,
and I am trying to put them in order because to discuss the
amendment to the amendment without discussing the main
motion would be to overlook the broader implications. When we
talk about a free vote, and I read the hon. member's speech, we
are talking about seeking the views of constituents to ensure that
the member responds to these views through the way he votes in
the House. Supporters of a free vote claim this is necessary if the
member is to fully represent the views of his constituents.
Nothing could be further from the truth. You will agree, Mr.
Speaker, that the member's role is not just to represent the views
of his constituents but also and above all to promote the interests
of those constituents. In fact, we all realize that our constituents
do not all share the same views. There is a wide range of views.
There is also a range of interests. So how do we pick and choose
between these views and interests? Are we supposed to turn into
a calculator and wait until the telephone rings and the mail
comes in and see which pile is the biggest? This pile is bigger so
we should do that. Good heavens, if that is what a member is
supposed to do, a calculator could do the job.
I believe members are also and above all elected for their
good judgment, or at least I hope so. Whatever we discuss, the
member will have to examine the issues, talk about them, do
research and finally get a handle on the subject. This is not a
matter of opinions or interests, it is a matter of having a good
grasp of the issues. Through his membership in various
committees and through his own research and the research done
by his staff, a member is able to develop and define his position,
in the best interests of all his constituents. This exercise cannot
take place in a vacuum.
We have to meet our constituents. Like all members, when I
am in my riding on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, I try to meet as
many constituents as possible. I go to various meetings, I take
part in a number of festivities, I meet members of municipal
councils, senior citizens clubs and chambers of commerce, I
meet business people, workers and various types of employees,
and I listen. I listen to what they have to say, I check their
interests, I tell them about the results of my research and my
studies, and I explain what I have seen and heard.
(1800)
Through dialogue, and not through the use of a calculator, I
can better identify the real issues and ensure improved services
and a happier life for my fellow citizens. Our constituents'
opinion serves as a guide helping us to better target our research
and better serve our ridings.
In reality, an MP is never alone. He or she works with a caucus
and also with all the other parties in this House. Indeed, even if I
thought I had the best ideas for my constituents, I would still
have to convince my peers, first the members of our caucus and,
eventually, the members of this House.
How can that be done, if not through the processes in place? I
am not saying that these processes are great. In fact, I think they
are totally outdated and ineffective, but they are there and we
must make do with them.
I would first check in committee to see if my ideas get the
support of my peers, and then I would turn to my caucus. I would
also try to find out if other MPs from my region share similar
views. We all have constituents who, up to a point, share the
same concerns, worries and hopes. We have to find solutions
which suit the population as a whole.
So, are those ideas of mine as good as I think they are? The
regional and national caucus would enable me to find out what
my colleagues think. They too, of course, have ideas. I am not
the only one to have useful information or brilliant ideas. My
colleagues express their views and this dialogue eventually
leads to a decision, by the caucus, as to which solution is the
most adequate for all the members.
Within our caucus, my vote is strictly a personal decision. I
can always freely express and discuss my views, hear other
opinions, and eventually accept a consensus. Consequently,
when I come here in the House, I back the position developed by
the caucus, and not just my own point of view.
It would be extremely simplistic and probably somewhat
pretentious on my part to think that I have this ability to come up
with the best solutions. In that context, it is easy to see that a free
vote would become an excuse to bypass party colleagues and
openly express dissenting opinions. This is not what the
democratic process is all about. Rather, it means that we go and
get the information from our constituents, that we get any other
information available, that we put it all together to come up with
acceptable solutions, all the while benefitting from our
colleagues' experience and knowledge, before finally reaching a
consensus on the best solution, which we, as members of a
caucus, then defend in this House, in accordance with its rules.
(1805 )
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to point out to the hon. member from the Bloc
that my motion today has nothing to do with any wonderful or
brilliant ideas I might have as a member of this House.
What we are talking about today is representing our
constituents in this House. Those are the people we were elected
to represent and we are responsible to them.
