TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, June 3, 1994
Bill C-18. Consideration of Senate amendments 4811
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4812
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4815
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 4815
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4817
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4818
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 4819
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4820
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4820
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4820
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4820
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4821
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4821
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4821
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4821
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4823
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4823
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4824
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4824
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4828
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 4828
Motion for concurrence in 26th report 4833
(Motion moved and agreed to.) 4833
Motion for concurrence in 24th report 4833
(Government Orders Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 withdrawn.) 4833
Bill C-18. Consideration resumed of Senate amendments 4835
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 4835
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 4837
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4844
Bill C-243. Motion for second reading 4845
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 4853
4811
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 3, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments
made by the Senate to Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation
of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): I move:
That the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, an act to suspend the
operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be concurred in with
the exception of amendment 1 in clause 2 to which this House proposes the
following amendment:
Strike out ``the sixth day of February'' and substitute ``June 22''.
And that a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours
therewith.
He said: Madam Speaker, in proposing the motion I wish to
take the opportunity to reaffirm the government's intention and
desire to have in place an impartial readjustment of electoral
boundaries based on the 1991 census for any election to be held
at the end of a normal life of a Parliament with a majority
government. I am speaking of an election in 1997 or 1998.
(1005)
We think the original timetable proposed in Bill C-18 would
have permitted this to happen. Bill C-18 proposed a two-year
suspension of the process while the entire process was itself
being reviewed by a parliamentary committee. We did not
consider this to be a minimum time for such a review but a
maximum time setting an outside limit for completing the
review and passing the necessary legislation.
By order of the House, the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs has been instructed to bring in legislation to
update this process, with an ultimate deadline for a report for
this purpose of December 16, 1994. This is the date when the
House is scheduled to begin its winter adjournment which,
under the rules of the House, ends on February 6, 1995.
It would be only after that date that the rest of the legislative
process on any bill would be undertaken. I am speaking of a
further committee stage, report stage and third reading in the
House. Then there would have to be consideration in the Senate.
It was our opinion, given the always unpredictable nature of
demands on parliamentary time, that a two-year timetable for
new legislation was not unreasonable even though, as I said, we
regarded this not as a minimum but a maximum time.
It has since become clear, however, that there is some
considerable concern in parts of the country that this maximum
would become a minimum and therefore that the provision for a
two-year suspension appeared to make it impossible for an
election in 1997 or 1998 to be held on the basis of new
boundaries.
The amendments proposed by the Senate do attempt to
address this concern. The amendments in effect would provide
that the suspension of the process would last only until February
6, 1995, and if no change to the process were legislated by that
date the existing process would automatically be resumed where
it left off.
It is the government's intention to reassure the public of our
desire that a general election taking place at the end of the
normal term of the present Parliament be held on the basis of the
1991 census. Therefore we are prepared to accept the Senate
formulation except on one point, and that is we do not view the
date of February 6, 1995 as being appropriate or realistic.
As I have said, this date does not recognize the timetable
already ordered by the House for the preparation of new
legislation on this matter. It does not recognize the provisions of
the rules of the House for an adjournment between December
16, 1994 and February 6, 1995. It represents, it could be said, an
inappropriate involvement by the Senate in the right of the
House of Commons to set its own agenda. After all, the House
ordered on April 19 that a committee prepare legislation no later
than December 16 of this year, the date on which as I have said
under the rules of the House we will be adjourning until
February 6.
4812
It must be emphasized that it is already the stated intention of
the House of Commons, expressed by its order, not just the
intention of the government, to have the procedure committee
bring in legislation to reform and update the process of
redistribution.
There are many areas the committee will likely want to
consider. Some have been raised already when the bill was
before the House at earlier stages of debate. I am sure they will
be discussed again in detail in the committee hearings and when
the committee reports. However today I do not intend to
anticipate what may be in the report or presume to suggest what
the committee may have in the report in question.
(1010)
I intend to conclude by saying that the government concurs in
the Senate amendments but asks for one amendment to them,
that is that the legislation have a more realistic timetable in it for
the completion of the review, a June 22, 1995 date rather than a
February 6, 1995 date.
Therefore the government asks the House to accept the Senate
amendments subject to the amendment I have put forward to
create a more realistic timetable.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Madam Speaker, we find ourselves in a rather unique situation
this morning. Only a few months ago, the government
introduced a bill in this House to delay the electoral boundaries
adjustment process. Bill C-18 called for a two-year
postponement of the boundaries review process and for the
dismantling of commissions responsible for travelling across
Canada to hear the views of citizens about the redrawing of their
riding's boundaries.
The arguments which were put forward by government
representatives, by Liberal Party members, and which were
supported by the official opposition were based on two points:
first, since the members of the 35th Parliament were elected on
October 25, 1993, the next elections would not, in all likelihood,
be held until sometime in 1997 or 1998.
Therefore, there was no rush to redraw electoral boundaries.
During the debate, the government said it could take all the time
it needed to ensure that certain criteria were taken into account
during this process, criteria such as the number of voters, of
course, and also attachment to a particular region. Therefore, let
me say again that the government, supported by the official
opposition, agreed to vote in favour of this bill to postpone the
process for the next two years.
A few weeks later, the leader of the Conservative Party and
the hon. member for Sherbrooke, a great democrat if ever there
was one, joined forces with the Conservative majority in the
Senate and together, they decided to take on the mantle of
defenders of democracy. They decided to propose some
amendments to Bill C-18, claiming, I say again, to be the
defenders of democracy.
(1015)
Let me point out several inconsistencies in this position.
During the last election campaign, the member for Sherbrooke
and leader of the Conservative Party, at least what remains of it,
claimed in his ads running several times a day in Quebec that to
be effective in the House of Commons, one needed to be part of
the government.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke and leader of the
Conservative Party argued, unlike the Bloc Quebecois
candidates, that the real power was not in opposition, but on the
government side because, to his mind, that is where decisions
about the running of the country were made, not in the
opposition ranks.
The member for Sherbrooke and leader of the Conservative
Party also said that the opposition operates behind the scenes
and that opposition members have no real power in the House of
Commons. This was what the leader of the Conservative Party
and member for Sherbrooke claimed and this debate is eloquent
proof indeed of what he meant.
Since he views the role of the opposition as that of lobbyists,
like he indicated during the election campaign, he immediately
set to work, hardly ever participating in the regular business of
the House, preferring to lobby senators into embarrassing the
government. I do not mean to ascribe intentions to him, but he
may have had in mind the days when, with a Liberal majority,
the Senate manoeuvred to create difficulties for the
Conservative government in passing significant legislation like
the GST or free trade. We all remember those days.
But the Senate is now comprised mostly of Conservative
senators, although it may be more appropriate to call it purple
than blue, because several of these senators side now with the
Liberals, now with the Conservatives. If you mix blue and red,
you get purple.
The leader of the Conservative Party and member for
Sherbrooke, no doubt a fervent defender of democracy,
persuaded the Conservative senators that amendments had to be
made to Bill C-18 to ensure that the Upper House could impose
its agenda on the government.
(1020)
The inconsistency is striking here. During the election
campaign, the Conservative leader said that the real power was
on the side of the government. Yet, the first thing he did in
opposition, aside from not attending any of the debates in this
House, was precisely to get busy in the wings, to use the Senate,
and its Conservative majority, to interfere with the intentions of
4813
the government and the House of Commons. In my mind, that is
miscarriage of democracy.
Now that masks have been shed, we can see what the
Conservative leader and member for Sherbrooke is really after.
Amazingly, the Liberal government goes along with him. We
really need to be clear on what is going on. I will come back in a
moment to the role of the Senate. When Bill C-18 was
introduced in this House, as the Solicitor General said just a
moment ago, both the government and the Official Opposition
intended to ensure time was taken to do serious work on this bill,
instead of proceeding hastily at the risk of finding ourselves in
impossible situations later on.
Several government members and several members of the
Official Opposition spoke in this debate to explain the tragic,
disastrous effects the changes proposed by the electoral
boundaries readjustment commission will have on people's
lives. I for one described the problems affecting my riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead in this House. The
commission planned to literally turn the riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead upside down in the most
incredibly thoughtless fashion, attaching one part of the riding
to another riding with which it had no ties, either sociologically
or in terms of business communications, and also
communications between constituents and their elected
representatives, or in terms their dealings with the government.
Many examples were given. I would say that just about every
hon. member spoke of adverse effects the proposed changes
would have on their ridings. Never, on the side of the Official
Opposition, did we want or intend to interfere with the electoral
boundaries readjustment process by preventing the commission
from making any changes before the next election.
We said that this two-year timeframe-as, may I remind you,
the Solicitor General just reiterated-can be seen as the
maximum amount of time needed to make intelligent changes,
to take into account the number of voters per riding and to
ensure that in the next election campaign-in which we in the
Official Opposition do not wish to participate-riding
redistribution will be based on data from the 1991 census rather
than the 1981 census.
(1025)
Everyone agreed. And everyone still agrees today that we
have all the time we need to ensure that intelligent public
hearings will be held in Quebec and throughout Canada, that the
proposed amendments will be tabled in this House, and that a
bill can be passed in time for these changes to be in place before
the next election.
I want to look at an argument that was used not only by
columnists and Liberal Party faithful during their last
convention but also by our friends from the Reform Party and
others, namely that delaying the process would forestall any
changes and that we in the Official Opposition act as though we
do not want to take the number criterion into account. We do
think that this criterion is important. There must be a kind of
balance, of equity in the demographic weight of the various
ridings.
That is not the only criterion to be considered, however. That
is another reason why we in the Official Opposition support
postponing the review process. We wanted to ask the House
committee to review these criteria and we will do so in a few
weeks. At the beginning of July, hearings will be held by the
parliamentary committee to review the criteria used by the
commission to redraw the electoral map.
Agreeing to review these criteria is one more argument in
favour of deferring the process. If we accept the fact that the
current redistribution criteria must be revised, we should, I
think, immediately admit that we must suspend the review
process, wait for the decisions on these new criteria and then go
out and consult the people throughout Quebec and Canada, to
ensure that the proposed changes respect the will of the people
and the new criteria that will be adopted.
After hearing the government position that the Solicitor
General has just outlined, we must come to the conclusion that,
under pressure from the senators and from Liberal militants at
their last convention, the government has decided to go back on
its word and to ensure that the process will be shorter than the
two years set out in Bill C-18. Strangely, as I mentioned earlier,
it shows that the process initiated by the leader of the
Conservative Party was right. We must keep this in mind.
Madam Speaker, this means that the leader of the Conservative
Party, with a caucus of two members in this House, is the one
leading the government. Our friends opposite must realize that
they are being led by the leader of a party that has almost no
members left in this House. Is that democracy? I doubt it. I see
democracy differently.