I appreciate the opportunity to begin the debate in the last
hour of Motion No. 89 which advocates the relaxation of the
confidence convention and, flowing from that, freer voting as
party members of this House.
5371
I have listened with interest to those who have spoken in the
debate in this place and I have also listened attentively to
witnesses who have come before the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs who have addressed the issue of
freer votes.
There are those who argue against the motion of dissent being
exhibited through freer voting by the attempt to change the basic
premise upon which this motion is founded in order to argue
against it. For example, the member for Vancouver Quadra
explained that we are not all here as independents elected on our
own. I agree. We in the Reform Party realize this fact. We do not
want to reduce the House of Commons to chaos and we do not
believe that the timely expression of dissent by a few members
would do so.
The opinion of those involved in the writing of the McGrath
report in 1985 and those who sat on the House management
committee in 1993 was that dissent should be allowed to be
expressed without fear of retaliation by the leadership of the
political party concerned. They thought it would make this
House a healthier place where members on occasion would not
have to vote the party line on all legislative matters.
It might help members better represent their constituents and
it may also allow those constituents to feel that their views were
being directly represented on the floor of the House of
Commons.
Speaking of representing the views of constituents, I want to
thank the member for Hamilton West for referring to this matter
in his speech on this motion. He stated, referring to me: ``The
hon. member opposite is sadly mistaken if she thinks I or anyone
else on this side of the House can be blindly led. If I supported a
government objective that went against any of my well known
principles I would be laughed out of this House, out of this job''.
However, at the end of his speech he wavered from this bold
statement when he said: ``It is not the individual vote, it is the
collective. It is the understanding of what we believe to be in the
best interest of our constituents, of our riding, of our province
and of our country''.
I am not sure but I believe this second phrase contradicts the
earlier bold one in which the member stated he would support
his constituents' points of view against any attempt to be led
around by the nose by his party.
I also want to assure my friend from St. Boniface that by the
adoption of this motion the kinds of judgments we have to make
as members of Parliament will not be automatically replaced by
views advanced by constituents. It is the belief of the Reform
Party that matters will come along in the life of a Parliament
which were not addressed either directly or indirectly during the
previous election. There is no prior party position on these
matters.
It is our belief that if a member wishes to dissent from the
position eventually taken by the member's political party, the
member should be able to do so without fear of retribution at the
hands of the party leadership.
We are not advocating, as was expressed by the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, that everything be a free vote. I
listened to the hon. member when he spoke in this House on May
25 and I appreciate the fact that confidence was taken out of the
standing orders of the House of Commons as a result of the first
report of the McGrath committee.
However, what I do not believe the member realizes is the fact
it was removed made little difference. The attitudinal change on
the part of the member so strongly advocated by McGrath has
not taken place.
By comparison with Great Britain, Australia and New
Zealand, Canada's political parties are the most tightly
controlled by their respective leadership. In Australia and New
Zealand, while voting against the party line is tolerated, the
influence of the private member is greatest when there is a
labour government. In that situation the caucus elects members
to sit in cabinet and the Prime Minister allocates the portfolios.
As I have said before, this situation leads to constant
interaction between leadership and backbench members
wherein the views of backbench members have great influence
on public policy. Is that not what we want?
(1810 )
In order to be elected by caucus to serve in cabinet one must
have the support of those who will not be in cabinet. To be
re-elected to cabinet one surely must have demonstrated a
willingness to listen to the concerns of caucus members and
adjust legislation accordingly. This would result in increased
influence over public policy being placed in the hands of
backbenchers. That is a good sign.
However, it is in Britain where in recent times backbench
independence has been asserted with members voting against
the party line and in some cases defeating government
legislation.
Professor Philip Norton, an academic on freer votes in
Britain, explains that this phenomenon of cross-party voting led
to a growing awareness of what could be achieved by such action
and a recognition that the consequences expected from
government defeats such as resignation or punishment by the
leadership did not materialize. They did not perceive it as a
threat.
This produced a change of attitude of many MPs as the old
differential attitude was replaced by a participatory attitude.
Backbenchers became involved in and were influencing
government policy. This situation continues today in Britain.