(1030)
We must also realize that this political game, because that is
what it is, is supported by individuals who were never elected
anywhere, and I refer to the senators. As we know, they are
appointed by the government for all sorts of reasons, but
especially for their political connections. It has been well known
for a long time. Since our institutions were created, the senators'
role has been to look after very important issues on occasion, I
agree, but more often than not, to look after the affairs of their
party, be it Conservative or Liberal.
The unelected senators are teaching a lesson in democracy to
us, members of Parliament who have been democratically
elected by all the voters in our ridings. So what legitimacy does
the Senate have to act in an issue like this? It is totally
ridiculous. Just being here in the House today dealing with
4814
Senate amendments on the redrawing of electoral boundaries,
which lies at the very heart of our democratic system, is absurd.
Unelected senators, some of whom are there simply to ensure
that the traditional parties have enough money in their election
fund, are telling us elected members: ``You did your job badly.
You are undemocratic. You do not represent the will of the
people and we in our ivory tower know what the people need. We
know what you must do and we are imposing it on you''.
Madam Speaker, I just cannot get over it. We must remember
this date, June 3, 1994, when unelected people were able to
impose their agenda on the government which was elected
barely six months ago. I would also like to point out that for
many years, Quebec has been represented in the House of
Commons in proportion to its share of the population; that is,
about 25 per cent of the members of the House of Commons
come from Quebec, which is the same as Quebec's share of the
population.
(1035)
Among the changes proposed by the commission, a certain
number of ridings are to be added. In fact, two ridings would be
added in British Columbia and four in Ontario, for a total of six,
raising the number of members sitting in the House of Commons
from 295 to 301. For one thing, this would lower Quebec's share
of the representation in this House and of course, something not
to be overlooked, it would increase government spending,
because six more members would cost the taxpayers of Canada
and Quebec more money.
We must send a clear message since Bill C-18, as was also
agreed during the negotiations surrounding Meech, protects
Quebec's relative weight, that is a representation equivalent to
25 per cent of the total in the House of Commons. In our future
decisions, we should always keep in mind-and I say this for the
benefit of government and Reform Party members-that
Quebecers represent approximately one quarter of the Canadian
population. As long as Quebec remains part of Canada, this
proportion should be reflected here in the House of Commons.
As for the addition of new members, we are not in a position
right now to increase government spending. Everyone in the
House agrees on that. I think the government, the Official
Opposition and the Reform Party are unanimous to say that, at
least, government spending should not increase. We, as well as
our friends from the Reform Party, even hope for a review of all
expenditures and budget items, in an effort to reduce
government spending.
So, why create new jobs for additional MPs? I think there are
more important issues to solve than to find jobs in this House for
a few more individuals. During the election campaign, the Prime
Minister used to say, and he still says, that the Liberals' main
priority was jobs, jobs, and jobs. I do hope that what he had in
mind was not to create jobs here in this House but, rather, in
ridings across Canada, where people suffer from the current
economic situation.
Again, this issue does not require urgent action. To delay the
process for 24 months, as was originally proposed, does not, as
far as we are concerned, jeopardize in any way the review
process which will have to take place before the next election.
(1040)
In 24 months means early 1996, unless the Prime Minister,
after deciding that he can no longer run the country, is anxious to
yield to the Conservative leader and chooses to act quickly,
which I think is unlikely, so we can expect an election to be held
in the fall of 1997 or even in 1998, which leaves us enough time
to readjust electoral boundaries.
Another point is that there is absolutely no reason why we
should increase the number of members in this House. None at
all. There is no objection to readjusting electoral boundaries to
ensure that the voter population is more evenly distributed. But
there is no justification at all for increasing the number of
members in this House.
Clarity is of the essence. The government must send a clear
signal to the public that its objective is not to create jobs here, at
taxpayers' expense, but jobs out there for the unemployed who
are waiting for answers from the government.
I also want to point out that the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Commission has continued its work, which
consists in conducting public hearings across the country to
listen to what individuals and groups have to say about the
proposed amendments. My point is that the Commission,
despite the very clear message sent by the government when it
tabled C-18 in this House, could not care less about the
government's plans and that is why it has proceeded to conduct
hearings across Canada, or at least in Quebec.
What impact will this have on the readjustment process? As
soon as those concerned, including the municipal authorities in
our electoral districts, realized that the government intended to
postpone the electoral boundaries readjustment process for two
years, people thought it was not worth appearing before the
commission to make their presentations. They said to
themselves: They will have to come back later, so we will go as
soon as there is an official process duly approved by the
government.
The commission simply ignored the government's plans. As
the Solicitor General said a moment ago, the commission is a
quasi-judicial body that can make decisions as it sees fit, and so
it decided to go ahead anyway. As a result, in many locations, in
the Eastern Townships for instance, only three groups appeared
before the commission, while dozens of groups and
municipalities would have done so if there had been a clearly
established and clearly identified process.
4815
(1045)
The same happened in the Lower St. Lawrence district and
other regions in Quebec, where many citizens and
representatives of local authorities, especially municipalities,
decided against appearing before the commission because they
realized the process would be repeated in a year and a half or two
years.
If we approve the amendments before the House, the
commission's work will not be terminated but merely suspended
for five or six months, after which, the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Commission will resume its work. Does this mean
that where public hearings were held, the commission will not
go back to listen to members of the public and representatives of
our municipalities? If so, there would be some justification for
wondering whether the process is democratic.
That is why the commission, which was aware of the
government's plans when the bill was tabled, should have
stopped the process including the hearings, and waited until the
government decided whether or not to extend the process. This
is one more reason for repeating the entire process. Therefore,
we should wait for the results regarding the criteria to be used by
the commissions.
I said earlier, and other members also mentioned it, that the
number of voters is one of the criteria, but there are others which
should be taken into consideration. We should not forget the
weight of regions within a province; we have to be careful not to
strip regions of their representation because their young people,
unable to find jobs in their area, had to move out, hopefully to a
job in Montreal or maybe to join the ranks of those unemployed
or on welfare in Montreal, Quebec City or elsewhere.
We have to devise criteria which do not jeopardize the future
of these regions. We should take the time to think and to discuss
the process, so as to be on solid ground when we finally launch
the operation.
Second, when the readjustment process resumes, the
government has to make sure that the commission's work is
reviewed, and give private citizens and interest groups every
opportunity to make their views known about the readjustments.
(1050)
For all these reasons, and in keeping with our stated views as
Official Opposition, we would like to see the schedule which
was in Bill C-18 adhered to, while assuring the House, and
indeed the people of Quebec and Canada, that what we are
seeking is a readjustment which will apply to the next federal
elections to be held in 1997-1998 and which will be based on
sound criteria.
Mr. Charest: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
speech by the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead will
not stand as a model of rigor.
In his speech, he mentioned something I must object to since I
am directly concerned. He referred to the fact that I was not
present in the House. There is no need to remind you of the very
well known rule which prohibits a member from referring to the
presence or the absence of another member. And I would add, if
only the parliamentary secretary could keep quiet for a few
seconds, that this remark is particularly obnoxious for the
following reason: the Bloc did all it could to prevent the 11
independent members from speaking in the House. It is
extremely hypocritical on its part to then rise in the House and
claim that we were absent during the debate, when it did nothing
at all to promote a fundamental element of democracy. After all,
we represent more voters than it does.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry for
interrupting, but we were about to start a debate. I was aware of
the comments by the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. I believe it was a slip of the
tongue and I shall ask him to withdraw.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether this is a point of order or
a question of privilege, or if the member for Sherbrooke was
looking for an opportunity to speak in the House. I will concede
that he is right in his application of the Standing Orders. I have
no problem acknowledging it, but I will point out that, during
the election campaign, the member for Sherbrooke was
constantly denouncing the Bloc members' absence.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order! It is also a matter
of debate. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Calgary West.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I am
rising today to speak to Bill C-18, which suspends the operation
of the electoral boundaries adjustment process and to address
specifically the motion that the government has brought forward
to accommodate amendments that have come from the Senate
study of the bill.
[Translation]
The purpose of Bill C-18 is, I think, to kill the electoral
boundaries readjustment process. The Reform Party was
opposed to that bill until now. However, I can say that with the
amendments proposed by the Senate and those put forward by
the government today, we can now support this bill.
4816
[English]
As you know, Madam Speaker, we did oppose and have
opposed vigorously Bill C-18. We were opposed to it to such an
extent that at second reading closure was moved. We still have
some concerns with this course of action, but I should begin by
saying we can support this bill with the accommodations the
government has made today.
(1055)
Let us review Bill C-18 and some of the original problems
that have been addressed. The House will recall that originally
there was no demand from the public for this legislation,
certainly no mention in the red book of any intention to bring in
such legislation and no serious mention of the procedural
concerns that had arisen when legislation such as this had been
introduced previously in 1973, 1985 and 1992. Yet in late
March, early April, the government came out with C-18 as their
top legislative priority.
When the bill was rammed through the House with closure, it
really did not present a lot of opportunity for meaningful public
debate. We had begun to hear, and the Senate later heard, from
provincial and territorial governments, from many academics
and experts and from many individual Canadians, particularly
from British Columbia, all of whom were condemning C-18 as
not simply a bad bill and not simply an undemocratic bill, but an
unconstitutional bill.
It was apparent that the bill had been prepared without
consultation with Elections Canada. Mr. Kingsley, the Chief
Electoral Officer, has stated in committee hearings that it has
always been the practice of the governments of the day to
consult Elections Canada when considering changes to such
processes and it is what we would have expected normally on
this occasion.
The mechanics of our electoral system are admired around the
world and Elections Canada's advice, as we know, is frequently
sought by other countries. Recently we played a role in the
elections in new democracies in both South Africa and Ukraine.
The electoral process and its outcome affect all Canadians.
The interests of all of Canadians must be served, not the
interests of politicians, not partisan interests or political
self-interest.
One of the biggest problems with the original bill was the lack
of all-party consensus. The government had only the support of
the Bloc Quebecois. It was opposed by the Reform Party, and I
should add, opposed quite vigorously by the New Democratic
Party and by the Progressive Conservative Party, although its
opposition comes primarily from the Senate. We heard only
within weeks of the passage of the bill that many elements of the
Liberal Party were also opposed, as some members found out at
their recent convention.
The reason I mention these other parties is that the support of
parties, both major and minor, in this type of legislation is
important for the operation of the democratic system. The
support of the Bloc Quebecois is a different matter and I will
address that in my later remarks.
While all this has been going on, the public hearings into the
redistribution process have continued. The bulk of the dollars
had been spent even before the bill was introduced and now
eight out of eleven of the commissions have finished their public
hearings; in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick-
The Speaker: You will be given time when we finish question
period, but it being 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 30(5),
the House will now proceed to statements by members, pursuant
to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
4816
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Speaker, both the
environment and the economy are big winners today as the result
of two agreements between the federal and Alberta
governments. The agreements are an example of federal and
provincial governments working co-operatively to administer
environmental regulations without sacrificing the quality of the
environment or increasing the risk to human health.
The administrative and equivalency agreements are provided
for under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. They will
lead to a more efficient delivery of the environmental protection
and enforcement programs that govern toxic substances by
reducing overlap and lightening the paper burden on jointly
regulated industries.
This initiative is part of the federal government's overall plan
to harmonize federal and provincial legislation and regulations
where possible and eliminate unnecessary duplication.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to draw to the House's attention the 50th
anniversary of the founding of the International Civil Aviation
Organization, the only United Nations agency to be
headquartered in Montreal since its founding in 1944. The ICAO
has now become an important component of the worldwide
transportation industry.
4817
In 1944, a total of 52 countries signed the convention on
international civil aviation. The signing came at a time when 9
million people used airplanes as a mode of transportation.
Today, airplanes carry nearly 1.2 billion passengers and are
recognized as the safest means of transportation. We have the
ICAO to thank in large part for this record because it had the
foresight to invite member states to adopt efficient air safety
measures.
The success of the ICAO clearly shows what the peoples of
the world can accomplish when they work together. Many
challenges await the ICAO in the next 50 years, and we wish this
organization the best of luck.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, now
that school is almost out, young people of this country are
thinking more about their future. I thought it might be a good
time to reflect on the difference between the younger generation
and us baby boomers.
To boomers, McDonald's was a farmer with all the pets you
could envision. To the younger generation, McDonald's means
burgers and fries mc-ketchuped to death.
To boomers, Mac the Knife was the number one song by
Bobby Darrin. Today, Mac the Knife is one of countless young
offenders.
The boomers have lived with the benefits of borrowed money.
Today the younger generation lives with the results of borrowed
money.
Yes, there are differences between the two generations. Will
the future be better for the younger generation? It will depend on
them, their determination, their creativity, their respect for the
environment and their optimism.
Let us hope they have learned from our mistakes.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, this
week in Montreal, the Liberal government followed through on
an election promise to pave the way for Canada's future by
announcing investments totalling $80.8 million in projects in
the city of Montreal. These projects represent phase one of the
Canada-Quebec infrastructure program aimed at the
refurbishment and construction of municipal infrastructures.
[English]
My riding of Saint-Denis will receive $15.53 million,
creating over 240 jobs. The federal Liberal government's
infrastructure initiative will boost the economy of Saint-Denis,
it will boost the economy of Quebec and it will boost the
economy of Canada.
[Translation]
This is another example of co-operation between the
governments of Quebec and Canada which deserves to be
applauded!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, June
5 to 11 is Environmental Week. On the occasion of
Environmental Week I extend an invitation to all hon. members
and to all Canadians to be good environmental citizens and to
take part in this week's activities.
As a result of numerous activities and exhibitions being held
nation-wide, Canadians will have the opportunity to familiarize
themselves with healthy environmental practices.
We as parliamentarians have a great responsibility not only to
Canadians and our immediate neighbours but to the whole world
to promote environmentally responsible policies and to make
sure that the laws that we pass in this House are sustainable.
The Canadian public also has a responsibility because the
laws and the regulations we pass both here and in our provincial
legislatures will not work unless there is public involvement.
Environmental Week re-emphasizes the importance of public
participation.
The theme of this year's Environmental Week is ``This Week
Every Week'' or en français, ``cette semaine et toute l'année''
should be underlined. Environmental Week is a fun week and I
encourage all members-
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
in remembrance of D-Day and the events leading to the end of
the second world war, the Canada Remembrance Program was
initiated to encourage events commemorating those who fought
and died on land, at sea and in the air so that we as Canadians
might enjoy our freedoms that we know today.
This program recognizes the values and strengths that helped
Canadians deal successfully with the challenges faced during
the second world war, the same values and strengths that make
Canada and Canadians respected throughout the world today.
4818
This Saturday hundreds of veterans from New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Ontario will
gather in Hartland, New Brunswick to commemorate the 50th
anniversary of D-Day and Canadian troops who landed in
Normandy on June 6, 1944.
I am sure that this House will join with me in extending our
sincere thanks to Hartland, New Brunswick Branch 24 of the
Royal Canadian Legion for their commemorative ceremony and
to all veterans for the freedom we enjoy today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, the
prestigious bond rating agency known as Moody's has lowered
Canada's foreign currency debt credit rating. Responding to the
lowering of the rating, the Minister of Finance stated that the
fundamental components of the Canadian economy are sound.
How can the Minister of Finance say that everything is fine
when structural unemployment in Canada remains extremely
high, when according to the OECD, the debt ratio of the
Canadian public sector as a percentage of GDP increased by 82
per cent between 1985 and 1993, contrary to the average
increase of only 21 per cent for all OECD countries?
It is not the current political situation in Quebec that is
responsible for the repeated moves to lower the federal
government's credit rating, but rather the sorry state of the
federal government's finances, a situation which will not be
resolved by the Liberal budget and one which has foreign
investors worried.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, private radio
stations in my riding and indeed across Canada are worried for
their very survival. This industry has lost more than $100
million during the last three years. Today radio stations are
facing another threat, a potential change in government policy.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is studying
``Neighbouring Rights'' which would extend the current music
copyrights. If this is done, radio stations will have to pay
royalties to producers and performing artists whenever they
play a song on the radio.
Such an amendment would cost radio stations across Canada
$22 million. Since Canada is a net importer of music, most of the
royalties will flow across the Canadian border into the pockets
of already wealthy music producers and artists. The struggling
Canadian musician will see very little benefit.
The policy could also shut down local radio stations if
enacted. It will undoubtedly result in the loss of jobs.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow marks the fifth anniversary of the brutal
killings of hundreds of innocent students and workers in
Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China.
Let us pay tribute today to the memories and courage of those
brave men and women who struggled for human rights and
democracy in China and continue to do so today.
Tragically, grave violations of human rights continue in
China as documented just this week by Amnesty International.
Suppression of the rights of labour, denial of political and
religious freedom, torture and widespread capital punishment
are all continuing in China.
As well, China continues to ruthlessly suppress the human
rights and religious freedoms of the people of Tibet and to
supply arms to bloody military regimes such as Burma.
Finally, our government must be just as vigorous and publicly
outspoken in defence of the human rights of the people of China
and Tibet as they are in pursuit of corporate profits and trade.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to draw attention, as did
others, to the weekend that allows all Canadians to remember
and thank those brave and valiant Canadian servicemen who
participated in the D-Day landing which led to a quick victory in
northwest Europe.
I sincerely wish all those Canadians who are participating in
these commemorative affairs excellent support from all other
Canadians.
I would also like to bring the attention of this House and
Canadians to another group of Canadians who are serving their
country as part of the United Nations protection force in the
former Yugoslavia. These soldiers were observed to have the
highest standards of training, patience, diligence and ability to
negotiate without bringing arms to bear in the situation. Some of
these situations are very trying and some of them are very
unnerving. Our sailors, our soldiers and airmen who are serving
in Yugoslavia are carrying on the great tradition of patience,
forbearance and commitment to duty for this country in the
world.
4819
(1110)
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to announce to the House that today is National
Transportation Day in Canada.
Today in Thunder Bay there will be inaugural celebrations for
National Transportation Week which runs from June 5 to 11. A
wide range of transport related ceremonies, activities and
seminars have been planned for major cities from coast to coast
to coast.
The theme of National Transportation Week 1994 is
``Intermodalism: The Perfect Fit''. Intermodalism, which
describes the use of two or more modes of transportation in a
continuous operation under a single bill of lading, is increasing
in this country. This mode of transport is particularly evident in
our import-export trade which counts on computer applications
and streamlined procedures to get goods to market quickly and
at the best possible prices.
Transportation is the life support system for our economy and
it is critically important to our ability to compete internationally
in the ever evolving global marketplace.
I am very pleased therefore to salute the many men and
women who keep our transportation systems running as they
should year round.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, I stand before you today to address the reduction of the
northern living allowance. The towns listed in appendix C of the
Revenue Canada income tax guide are to endure a gradual
reduction of the amounts with total elimination by 1995.
For the Canadians who live in these towns, and specifically
my constituents of Dauphin-Swan River, this deduction is not
one of convenience but a means of compensating for the burden
of having to travel up to 300 kilometres to seek medical
attention.
All Canadians are entitled to equal access to health care and
government services. Geography and standard of living create
barriers to such services. With the emphasis of the Canadian
economy focused upon urban centres dotting the 49th parallel it
would seem that we are penalizing those who inhabit our
northern and rural regions. Large corporations offer their
employees isolation pay in order to entice transfer to these
locations.
I implore the hon. Minister of Finance within his mandate of
fiscal responsibility and reduced spending to explore other
avenues of revenue generation other than eliminating the
northern living allowance for those towns listed in appendix C.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois members are pleased to see that their policy
regarding francophones in Canada was well received.
As noted in La Presse today, the Leader of the Opposition is
indeed a man who has served the cause of francophones well,
with more yet to come.
The ACFO president made himself very clear on that subject,
stating there had never been a clearer and more concrete and
specific commitment to francophones outside Quebec and that
over the past eight months, the Bloc Quebecois had risen more
often to speak for francophone communities than the Liberals
had during the entire Conservative mandate.
We, Bloc Quebecois members, will not stop asking questions
until such time as the government takes a stand for equity and
respect for the rights of francophones in this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, this
week the Royal Canadian Legion has been holding its
convention in my city of Calgary.
We have all become aware of this due to the media
concentration on the issue of head-dress regulations that arose
at the convention. I probably would have voted on that particular
issue differently than the legion, but frankly that is not the
important issue.
What we should be focusing on is the focus of the convention;
the 50th anniversary of the D-Day invasion and the unparalleled
historic contribution of Canadian veterans to our society
through their bravery in those dark days of World War II.
The greatest human rights victory of this century, perhaps of
history, was the defeat of Adolf Hitler and the allies of the
national socialists. The unbalanced focus of the press and
so-called human rights commentaries this week have been quite
frankly pathetic and an insult to veterans and veterans'
organizations.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Gelas Gallant of
4820
Rustico, Prince Edward Island, on being awarded the Acadian
Order of Merit by the Societe Saint-Thomas-D'Aquin. This
prestigious award is presented annually to a person who has
contributed significantly toward advancing the Acadian culture
on Prince Edward Island.