5372
Finally, I want to refer to the evidence given by Professor
Robert Jackson when he appeared before the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs a few weeks ago. He
does not believe in freer voting by members and he is a strident
critic of the McGrath report, a report that is really accepted by
members in this House. His main concern was that freer voting
would result in chaos, with the government virtually unable to
govern. This is absurd.
We are only advocating limited dissent expressed from time
to time without fear of repercussions from the leadership. We in
the Reform Party want to see the House express itself positively
on this motion and therefore we accept the amendment advanced
by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
However, in recognition of the fact that freer voting or the
expression of dissent from the party line rarely occurs in this
place I wish to make a further amendment.
I move, seconded by my friend from Calgary West, that the
amendment be amended by adding immediately following the
word ``continue'' the word ``increasingly'' so that the motion as
amended would read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue
increasingly to permit members of the House of Commons to fully represent
their constituents' views on the government's legislative program and spending
plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government measure,
including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the
government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion.
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member
for Mission-Coquitlam who raises some very important issues.
First, there is the question of confidence mentioned in her
motion. Solidarity is the corner stone of party discipline which
is the guiding principle behind the party system in Canada.
The system of government in Canada is based on cohesive
political parties. The Canadian parliamentary system is a system
of responsible government. The party with a majority in the
House of Commons must prove that is has the support of the
majority of members of Parliament. A majority government
seldom has problems, since the voters have used their power to
make their wishes known. So, why erode this principle?
(1815)
In a responsible government, the party in office is mandated
by the voters to implement a specific legislative agenda. How
can members think they can better serve their constituents by
choosing not to support their own political party? Party
discipline is linked to the concept of responsible government
and the principle of confidence. The Constitution Act of 1867
provides Canada with a responsible executive within a
parliamentary government.
In 1983, the Canadian Study of Parliament Group ordered
Gallup to conduct a poll on public perception of Parliament. It is
mainly in Quebec that members of Parliament are seen as
proxies rather than delegates. That is due to the differences in
the way constituents perceive their elected members of
Parliament.
The issue of freer votes is linked to the role each hon. member
must play. Freer votes would tend to imply more autonomy for
individual members of Parliament. Yet, members can express
their views, for example, before their party caucus, where
members regularly hold discussions to define and clarify the
positions to be taken. I do not think that we have been elected to
reform the parliamentary system of Canada.
Of course, a relaxation of party discipline would increase the
autonomy of backbenchers. But what would the collapse of our
system give us? Short-sighted freedom. Let us have a look at the
wording of the motion. It says that the government should
permit members of the House of Commons to fully represent
their constituents' views, which suggests that MPs do not
represent their constituents' views, in short that the present
system of representation is not working. Why is the member
making no mention of the notion of party? Are MPs working in
isolation and did they not explain, during the election campaign,
the policies they would support? MPs are members of a political
organisation which they support, they are closely intertwined.
Voters who elected the 54 Bloc members voted for the ideas
the Bloc Quebecois is promoting. They form a strong delegation
and when I vote, I feel I represent my constituents in the House.
People in my riding placed their confidence in me because they
knew what to expect. They voted for a program, they voted for
the ideas we are promoting here on their behalf.
I chose the Bloc Quebecois because this party is in my
likeness. It opens its arms to anyone who is concerned with the
well-being of Quebec and tries to promote our country, either
here or elsewhere. I was elected on a political platform for a
good reason, I share the ideas promoted by my party, and I
cannot see how I could be unfaithful to my constituents by doing
what they elected me for. This way of looking at things opposes
elements which, far from being contradictory, are in reality
interconnected. To come to such a conclusion shows a total lack
of understanding of our political system.
(1820)
The Bloc Quebecois presented an electoral platform to the
people of Quebec who, democratically, elected 54 members of
our party to represent them in the House of Commons. I repeat
that saying that I am not in touch with my constituents because I
would be voting with my party is absurd. It negates the fact that I
belong to a political party that I joined because of a very deep
conviction. Joining a political party means sharing a vision and
therefore being stronger. The platform of a political party is
5373
intended to regroup people who have something in common,
who share a number of points of view.