(1115)
Mr. Gallant has earned this award through his lifelong
dedication and involvement in the Acadian community. He is
the eighth generation descendant of Michel Haché-Gallant who
was the first Acadian to arrive on Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Gallant and his wife Marguerite have 15 children, all of
whom have been educated in French and the rich Acadian
culture. In fact most of those children live in the community.
Mr. Gallant has been active in farm organizations and still is
politically active. When he calls, you listen.
Mr. Gallant is a citizen who best exemplifies Canadianism
through his rich involvement in advancing Acadian culture, thus
improving the local community and ultimately Canada as a rich
multicultural country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, which is the real position of the Bloc Quebecois
concerning francophones outside Quebec?
Last week, the Bloc leader stated: ``We recognize the
existence of a francophone space within Canada, Quebec being
the anchor point of this space''. What an astonishing discovery
really about a nation which has been around for three centuries!
Let us remember however the other face the Bloc Quebecois
showed during the election campaign when the Prime Minister's
legitimacy was put into question because he dared to represent
an Acadian community.
[English]
Let us also remember the following immortal words:
``Bilingualism is only an issue in Quebec. People in Manitoba
and in Ontario do not really worry about speaking French, they
just speak English''. This is a quote of a Bloc Quebecois MP
from the Hill Times, November 25, 1993.
[Translation]
Why is the face shown to Quebecers different from the one
shown to francophones minorities? Could it be that the Bloc
Quebecois is two-faced?
4820
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, in a report to
Quebec's Minister of Education, the advisory committee on the
military college in Saint-Jean, chaired by former senator
Claude Castonguay, concludes that closing this college is an
irreparable mistake. The committee reluctantly proposes that
the college be converted into a college and university-level
educational institution focusing on international subjects.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Castonguay
Committee's conclusion that closing this college is an
irreparable mistake?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the
Deputy Prime Minister admit that the money that will be saved
by closing the college can only be minimal, compared to the
negative effects of the closure and given that the operating costs
of the college in Saint-Jean-I hope the Deputy Prime Minister
knows this-are much lower than those of the college in
Kingston?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think the question that
must be asked, and that we asked ourselves, is this: Why, if the
Collège Militaire Royal is so essential, did 83 per cent of
military-educated francophones attend other institutions?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the
Deputy Prime Minister not admit that, as the committee's report
states, ``the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean would
mean the loss of the only college that is and can be truly
bilingual''?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, my sister-in-law from
Ontario studied in French. She completed her medical studies as
a member of the military at the University of Ottawa.
* * *
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of the Environment.
Monday, in the House, the Deputy Prime Minister endorsed
the opposition expressed by Kingston city council to the
construction of a suitable French-language school, saying it was
4821
justified because, and I quote: ``The proposed site was only
steps away from a dangerous toxic waste treatment site''.
(1120)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the
Environment still maintain that Kingston's opposition to the
proposed French school is justified because the site already
purchased by the school board is allegedly next to a site that
handles toxic and hazardous wastes, when such a site does not
exist? Does she still maintain that, yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, yes, and I even have a letter
signed by Mr. John Morand, chief administrator of the City of
Kingston, who indeed confirms that a toxic waste site is right
next to it.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, in that case, how does the Deputy Prime Minister
reconcile her statement supporting Kingston's obstruction,
when her colleague, the heritage minister, gave a grant of over
half a million dollars for the proposed francophone community
cultural centre located on the very site condemned by the
environment minister?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that
the Bloc does not accept the truth. The fact of the matter is that
the hazardous waste site lies beside the one bought by the school
board.
I would not like my daughter to go to school 1,000 feet from a
site that is not only full of hazardous waste but also full of gas. It
is a fire hazard.
The most important question, which the Prime Minister
answered last week, was: Does Kingston want a
French-language school? The answer is yes, and we want to
have it as soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday I raised some very serious matters relating to the
parliamentary secretary for fisheries. As of May 24, 1994, the
parliamentary secretary was still listed as an officer of Dynamic
Maintenance, a position from which he says he resigned on
December 1, 1993.
The parliamentary secretary's father and father-in-law are
also listed as officers and directors of Dynamic Maintenance, a
situation which would hardly qualify as an arm's length
relationship.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of these facts and if so,
how can she explain this apparent violation of the conflict code?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform my hon.
colleague that the contract in question was consummated before
the election. Eight bidders were involved in the process and it
was whittled down to four. The successful bidder in this
particular incident saved the taxpayers of Canada, which I
assume is the goal of the hon. member, approximately $3.4
million.
The Deputy Registrar General of Canada has provided an
opinion which clearly states that no conflict of interest exists in
this particular instance.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, we have
spoken to the B.C. ministry of finance and corporate relations
and we were informed that until a person is delisted they remain
an officer of the company. They also informed us that the
records are up to date.
There are some very serious discrepancies which I think must
be looked into.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister support a motion to refer this
matter to the procedures and House affairs committee?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, to the last part of the hon.
member's question, the answer is no.
I find it rather insulting that the hon. member would stand in
his place and question the integrity of the Deputy Registrar
General who has given an opinion based upon the facts which
have been provided to him that no conflict whatsoever exists in
this particular case.
If the hon. member wishes to pursue it further, why does he
not raise those substantive questions with the Deputy Registrar
General?
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to quote the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from
Hansard on April 30, 1986 where this comment was made in
relation to the Sinclair Stevens affair: ``How blind can a trust be
when a spouse is managing it? How many other members of
cabinet have a blind trust being managed by their spouses?''
(1125 )
It is not much of a leap from spouse to parent, particularly
when they share the same House. Can the Deputy Prime Minister
explain if, under the Liberal version of ethics, a parent living in
the same home qualifies as an arm's length relationship?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has a
substantive allegation to make, he should make it. Not only
should he make it clearly and unequivocally in this House, but
he should also go outside and make that charge in the national
media. If he is not prepared to do that and if he is not prepared to
consult with the Deputy Registrar General, then I suggest the
4822
hon. member ought to exercise prudence as opposed to
irresponsibility.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In
response to a Canadian Press release, which did not accurately
report comments claimed to have been made by the Leader of
the Opposition at a private meeting with members of the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Deputy Prime Minister
said that it was shameful for the opposition leader to hold secret
meetings with small groups.
To be consistent, will the Deputy Prime Minister condemn the
in camera meeting her Prime Minister held this week with a
small Toronto Club group to discuss the government's economic
policy?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order! I am not sure that the hon. members
want to ask or answer questions on events taking place outside
the House and which, in my opinion, have nothing to do with the
administrative work of the government. However, if the Deputy
Prime Minister wants to answer the question, she may do so.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I said that it was shameful
on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to hold private
meetings on a secret agenda that he has not even discussed with
his own caucus.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I see that the Deputy Prime Minister has a gift for-
An hon. member: Clairvoyance!
Mr. Duceppe: -clairvoyance. She sees and hears through
walls.
Since the hon. member is advising the Leader of the
Opposition to avoid meeting privately with small groups to
discuss secret agenda, will she confirm that the Prime Minister
of Canada did indeed have private discussions with a small
group on issues which no one here knows, unless it is the hon.
member, if she has a gift for clairvoyance? If she is in the know,
she should tell us what the Prime Minister said during his
private meeting with the small Toronto Club group!
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the difference between the
Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition is that the
Prime Minister says the same thing in every part of the country
regardless of whether the meeting is private or public. I am sure
the member himself, when his leader promised he was going to
resign the day after the referendum, would have wished to have
been consulted on the secret agenda of his own leader.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would urge you to keep questions
in the administrative realm of government as opposed to what
was in the newspapers or what was supposed to have been said. I
ask all hon. members to please respect the procedures of the
House in this regard. I go to the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Over the next few days, millions of Canadians will pause to
pay tribute to the men and women who have given their lives to
defend our freedom.
Today, the Queen and the Prime Minister dedicated a new
memorial in London to these Canadian veterans. In a related
matter, a memorial to the 10,000 Canadians who served in the
U.S. Army during the Vietnam war was recently given to Canada
by the Michigan Association of Concerned Veterans. For several
months, veterans have been seeking a suitable site on which to
locate this memorial.
(1130)
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain why he, and
the National Capital Commission, have yet to provide a site for
this memorial to Canadian Vietnam veterans?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, naturally the decision to offer space in the capital
region is to be taken by the National Capital Commission.
The minister owns no land. It belongs to the National Capital
Commission. The National Capital Commission follows
regulations and directives which have been followed for years.
The regulations and the directives concerning the celebration of
events of national significance do not seem to cover the
situation which our colleague has raised, that is, the honouring
of Canadians who served in a foreign army.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, a
Canadian monument to Americans who served in the Canadian
forces during both world wars and Korea, stands in the
Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, D.C.
The purpose of both the monument in Washington and the
recently received American gift to Canada is to recognize
individuals who were prepared to fight for what they believed
in. This is not a partisan nor a controversial issue.
4823
Will the minister take the opportunity of this anniversary to
announce that the memorial will be erected?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am being asked to act in total disregard of the policies
and directives respected by the National Capital Commission.
We have our own way of celebrating. The Americans may have
other ways, but we are going to respect Canadian ways.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Solicitor General. Yesterday, the Solicitor General denied
the existence of a secret briefing note based on a RCMP report
concerning arms smuggling in Kanawake, and I quote: ``Further
to my inquiries, my department insists that it has no knowledge
whatsoever of the existence of such a briefing note''.
Will the Solicitor General keep denying the existence of a
memorandum from his department about arms being smuggled
into the country on CP trains and does he expect the RCMP to
investigate this matter since, contrary to what CP officials have
stated, we saw pictures last night of detached freight cars from a
train returning from the United States that were left unattended
inside the Kanawake reserve?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. member can confirm that these freight cars contained
firearms, I hope he will pass this information on to the RCMP.
Again, the secretariat in my department insists that it has no
knowledge whatsoever of such a briefing note, but it is up to the
RCMP to enforce the law throughout the country, including the
Kanawake reserve.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, how can the
Solicitor General ignore such serious allegations when his own
colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has allegedly
warned Customs officials about weapons being smuggled by
train?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have discussed the situation with my colleague and I am aware
of the information he has received from one of his constituents.
This information has been passed on to Customs and the RCMP
which are responsible for appropriately investigating this
matter.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister expressed
disappointment at Canada losing its last AAA foreign currency
debt rating. Disappointment is not enough for bond rating
agencies or the Canadian public. It is clear that investors do not
believe that current fiscal measures are sufficient to allay their
concerns about Canada's debt crisis.
(1135)
Besides promises to meet deficit targets, what new action is
the minister going to take to ensure that no further erosion of our
credit rating takes place?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, yes, we were disappointed by Moody's
action. On the other hand the House will understand that
Moody's had signalled some months ago that it intended to
review our foreign pay debt.