The people in my riding elected me because I belonged to the
Bloc Quebecois and I do not see how and for what reason I could
separate myself from my group. I have a clear mandate from my
constituents and voting along party line seems only natural. As I
said, we cannot play the wishes of our constituents against the
party line because the people who elected us also chose our party
and our leader. We have a clear and concrete program, and what
the hon. member is suggesting does not apply to us.
The wording of the motion does not take into account the fact
that those who voted for the Bloc Quebecois share a number of
objectives. They mandated their member to defend Quebec's
interests. Obviously, Quebec spoke loud and clear during the
last election. Quebecers decided to send to Ottawa a large group
with a clear mandate. We are not an old party, we do not have the
problems associated with a weak ideological cohesiveness.
Our constituents trusted us. They gave us their votes on
October 25. We are not worn out by years of politicking, and
unlike others we are not uprooted. We were given a mandate and
that implies responsibilities. Quebecers exercized their rights
under a universal suffrage system.
As for the amendment by the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, that the motion be amended by
adding after the word ``should'' the following: ``continue to'', I
have only one comment. This, Mr. Speaker, is simply playing
with words, it seems to indicate that members always have the
possibility to vote as they please. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois
is against the amendment and against the motion.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this much
discussed motion again today. The member who introduced the
motion said in her motion, first of all, that the government
should permit members of the House of Commons to fully
represent their constituents' views, and so forth.
The motion assumed that members were not doing that, since
its purpose was to permit them to do something that was
apparently prohibited before. As was pointed out by the hon.
member for the Bloc, nothing could be further from the truth.
Parliamentarians are here to represent the interests of their
constituents. If they already represent their constituents, they
need no permission to do so. However, if we dig a little deeper,
we see there is something else in this motion which asks the
government to permit members to fully represent their
constituents' views. If one asks the government, presumably
this means a member on the government side, because after all,
the Bloc member opposite seldom asks me, in my capacity of
Deputy Government Whip, how to vote. Of course this also
applies to the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, who
seldom asks me how to vote on a bill, and I do not expect her to.
(1825)
So presumably, the hon. member's request was for
government members to be allowed to vote freely. I do not see
why she did not mention opposition members. Was this an
oversight? A few days ago, there was a vote in this House on a
proposal for a high-speed train between Montreal and Toronto,
if I remember correctly. The Quebec City-Windsor corridor-of
course, the train would not be built simultaneously in the entire
corridor. No one was suggesting that. The proposal was for
building this high-speed train. We on the government side
noticed that members of the Bloc Quebecois all voted the same
way, that members of the Reform Party all voted the same way,
and that members of the Liberal Party, the government
members, were the only members to vote on the basis of a free
vote. Some were in favour and others were against. So it is clear
the motion should have been amended. Members of the
government already had the right to vote freely, and they did so
on that day.
There were two options: first, amend the motion to allow
opposition members to vote freely. After all, members on the
government side were already voting freely. Or the motion
would be amended to say that we would continue to permit
government members to vote freely since they were already
doing so. That is when I moved my amendment that government
members be able to continue to vote freely.
However, I am always a little worried about members
opposite. I really would like Reform Party members to be able to
vote freely as well.
[English]
How pleasant it would be if Reform members could vote
freely as we do in the Liberal caucus. Mr. Speaker, you will
understand my concern in that regard because they have not yet
had free votes in the Reform Party. The same applies to the Bloc.
I only wish that they could vote as freely as we do on the
government side.
In any case the Reform Party now says that the motion should
be amended so that it would read that the government should
continue to increasingly permit free votes. I am not sure how one
does that but I am certainly not against it because government
members already have that freedom I previously described.
I was hoping that the member for the Reform Party would
amend the motion to finally provide for a means by which
opposition members could vote freely. That really would have
been innovative. That would have made the Reform Party a truly
modern parliamentary institution as is the present government.