The member will also recognize that we are dealing with only
2 per cent of our debt, the extent which is foreign pay and that
they confirmed the AAA rating that Canada enjoys on its
domestic currency debt.
Furthermore, Moody's clearly recognized that the
government had taken very clear action in terms of deficit
reduction. I would assure the hon. member and the financial
community that we intend to hit our deficit targets.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I specifically
asked what new action and I got a repeat of the same line we
heard before.
The four main rating agencies are sending smoke signals to
the government warning about the danger of inaction on the
deficit. Will the finance minister do something to reduce federal
spending before these smoke signals erupt into a full-fledged
fire?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the member refers to the four rating
agencies. He will know that the actions taken by the other rating
agencies were taken some time ago before the election. Moody's
has simply brought our foreign pay debt down to the levels of the
others.
It does not mean this is an acceptable situation. We laid out
very clearly in our budget that we were going to hit our interim
target of 3 per cent within three yeas, that our ultimate goal was
to eliminate the deficit. Since then the Prime Minister has on
many occasions confirmed our intention to do so.
4824
We said in the House that we will take whatever action is
required to hit our targets and I can confirm that again.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Raymond Gabriel, a Kanesatake Mohawk leader who values
traditional ways, warned the government not to make any
further financial concession to the Kanesatake band council.
Reminding the government of the $700,000 deficit accumulated
by the band council, Mr. Gabriel asked the federal negotiator to
review the operations and the management of the band council
since Jerry Peltier was elected chief.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Before
resuming negotiations with chief Jerry Peltier, can she tell us if
the government has concluded the inquiry announced by the
Minister of Indian Affairs into allegations, by Mohawks in
Kanesatake, of misappropriation of public funds by Jerry
Peltier?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development answered that
question yesterday. We have appointed a negotiator and created
a climate more favourable to negotiations. Negotiations are
going smoothly so far. We cannot negotiate and, at the same
time, make statements in the House regarding the negotiations.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, how can the
Deputy Prime Minister justify her government's decision to
resume negotiations with Jerry Peltier, if the inquiry into
alleged misappropriation of public funds has not been
completed?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the statements of the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were very
clear yesterday. We have appointed a negotiator and the
negotiations are going quite well. I am sure that is a big
disappointment to the Bloc members who would like to see the
whole thing go up in flames.
The reality is the negotiations are ongoing and we are not
going to negotiate here on the floor of the House of Commons.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the
infrastructure program.
During the last election campaign the Liberal Party promised
that job creation would be its number one priority. An important
part of this job creation initiative was the announcement of the
$6 billion national infrastructure program.
(1140 )
Could the minister inform the House of the number of jobs
that have been created by this program and the number of
specific projects approved.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for giving me the opportunity to bring more
good news to the House. After all, what is more important than
getting Canadians back to work and that is what this program is
all about.
To this point in time we have approved over 1,000 projects,
worth $1.3 billion. We have got 20,000 Canadians back to work,
with another almost 6,000 projects in the pipeline. By the end of
this month we expect to have the allocations to the halfway
mark.
Already I have municipalities and provinces asking if they
can get more money. This program is working. It is getting
Canadians jobs.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Between June 30 and July 3 Vancouver will be hosting the
Writers' Union of Canada conference ``Writing through Race''
which is receiving $10,000 from the federal government, as a
matter of fact from the Canada Council.
Recently this conference has come under widespread
criticism because participation will be restricted on the basis of
race. Even the founder of the union and its former chairman,
Pierre Berton, has argued the union should not support
something ``which excludes any people because of the colour of
their skin''.
Can the minister tell Canadians if it is the policy of the
government to support organizations and conferences which
discriminate on the basis of race?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, this question draws an obvious answer. The minister of
heritage is also the minister of multiculturalism and therefore
profoundly against discrimination in all circumstances.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to hear that answer because yesterday the Minister
of National Defence said he would refuse to enter Canadian
Legions because they are discriminating against the Sikh and
Jewish communities.
4825
Ironically, if the Minister of National Defence attended the
``Writing through Race'' conference he would be refused entry
to certain workshops on the basis of his race. This conference is
demonstrating racial discrimination and it is clearly wrong.
Will the minister immediately withdraw federal funding from
this conference, given what he just stated, and demand that the
writers' union no longer practise discrimination of this sort.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I would wish to have the facts first and to see exactly
what the circumstances are in which the conference would
exclude people on the basis of race. I would not accept it.
However if there are certain groups which wish to meet
together to discuss particular issues I would understand it. But
the principle of discrimination in a conference is something
which I do not accept.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, having read the bill
on young offenders introduced by the government, the Quebec
minister of justice expressed his disappointment and serious
concerns about the amendments to the act proposed by his
federal counterpart. He said that Quebec would have preferred
the status quo.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Should we
assume that before introducing its bill the federal government
deliberately elected to disregard Quebec's recommendations?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
can guarantee that the minister has considered the points of view
of his provincial counterparts. I am also convinced that these
various points of view will be considered during the debate on
this major bill.
(1145)
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, could the Deputy
Prime Minister or the Solicitor General tell us why the
government did not consider the recommendations made by
Quebec, since the Quebec minister of justice said yesterday:
``The law, as it is, is perfectly adequate''?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we answered the concerns of Canadians everywhere in the
country. They expressed the desire for more secure homes and
streets. This is also a commitment we made in the red book, and
I believe we have the support of a majority of Canadians.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
On Monday, in response to a question about the release of
Larry Fisher, the Minister of Justice stated that he had identified
the matter as one requiring action. However he went on to say
that he was talking to the provinces about having them amend
the Mental Health Act to permit assessment if necessary for
continued confinement.
Does the minister not believe that since these individuals are
incarcerated for committing violent crimes they should be
treated as criminals and not mental health patients?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the law at present does not permit the detention of prisoners
beyond the sentence imposed by the courts.
We recognize there are prisoners whose situation is such that
they may continue to provide a serious risk to the public after the
end of the sentence imposed by the courts. We are examining
with the provinces how we can deal with that situation in a way
that is consistent with the Constitution of Canada and will be
upheld by the courts.
We are proceeding through a federal-provincial task force
which is expected to report shortly. On the basis of that report
we will formulate proposals which will be discussed in the
House.
I look forward to the discussion leading to a response with
which we will deal with the kinds of concerns we have expressed
and which have been expressed on the other side of the House as
well.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, last year the Parole Board detained 200 prisoners
because they were too great a risk to let out. Some of these
violent prisoners will complete their sentences and once again
be out on our streets.
My private member's bill before the House would prevent
these dangerous offenders from unsupervised release into our
communities.
Is the House not the place where laws should be amended to
address the problem of violent offenders that threaten our
citizens?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we are dealing with a situation which involves both federal and
provincial jurisdictions under our Constitution. While the
Constitution says that criminal law is something that is dealt
with in the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada, the
4826
administration of justice according to the Constitution is a
provincial responsibility.
Therefore, in order to deal seriously with the problem and go
beyond mere words and into the field of meaningful action, we
need a co-operative effort involving both the federal
government and the provinces. That co-operative effort will, I
am sure, involve legislation that will be dealt with in the House
leading, as I have said, to action rather than words.
That is what Canadians want and that is what they are going to
get: not just words but real action.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Yesterday the minister released a report on business
immigration. Could the minister advise the House what benefit
initiative the minister has proposed for business immigration to
Canada?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. It is true that yesterday the government tabled a report
it had commissioned on a non-remunerated basis by a
practitioner in the field, Mr. Mendel Green.
The report will certainly lead the way in terms of a review of
how we can strengthen what has generally been a very
successful program. In the last seven years some $2.5 billion of
investment has been attracted, creating an estimated 30,000
jobs.
(1150)
The attempt is to try to strengthen the success stories and to
try to correct some areas of concern namely in the investor
category. Since 1993 amendments put through the House have
improved that. We should continue to find ways of
strengthening our mechanisms and our monitoring to ensure that
those who do invest and want to create jobs and create economic
wealth do so and, second, to keep it in context.
This year it represents approximately 10 per cent of overall
immigration, which I think is just about right because we do not
want to leave the suggestion that only those with deep pockets
can come to this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the
Environment. It seems the government is preparing to refloat
the wreck of the
Irving Whale, which contains more than 3,000
tons of oil, off the coast of the Magdalen Islands. Apparently,
the decision was made although studies have shown that the
pumping option is much safer than refloating.
Are we to understand that to save $14 million, the government
is prepared to take considerable risks that may affect the
fisheries and the local tourism industry, by opting for refloating
which is less costly but not as safe as pumping?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The hon.
member ought to know that as the minister responsible, I tabled
three reports in the House which looked at the best way to deal
with the Irving Whale. The third option, the one we chose, is not
only less costly but also safer, which was confirmed by
scientists with the Coast Guard and the Department of the
Environment.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, on a supplementary. Could the minister indicate who
will pay the cost of dealing with the problem of the Irving
Whale? The taxpayers, the oil companies' compensation fund or
Irving, the company responsible for this time bomb?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as I said on the day we
announced that we had accomplished something while his leader
did nothing at all for three years, after 1,000 days we at least had
something to show for it. We have advanced federal funds, and
we intend to recover the full amount from a fund to which all
ship owners, including those of the Irving Whale, contribute.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, in recognition
of National Transportation Day I would like to address the issue
of grain transportation. My question is for the Minister of
Transport.
Payments to farmers under the WGTA have been reduced by
about $100 million a year. At the same time nothing has been
done to make the system more efficient by allowing farmers
increased access to alternate shipping modes for grain.
When will the minister put this money in farmers' hands and
allow them to choose the best market for their grain without this
distortion?
4827
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the issues to which the hon. member
is referring are under active examination at the present time.
As he will know, the previous government had established a
consultative and advisory process, including an examination of
transportation efficiencies or inefficiencies which was
conducted by the Grain Transportation Agency and a study
being conducted by an independent organization known as the
Producer Payment Panel to examine the possibility of different
methods of payment of the Crow benefit under the Western
Grain Transportation Act.
My colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I have received a
copy of the efficiency study conducted by the Grain
Transportation Agency. We are awaiting the final report of the
Producer Payment Panel with respect to alternate methods of
payment.
We have indicated that while those processes were started by a
previous government, and therefore we are not necessarily
bound by the outcome of those various studies and
recommendations, we will obviously be interested to see what
those studies produce. We will consider that input together with
the very valuable input of a number of others that have an
interest in this situation, most especially western farmers, as we
arrive at a decision in respect of the matter in the coming
months.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, this issue has
been studied to death for more than 25 years. If all the money
that was spent on studies was put into a safety net program, I
suggest there would be no need for any further spending on
agriculture.
(1155 )
Will the minister stop studying and start acting on this
important transportation issue?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the government has indicated that
this issue is very high on its agenda for action in the coming
months.
In addition to some of the issues referred to by the hon.
gentleman in his question, we also have some important
considerations to take into account with respect to the impact of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, especially the new
GATT which is to come into effect in 1995. That is a most recent
matter that comes to bear on the situation with some very direct
consequences that we have to take into account.
The hon. member may rest assured that he and his colleagues,
and most especially farmers across western Canada, will see a
very vigorous, active agenda on the subject in the time between
now and this time next year.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today in London the Prime Minister and about 300 Canadian
veterans are participating in the unveiling of a very special
commemorative memorial. This weekend all across Canada
special celebrations in honour of the 50th anniversary of D-Day
are taking place. We remember that many veterans who served
Canada and the world were aboriginal veterans from Canada.
As we celebrate this commemoration of the 50th anniversary
of D-Day, is the government prepared to take steps to address
some of the grievances that have been held over these 50 years
by aboriginal veterans?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans)):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
I remind my hon. colleague that aboriginal veterans have the
same rights under veterans legislation as any other veterans in
the country.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of
State for Veterans Affairs.
As the minister is aware, the other place is currently studying
grievances brought forward by aboriginal veterans
acknowledging that in fact aboriginal veterans have not been
treated the same as other veterans returning to Canada.
Will the minister undertake to examine the grievances in
testimony being presented in the other place and return to the
House with perhaps a better answer?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans)):
Mr. Speaker, yes, certainly I want to mention the very
importance of D-Day and the celebrations that are taking place
on June 6.
Any studies that have taken place that indicate there are any
problems with veterans, veterans pensions or anything
involving veterans affairs would be looked at by myself and the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
If my hon. colleague has any information that would indicate
any aboriginal veteran did not receive the same as any other
veteran in the country, I would certainly want to hear about it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for regional
economic development in Quebec.
4828
Industrial conversion is a concern for all economic
stakeholders in Quebec. Last May 15, a report commissioned by
the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec indicated
that the federal government should move quickly to introduce a
process to facilitate the conversion of Quebec's defence
industry. As it happens, the minister responsible for the
FORD-Q has dissociated himself completely from his own
study.
Why has the minister dissociated himself so quickly from his
own office's studies? Could it be that he is caving in to the
pressure exerted by Ontario ministers, particularly the Minister
of Industry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister
responsible for the FORD-Q, as the Minister of Finance and as a
minister from Quebec, I do indeed support, and I stated this
repeatedly during the election campaign, our government's
position with respect to helping defence industries convert to
civilian production.
Moreover, the Minister of Industry has stated himself on
numerous occasions that we have a fund and that we intend to
work on this area.
* * *
(1200 )
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday he
made announcements and was quoted in the press to have said
that the juvenile system needed change.
Will the minister admit that the current Young Offenders Act
brought to Canadians by a previous Liberal government is
fundamentally flawed?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
any law after it has been in place for a number of years can be
updated and often improved in the light of experience. That is
what we are doing, because we want to respond to the concerns
of Canadians with respect to the safety of their homes and their
streets. At the same time we want to make sure, as part of our
broader strategy, to get at the root causes of criminal behaviour.
We want to update the law, but we want to have a more
fundamental review. I hope we have the support of this House in
this activity.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I understand
the minister is going to introduce more computers in order to
improve service to Canadians by their government.
My concern is, will this mean fewer human conversations
between Canadians who require help from their government and
the public servants who are there to help them?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
rapid technological change is creating opportunities to deliver
services in ways that are more accessible, responsive and
affordable for Canadians.
Indeed, we are going through the exercise now of trying to
integrate many of the systems in government services so that
information will be more readily available and we will be able to
get answers. The Minister of Public Works is doing the same
thing and is involved in this exercise to make information more
accessible to Canadians.
Certainly the human factor is a very important one and our
frontline workers will continue to be very important in the
delivery of such services. While people may be able call up
information about government services on their computer or
even their television screen, it is important they have the option
of being able to contact somebody who can also provide that
information.
We are giving Canadians the options. Certainly, one-stop
shopping, the concept of not being shoved around from pillar to
post when you need information about government services and
want to access them, is very important. There will continue to be
a human face in the provision of government services which we
want to make more efficient and effective in how they are
delivered to Canadians.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, this is again a special day as I wish
to draw to your attention in the gallery my brother Speaker from
the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, the Hon. Stanley S.
Schumacher.
[Translation]
Dear colleagues, since this week is National Access
Awareness Week, I would like to take this opportunity to
introduce to you a group of young people who make a valuable
contribution to the work of this House.
[English]
I am delighted to present to you the participants in the House
of Commons work experience program. These students are part
4829
of an ongoing partnership between the House of Commons and
Ridgemont High School. The program is designed for students
with intellectual and developmental disabilities. These
wonderful students work alongside our House of Commons staff
to serve all of us, the elected representatives.
On behalf of members of this House, I thank each and every
one of you very much. Please keep up the good work. Would you
please stand and be recognized.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
4829
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1205)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to petitions.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Madam
Speaker, this evening I will be attending the launching of
National Transportation Week, 1994 in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
As a parliamentarian and minister of the Crown, I feel it is
appropriate that I present to my colleagues in this chamber the
most important elements of the speech I will deliver tonight.
This year, National Transportation Week coincides with the
50th anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion of Normandy.
Transportation, and the fledgling Department of Transport,
played a critical role in the war effort.
Since the beginning of our history, unique, visionary
transportation policies have helped secure freedom and keep the
peace. They have brought Canada prosperity and bound
Canadians together.
Efficient, reliable, safe and affordable transportation systems
to move people and goods are essential to maintain Canada's
economic competitiveness. The current transportation system,
despite many past successes and significant achievements, is
becoming a handicap rather than an advantage to Canadian
businesses and consumers. We must modernize quickly. That
will require tough choices and difficult adjustments. The future
will bring even greater challenges. Much of our system is
over-built and we can no longer afford it.
That is not to criticize the past, but to recognize that we must
not be held captive by it or to it.
Let me give you some examples: 94 per cent of all air
passengers and cargo are handled at only 26 airports out of the
650 in this country; 84 per cent of all rail traffic is carried on
only 33 per cent of our rail lines; and 80 per cent of our marine
traffic passes through only 30 out of about 300 public ports.
Our system is not cost-free. Through the federal government
alone, Canadian taxpayers are directly subsidizing the Canadian
transportation system at a cost of more than $1.6 billion this
year.
The challenge facing me as Minister of Transport is to
develop policies that will foster and encourage our
transportation industries to rise to the challenges of the 21st
century.
Transport Canada must become the proponent of a broader
national vision based on the needs of the nation from the
Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic. We must become advocates
for a modern, intermodal transportation system-one that is
viable, efficient, safe, affordable, reliable and environmentally
friendly.
[English]
The most realistic and viable policy thrust I believe must be
based on what the 1994 federal budget referred to as
commercialization. The budget called on Transport Canada to
review the potential for commercialization of a number of our
major activities. We intend to do that in consultation with
affected parties, with the objective of improving efficiency and
ensuring long term viability.
What does commercialization mean? It can be one of many
approaches by which market discipline and business principles
can be introduced to traditional government activity.
Commercialization covers a vast continuum of options, from
government agencies to not for profit organizations, to public
and private sector partnerships, to employee run companies, to
crown corporations, to privatization.
Commercialization means users dictate what services they
want provided and users can determine in large part how costs
can be controlled. Commercialization means that whatever
option is selected must allow market discipline to lead to more
efficient service, greater flexibility and less dependence on tax
dollars.
Commercialization means the goal must be higher quality and
more efficient service to the user at less cost to the Canadian
taxpayer. Commercialization will not dilute Transport Canada's
highest priority ensuring and where possible enhancing the
safety and security of Canadians.
(1210 )
Transport Canada is going to look at commercializing many
activities. We will consult widely on how that might best be
achieved. We will be looking at airport operations, the air
navigation system, activities of the Canadian Coast Guard, and
operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
We believe that carefully planned commercialization will
mean major savings to taxpayers and better service to clients.
We also believe that the role and structure of crown corporations
such as CN and VIA Rail must be reviewed. Because of the great
uncertainty in the rail sector and the concern raised by proposals
for a merger, I intend to convene a meeting of industry leaders to
4830
discuss the problems railroads are facing and seek solutions
together.
Let me restate our fundamental commitments as we pursue
our goal of a national integrated affordable transportation
system.
The Government of Canada will continue to meet its
constitutional, legal and fiduciary obligations with respect to
transportation. The government will continue to ensure
reasonable service to Canada's remote communities and for
Canadians with disabilities. Transport Canada will not abandon
its responsibility to ensure safe and secure transportation
standards, rules and regulations. The government will promote a
national integrated transportation system that respects the
environment.
I believe it is possible to promote the national interest at the
same time as we protect the interests of the taxpayers of Canada
and I am determined to do both.
Canada is recognized as a world-class G-7 nation; indeed, we
are at the top of the class according to the United Nations. The
challenge is to remain that way. Maintaining the standard of
living Canadians have come to expect will require hard work
and many tough choices in the years ahead. It will require
co-operation and compassion on the part of those who will be
called upon to make those difficult decisions.
[Translation]
We must take into account those displaced by change; those
abandoned by the travelling public, those communities,
villages, towns and cities which will experience loss.
These are some of the challenges facing the Canadian
transportation industry. I also want to take this opportunity to
wish the hundreds of thousands of men and women who work in
the transportation field, from coast to coast to coast, every
success, as we launch National Transportation Week.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Madam Speaker, as part of
National Transportation Week, I too would like to pay tribute to
everyone who works or has worked in this field.
National Transportation Week is a good opportunity to take
stock of our transportation system and its importance for the
development of our economy in Quebec and Canada. We must
understand that transportation is an industry which has a major
impact on the whole economy; even more, transportation
directly affects people's quality of life. The transportation
system is like the circulatory system in the body.
The transportation system has gone through great upheaval in
the past ten years. Deregulation has had a major impact on
transportation in Quebec and Canada. In some cases, our system
is operating beyond capacity and in others it is underused.
Federal transportation policies have something to do with many
of the problems our transportation system is now experiencing.
The federal government systematically neglected rail
transport in favour of air and road transport. As a result of this
policy, our roads and airports are congested. Our rail system has
been so neglected that today Canada has the oldest and slowest
passenger rail transportation system of all industrialized
countries.
Meanwhile, we must continually build new runways at our
airports and our roads are deteriorating so much that the
provinces can no longer repair them adequately.