I guess we will have to wait for that motion to occur some
other time. Perhaps I could put a motion on the Order Paper
which would read something like this: ``That this House permits
the third party to vote freely as does the government''. That
would be a good motion. I think my colleague, the member for
St. Boniface, would agree that it would be a very progressive
thing to do, to permit opposition members to vote as freely as we
do on this side of the House.
5374
I heard the discourses of hon. members from the Reform Party
and others. There is a statement or at least an insinuation in there
to the effect that the rules right now make it such that everything
is a matter of confidence. Nothing could be further from the
truth. We have already explained, and I have given evidence,
how in private members' hour the government side is the only
side that votes freely. The opposition maybe some day will come
around to it.
(1830 )
On the issue of supply days, members know very well that the
report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of
June 18, 1985 already has made that change to the standing
orders. It is on pages 106 and 107 and highly commended to the
people across the way. It is excellent bedside reading. Members
will know, having read it, that at least as it pertains to supply
days and opposition days, they are no longer automatically a
matter of confidence. That was passed on June 18, 1985.
I know that the Reform Party is not a progressive bunch but it
has been nine years. One would think that after nine years even
its members would have been aware of the change. It is three
days short of nine years, mind you, because this is June 15,
1994. It was passed on June 18, 1985. Perhaps over the next
three days, members will become aware of it.
Finally, members of the Reform Party have a misconception
that works something like this. Government MPs are coerced to
vote for the government and opposition MPs spontaneously all
vote the same way without coercion. Of course that is sheer
nonsense. Members of the Liberal Party vote similarly on many
issues because fundamentally they believe in the same things.
Reform members presumably vote similarly because they
believe in the same things.
If members across the way, particularly the member from
Calgary who is paying close attention to this and I think is
getting ready to take copious notes, do not realize this and if the
hon. member thinks that government members are somehow
coerced into voting in a similar way then surely the argument
has to be extended to say he does it too. After all, I understand he
is the deputy leader of his party. Therefore he would probably be
in a position to dictate to other members of his party.
Members can see that the arguments presented by the
members across just do not work. When they say the
government members should be voting more freely, they should
put a mirror in front of the first desk in the House and look
within to see that in their own party they, least of any political
party in the House of Commons, have anything that could even
be remotely considered a free vote.
On the other hand, we in our party have proven in the past and
the voting record of the House would demonstrate that we have
voted freely on the government side. Such has not happened
either in the Reform nor in the Bloc Quebecois.
I am not trying to defend the Bloc. That is the last thing I
would ever do, as most members know, but at least they do not
pretend they are doing otherwise. The member has given an
excellent discourse on how he believes the constitutional
conventions have worked traditionally and how a party stands as
a unit and how it works that way.
[Translation]
Of course I think he took this assumption a little further than it
should be taken, but in any event, at least he did not claim to go
against the party line. But when I hear the Reform Party, for
instance, that wants to set rules for others which the party itself
is not prepared to follow, I say: Let us not get carried away!
Hon. members opposite know perfectly well that Liberal
members in this House were elected with an excellent prime
minister and a red book we are now busy implementing. We
intend to offer the people of Canada good government, while
exercising the freedom I just described in the last few minutes.
I intend to indicate to this House that as far as I am concerned,
I will support the motion on the amendment to the amendment as
moved by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, can you tell me how much time I have? I gather
we are near the end of this.
(1835 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member will have
until 6.39 or approximately five to six minutes.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I
am addressing the motion of the member for
Mission-Coquitlam to permit free votes more frequently in the
Chamber, specifically for MPs to fully represent the views of
their constituents of the government's legislative program, and
that a defeat of the government not automatically be considered
a measure of confidence.
I am happy to follow the previous speaker, the hon. member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, not only because he
endowed a promotion on me today but because he raised a
number of issues that are crying with such misinformation that
they demand a response. I am happy to do so if anyone is still
watching after that particular discourse.
5375
The member gave an example of what occurred in Parliament,
that there has not been very much cross party voting. It is a good
illustration of what we are talking about here. The motion does
not talk about members wildly firing off in all directions on
every particular issue. It implies that under certain conditions
and for very particular reasons of constituent representation we
would expect and allow members of various parties to represent
those views.
So far, as we all know, the government has presented a very
light legislative agenda to the House. The issues that are
divisive between the parties have in every single case touched
directly upon the program on which we as members of the
Reform Party and which they as members of the Liberal Party
were elected.
The one instance the member provided of some free voting in
the House was when three Liberal members broke with the
government to vote different from government members on one
particular private member's motion which he chastises our party
for not having split on. That particular motion was that we build
an expensive infrastructure of high speed rail between Windsor
and Quebec City. Given the ridings of members of Parliament of
the Reform Party, it is not hard to figure out that they would be
unwilling unanimously and freely to agree to such a ridiculous
proposition from the point of view of their own constituents.
That should clear up some of the misconceptions raised about
free voting and about what it means. Voting freely, which we
favour and which we have advocated, is not that we would vote
stupidly as the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
suggested.
The second point that really should be made concerns
background. We should remember when we get into notions of
cabinet confidence and caucus solidarity a bit of history. I
seriously hope the member is not trying to convince the House
and Canadians that there is no such thing as confidence in the
Chamber today, any more than there is no such thing as parties.
These kinds of positions are maybe legalistic but clearly
ridiculous.
Historically the function of confidence has changed
dramatically. We should remember that in the early days of the
parliamentary system the purpose of the confidence convention
was to ensure that ministers of the crown, who originally were
representatives in a very true sense of the Monarch, had the
confidence of the elected people to function in their capacities.
Today the meaning or the context has entirely changed. Today
the Monarch is not usually a direct participant in the political
affairs or daily affairs of the nation. The cabinet is
representative of the outcome of general elections. The cabinet
confidence and the confidence convention applied to the
Chamber in this day and age is not to make cabinet report to the
House. It has been turned around in the new context to make the
House responsible to cabinet. That is the problem we have to
look at.
I fully support the motion. We should give some thought to
why it is, in spite of the legalistic declarations that appear in
some of the standing orders and others, that the confidence
convention has not been broken. We should ask ourselves what
needs to be done to create a new kind of system.
We have suggested from time to time that the Prime Minister
could rise and suggest to the House that there be the freedom to
vote more freely. It is true, but in and of itself it is not adequate.
It suggests that the Prime Minister possesses such power that he
or she could simply determine whether or not votes were free
and, that raises questions about whether votes really are free.
There are a number of mechanisms in other countries; the
three line whips in Great Britain, the fact that political
parliamentary parties are organized on a more bottom-up basis
in countries like Australia. This allows a very different style of
leadership to emerge whereby it is not just the formalities of
practice that apply but there are real issues of diversity of power
within political parties that give members greater say and a
greater ability to represent their constituents, particularly where
those conflict with more broad party interests that are not
necessarily representative.
There is a lot I want to say on this issue of how we should
examine the deficiencies of the power structure. Unfortunately,
I do not have the time. I appreciate the Chair's patience and I
will terminate my remarks now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for Calgary West. I would like to extend to the member for
Mission-Coquitlam, whose private members' motion it is,
M-89, the opportunity to close the debate.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to sum up
today. This is my first experience with having a motion drawn in
a private members' situation and I am honoured that it was
deemed to be a votable one.
I and members of the Reform have really enjoyed debating
this issue that is so dear to our hearts with other members in the
House. I respectfully urge all members to support Motion 89, for
this is why we are here in the House, to democratically make
change. Nothing is stagnant. I am not asking to make change for
the sake of change, but relaxation of the confidence convention
will result in a more accountable and workable House of
Commons. I urge everyone to support us on this motion.
5376
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.39 p.m. it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put all questions necessary
to dispose of Motion M-89 now before the House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Carried on division.
(Amendment to amendment agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
the amendment as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment, as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Carried on division.
(Amendment, as amended, agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
the main motion, as amended. Is the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion, as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Carried on division.
(Motion, as amended, agreed to.)
_____________________________________________