(1215)
We agree with the minister that we must acquire a truly
intermodal system that is efficient, safe and affordable. For this,
the government must not leave the field of transportation but
instead invest in facilities that will put our transportation system
at the leading edge of technology.
Having a modern transportation system provides tremendous
benefits. Montreal's airports alone generated $2.2 billion in
economic benefits for the region in 1992, according to a study
by the École des Hautes Études Commerciales. Other
transportation infrastructures certainly have a major economic
impact.
The minister claims that his marketing plan is the answer to
all our problems with the transportation system. The market
forces are supposed to resolve all our problems. True enough,
bringing the decision-making center closer to the users will
increase the efficiency of the system, but it would be naive to
think that market logic can be applied to the transportation
problem across Quebec and Canada.
Some services, like port and airport administration, lend
themselves well to being managed locally by non-profit
organization. In other cases, like the Canadian Coast Guard,
local management poses serious difficulties, but I will come
back to this later.
We must also ask ourselves what impact if any, this will have
on transportation services provided to remote areas. The
minister views the role of his department as ensuring
transportation safety. That is to take a very restrictive view to its
responsibilities. As it was so aptly put in the Liberal policy on
VIA Rail developed by the Liberal caucus in November 1989,
the government must provide an efficient and affordable
transportation system to people living in remote areas. It sounds
like market logic could not be applied to the transportation
problem in remote areas.
4831
Air deregulation resulted in substantial increases in fares to
regional destinations. Also, the withdrawal of several of VIA
Rail's regional lines has resulted in depriving regional
communities of an important development tool. The
government cannot decommit from regional transportation,
because of the severe impact such a decision would have on
regional economic development.
With his privatization plan, the minister is trying to free
himself from his obligations towards remote areas. He is also
refusing to hold any public hearings on transportation in remote
areas. In so doing, he is acting like a cold-blooded policy maker
who does take into account the interests of the public.
If the Coast Guard were to be privatized, this would seriously
affect the competitiveness of ports along the St. Lawrence River
vis-à-vis those in the Maritimes. Any measure as a direct
consequence of which shipowners would have to pay higher
tariffs in ports along the river than in the Maritimes is an all-out
attack against fundamental economic development tools of
Quebec.
It is totally unacceptable. The federal government has been
trying for over ten years to pass the cost of operating the Coast
Guard onto shipowners and thus, to the public. This is not to say
that we are against any form of privatization in the Canadian
transportation system. In some cases, privatization can be a
powerful tool to promote the expansion of transportation
systems. Transfer of airports to local non-profit organizations
has been successful. Harbours are another kind of services that
could easily be transferred to local non-profit organizations.
Montreal harbour would lend itself well to such a project.
Also, if we could give VIA Rail more flexibility to implement
projects in cooperation with local interests, it would probably be
able to provide better service on existing lines and even restore
several of the abandoned lines.
(1220)
Freight services on branch lines could also help to keep
several lines in operation and could be affected by CN and CP
streamlining policies. Remember that remote areas consider
these lines as vitally important for their economic development
strategies. What policies does the minister support in this area?
None, for now. I will have the opportunity to come back to these
issues some other time and indicate to the House our position on
this matter.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in response to the minister's speech on National
Transportation Week.
Transportation affects Canadians economically, socially and
culturally. It provides Canadians with links to one another and to
the outside world. Increasingly these links are under pressure
through high taxation and outdated practices which are slow to
change.
Canada more than ever must adapt its transportation system to
the needs of Canadians and to the rest of the world. It is no
longer acceptable that every province have different trucking
standards for instance or that railways pay for Canada's
highways through fuel taxes.
Changes must be the theme of this new government.
The minister has outlined efficiency, reliability, safety and
affordability as the keys to his mandate as the minister of
transportation. Thus far commercialization is one of his focuses.
Commercialization is a noble notion which deserves support. It
is not however going to solve all the problems that Canadian
transportation companies and their customers face.
For too long governments have put up too many obstacles to
transportation and their customers while trying to move them in
directions that are contrary to the best interest of all people in
Canada.
More than anything, this government should be addressing
transportation problems with an eye toward reducing regulation
and taxation. This applies at both the federal and provincial
levels.
The failure of federal-provincial co-ordination manifests
itself in the different transportation standards, subsidies and
taxation structures among provinces and the federal
government.
Canada still has time to improve its transportation links
through federal-provincial co-ordination. However, the
government is slow to address this problem. It is no longer
adequate to blame one another for failure to achieve agreement.
It is important to note that the minister did not mention
highways once throughout his speech. Canada's highways are
for the most part in disrepair. They are in disrepair because of
the failure of government to recognize three things. First, the
federal government's co-operation is the key to an integrated
Canadian transportation system. Second, users must pay for the
services they receive. Third, the private sector is more efficient
at providing transportation services.
Canada's economic deficiency in large part is directly tied to
its efficiency in transporting goods and people. A clear example
of this is when Canada entered into trade agreements without
making the necessary improvements to our transportation
system to compete with the Americans, the Mexicans and the
rest of the world.
How can Canada compete if it is unable to transport its goods
and its people to markets which are looking for the services?
Now is the time to make the necessary changes to improve our
transportation links and the barriers which stifle growth. We
cannot wait any longer.
The government made some changes toward these goals. It
has entered into agreements with Mexico to improve
transportation links between the two countries. This process
must contin-
4832
ue. The first step toward this goal is the re-opening of the open
skies negotiations with the United States, an agreement that is of
vital importance to my constituency.
The minister must realize that the 1974 federal-provincial
bilateral air agreement with the United States is inadequate and
must be updated. The efficiency of Canada's air transportation
system is dependent upon it. If airline customers demand a
direct flight from Ottawa to Washington why is it not provided?
The Association of Canadian Airport Communities estimates
that an open skies agreement costs as much as $10 billion in
annual economic benefits and would create as many as 250,000
new jobs. The announcement earlier regarding the 90,000
government-created infrastructure jobs in my opinion pales by
comparison.
(1225)
The government's failure to move forward on an open skies
agreement is very costly to Canadians.
It is not unusual that the minister makes reference to the need
for an efficient and reliable transportation system. Ministers of
Transport have been using that line for a long time but we have
seen very little action to bring about such a transportation
network. In particular the movement of grain has proven to be
inefficient and unreliable. A strike at the west coast,
ever-increasing demurrage charges and a shortage of hopper
cars has shaken what little faith Canadian farmers had in the
grain transportation system.
The Grain Transportation Agency which falls squarely within
the purview of the Minister of Transport and handles the
allocations of grain cars was shown to be completely
incompetent before joint committees of agriculture and
transport. Indeed the committee recommended that in the short
term the GTA be scrapped in favour of a single person working
to allocate grain cars.
The minister has taken no action with respect to the GTA and
it is now this minister working toward an efficient and reliable
transportation system. Is this how he plans to accomplish it? Far
be it from me to question the $14.7 million budget of the GTA.
The present inaction of this sector of transportation is
damaging to our global reputation as a leading and reliable
exporter of grain.
I would also like to take issue with the minister's remarks
regarding the department's assurance that it will uphold safe
transportation standards, rules and regulations. The
Transportation Safety Board is a major player in formulating
and revising transportation safety regulations. However, two
months ago a review of the TSB found its operations to be less
than adequate. Indeed, the review suggested that serious flaws
were evident as a result of internal bureaucracy, excessive
secrecy, and a reluctance to question government regulations.
By way of example the review found that in 1992 a ferry
loading accident and a CN derailment both should have gone to a
public review. Further, on May 18, 1994, the TSB recommended
the wearing of flotation devices in float planes during all phases
of take-off and landing, a recommendation described by
industry officials as futile, unenforceable and even dangerous to
the occupants of the float planes.
Evidence continues to mount that the Transportation Safety
Board established to help ensure the safety of travellers is
actually unable to carry out its most important mandate.
This government has yet to overhaul the Transportation
Safety Board. How many more Canadian travellers will have to
be put at risk before this government establishes reforms to the
Transportation Safety Board? Reform should be forthcoming if
this minister is serious about his responsibility to safe and
secure transportation standards, rules and regulations.
The challenges are formidable and the changes needed are
numerous. Transportation in Canada has done well in spite of
the barriers and taxation levels of the federal and provincial
governments. Canada must find new ways to adapt to a
competitive world and transportation will lead the way.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to present the twenty-sixth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the list of members of committees.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in
this report later today.
[English]
I should say that the 26th report simply adds to the list of
associate members of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs two members of this particular party.
(1230 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Madam
Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House, following
consultations, to present the following motion:
That this House, taking note of the courage and valour displayed by war
veterans of all religious faiths, urge the Royal Canadian Legion to reconsider its
recent decision to allow individual branches to deny entry to members wearing
religious headgear, including the Sikh turban and Jewish kipa, and that pending
such reconsideration all branches of the legion be urged to respect the
4833
fundamental principle of religious freedom in Canada and permit equal
access to all members, including those wearing religious headgear.
I seek unanimous consent of all members to put this motion
before the House today.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 54 regarding notices of motions, I
invite the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway to give notice
of his resolution on the Order Paper so that the House might give
due consideration to the matter he wishes to raise.
Some time ago a motion that my colleague brought forward
was denied unanimous consent by the House and she was
encouraged to follow the usual proceedings. With that
alternative in place, I would not give unanimous consent to the
motion.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I seek the consent of the House to move concurrence in the 26th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs.
Accordingly, if the House gives its consent, I would move that
the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
there have also been discussions among the parties and I believe
Your Honour will find unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be authorized to
travel to Kingston, Ontario, from June 9 to June 10, 1994 in order to visit
penitentiaries in the Kingston area and that the necessary staff to accompany the
committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
Motion No. 1 standing on the Notice Paper today under motions
is a motion for concurrence in the 24th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the
House on Wednesday, June 1. The report concerned technical
amendments to the standing orders consequent on
recommendations made by the committee concerning the
publications of the House.
I think hon. members who are interested in this fascinating
subject have had an opportunity to review the report of the
committee. I believe Your Honour will find unanimous consent
today to proceed with concurrence in that very important report,
and I so move.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I have another request of the House and I appreciate the
indulgence of all hon. members in this regard. It is seeking to
clean up the Order Paper to avoid unnecessary printing costs.
I am wondering if the House would give its consent to
withdraw notices of ways and means motions listed on the Order
Paper under Government Orders Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12.
(1235 )
I am informed in respect of those ways and means motions
that all have been incorporated in Notice of Ways and Means
Motion No. 14 which was concurred in by the House on May 24.
Therefore they are redundant, unnecessary, and could be
withdrawn without any inconvenience to hon. members and at a
saving of printing costs to the House.
(Government Orders Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 withdrawn.)
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present three different
petitions from my constituents. The first one deals with the
serial killer cards. I place the petition on the table.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Madam Speaker, my second petition deals with the reconstituted
BST, Bovine Somatotrophin, a chemically produced drug
injected into cows to make them produce more milk.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Madam Speaker, my final petition deals with the topic if VIA
Rail, and I place it on the table.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of
petitions, on behalf of 84 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands
and individuals residing in Canada.
4834
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to
ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide remain in force.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I present a petition signed by over 700
Crowfoot constituents.
The petitioners draw our attention to the fact that a natural and
fundamental relationship exists between grandparents and
grandchildren. However grandparents as a consequence of the
death, separation or divorce of their children are often denied
access to their grandchildren by their guardians. They believe
that the denial to see their grandchildren constitutes elder abuse
and can have a serious detrimental impact on both the
grandparents and the grandchildren.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to amend the Divorce Act
to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec Civil
Code which states that in no case may a father or mother,
without serious cause, place obstacles between the child and
grandparents.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex
and surrounding area, I am tabling today a petition which has
been duly certified by the clerk pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners ask that Parliament ensure the continuing
enforcement of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicides and euthanasia.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Madam
Speaker, I also have the pleasure and honour to table a second
petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 in which the constituents
of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding area call upon the
Parliament of Canada to maintain the present exemption on the
excise portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and
self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour of tabling two petitions today. The
first one is a petition signed by hundreds of Quebecois who are
asking Parliament to completely abolish all tests and
experiments conducted on animals under the pretence of
applying the findings to human beings. The petitioners claim
that such practices are not only cruel, unnecessary,
unjustifiable, inaccurate and morally unacceptable, but they
also invariably lead to misleading conclusions and dangerous
results which are extremely detrimental to the health of
Canadians and people throughout the world.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a second petition
signed by residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway
and in particular signed by many members of the Burnaby
detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as
civilian employees.
(1240)
The petitioners note that under section 745 of the Criminal
Code of Canada convicted murderers sentenced to life
imprisonment without a chance of parole for 25 years are able to
apply for review after 15 years and that the murder of a Canadian
citizen is a most reprehensible crime.
Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament repeal
section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition on
behalf of some British Columbians who urge Parliament not to
legalize doctor assisted suicides or euthanasia.
It is my pleasure to present it on their behalf.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am delighted to present a
petition on behalf of my constituents of Comox-Alberni.
The petition states that the rural communities mainly of
Merville, B.C., should not have to suffer any form of
discrimination with regard to the quality of their postal services.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the
House that, following the ministerial statement, Government
Orders will be extended for an extra 24 minutes, pursuant to
Standing Order 33(2)(b).
4835
4835
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to
the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, an act to
suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker,
when I rose before question period in a much noisier Chamber I
was stating that our party was prepared to support the bill with
some reservation, given the Senate and government
amendments that have been tabled today. I was pointing out
some of the concerns we had with the bill and the fact that most
of the commissions have now reported or are close to reporting
in terms of their particular roles.
The effects of the amendments are basically as follows. The
Senate is trying to ensure that redistribution is completed prior
to the next federal election and the amendments now agreed to
by the government should accomplish it. They also go further.
They keep the commissions that were originally to be killed by
the bill in a suspended existence and allow the present stage of
public hearings to be completed so that we save the money we
basically had already spent on the process.
Furthermore, and this is important, the amendments will in
effect serve as a safety net to the committee examining the
redistribution process. They provide a backup position in case
the committee is unable to reach agreement on the nature of
reforms, particularly if reforms are reached that do not
necessitate starting the process from scratch once again.
They make it politically difficult under the motion the House
earlier passed, Government Motion No. 10, for the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to come up with a
piece of work that is essentially partisan or that would lead to
boundaries and a process that was not agreeable.
Also it is important this whole series of events has shown,
particularly when the lower House is forced to act hastily, that
the upper House can make a valid contribution. There are many
problems with the Senate as it is constituted today and
improvements could still be made, but I will leave that for
another colleague of mine to comment on.
I point out that with the amendments the government has now
introduced, or the Senate amendments that the government is
supporting, particularly with the additional change that the
government has made, the amendments to the bill are in
substance virtually identical to what the Reform Party had
proposed before the bill originally left the House.
(1245 )
Originally it was not our intention to see redistribution killed
but this is as workable a compromise as we are going to get,
given the obvious desire of the government to examine the
process.
I urge the government to pursue in the future, not only with
this bill, but also with motion No. 10, a really substantial all
party agreement on changes to the redistribution process.
When we are dealing with the rules of the game it seems
reasonable to expect that we would have a consensual approach.
I urge the government to consider the opinions of the major
parties in the House, the Liberal Party and the Reform Party. It
should also, because elections concern minor parties, consider
the effect on the New Democratic Party and the Progressive
Conservative Party and whatever input they would have into this
legislation.
It might be noticed that I did not mention the Bloc Quebecois
in my comments. Frankly I have been mystified at every stage of
the bill at the unusual Bloc position of supporting the unilateral
changes in the first place. Then the Bloc engaged in a filibuster
when it said it wanted the bill passed quickly and now the Bloc
says it does not want changes.
We have seen in recent weeks some of the difficulties in
having an Official Opposition that does not have the same stake
in Canadian democracy and in Canadian institutions, not just on
this issue, but on others.
[Translation]
As is obviously the case for many other hon. members here,
the recent attitude of the Bloc Quebecois and its leader worries
me a lot. But it is important to note that the Bloc claims it will
not run in the next federal election. Indeed, the Bloc is not as
interested as the Reform Party or the Liberal Party in a system
and in issues concerning the next election.
What this illustrates, albeit in a small way, is that they cannot
constantly aim at leaving the Federation and still claim to be
concerned by all things Canadian.
They cannot have it both ways. This is a fact that we should
take into account when considering this bill and the amendments
to the Election Act.
[English]
I would like to take the last few minutes of my speech to
comment on Motion No. 10. This bill suspends the process
beginning in September for a period of nearly a year and
government motion No. 10 charges the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs with studying a new law. It has laid
out four items.
I will very quickly go over what our party feels very strongly
the government should be considering. First, we had insisted
and the government had accepted that this committee look at a
formula to cap or reduce the size of the House. There has been
4836
some comment on this because we have been urging,
particularly in the case of British Columbia, that it achieve its
fair representation.
We cannot have things every way and we recognize that. The
size of the House should be capped. Maybe even the size should
be lowered, but the proportionality of the provinces should be
reflected. We would expect British Columbia and Ontario to
increase their number of seats. Obviously this necessitates a
new formula and some loss of seats for smaller provinces. You
cannot violate the Constitution and forbid proportionality. At
the same time you cannot cap the number of seats, as the Bloc
Quebecois wants, and say that the smaller provinces that are
losing share cannot decline in representation. You cannot have
all of these things at once and then deny regional representation
through the Senate.
(1250)
That is another case where the Bloc's position makes no
particular sense. Once again we would urge that the only valid
reason for completely stopping this process rather than
resuming it will be to come up with a new formula that will cap
and reduce the number of seats which is what the public has been
telling us.
Another aspect of the motion called for a review of the present
method of selecting members of electoral boundaries
commissions. The Lortie commission, which spent a great deal
of time and money studying these issues and which on these
subjects was really addressing non-ideological issues,
recommended that the use of independent electoral boundaries
commissions for each province and the Northwest Territories, as
well as the composition and manner of their appointment, be
maintained. The chairman is to be appointed by the chief justice
of the province and additional members by the Speaker of the
House. That is certainly what our party will be stressing.
The current commissions have not only the chief justices but
also additional members who are, by and large, the academics
with expertise in this field across the country. It is difficult to
imagine finding more qualified people.
The motion asks that they review the rules governing and the
powers and methods of the commissions and whether they ought
to commence their work on the basis of making necessary
alterations to the boundaries of existing electoral districts
wherever possible.
Several recommendations here are relevant. If anything we
would be restricting, as the Lortie commission suggested, the
latitude in terms of population deviation. We should look at
more frequent and partial redistribution after each general
election rather than after each decennial census. Those are
things we would encourage the commission to study, but we
would also suggest that minor changes in those areas are not
grounds for suspending, stopping or restarting the process.
Finally, the motion asks that we review the time and nature of
the involvement of the public in the work of the commission. We
would support strongly the Lortie commission recommendation
which was that far from increasing the role of politicians, that
their role be decreased, that we looked more at two stages of
public hearings rather than a second stage where hearings are in
the House of Commons.
Those are our concerns. They are concerns we continue to
have about the process being suspended. However, with these
amendments there are reasonable safeguards to protect the
interests of the public as well as the interests of various parties.
At this point, I congratulate the government on finally seeing
the light on some of these issues and accepting amendments that
we had originally proposed and that the Senate also has
proposed.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I am rather surprised at the comments made by the hon.
member of the Reform Party. He said that the position of the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois was rather ambiguous. I think he is
bothered by the fact that the goal of our leader, the leader of the
opposition, is so clear cut and that the sovereignty of Quebec is
clearly part of that goal, and I think we will soon be there. I am
sure that what brought on the hon. member's comments is the
fact that the Reform Party is going nowhere fast.
Incidentally, the hon. member said that our attitude in this
debate had been rather puzzling. I just want to remind him that
in eastern Quebec, where according to the readjustment plan
submitted to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Commission, a whole riding will disappear, the only party that
bothered to speak on behalf of the voters in that riding was the
Bloc Quebecois. We did not see the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who was directly
concerned, or the Reform Party, which says it intends to
campaign in Quebec when the next federal election is called.
They did nothing except approve the amendments from the
Senate. I thought the Reform Party was in favour of an elected
Senate, a Senate that would have real clout, and now they go
along with a proposal to add amendments to a bill that is a
perfect example of how parliamentary work can become a
complete shambles.
(1255)
The bill was tabled too late. Amendments were proposed
which were not what the government wanted in the first place,
and now we are told our position is wrong, although the position
taken by the government and the Reform Party makes no sense at
all.
4837
I would also like to ask the hon. member whether he is aware
of the fact that a committee of the House will consider the
criteria to be used in determining electoral boundaries. In fact, it
was recommended by the House that the committee be able to
consider criteria other than demography in determining
electoral boundaries, which we feel is entirely appropriate. As
far as I know, the Reform Party, like the other parties in this
House, is involved in the work of this committee.
So I would like to know whether the hon. member is aware
that the committee exists and that it will amend the legislation,
at least we hope so, to make determining electoral boundaries
more than just a roll of the dice, the only criterion being the
number of voters and without any consideration of other
important criteria including the size, of the territory and the
number of municipalities, things he should be aware of, because
in the western provinces these are important considerations, and
I am thinking of Saskatchewan particularly.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, if I
understood the question correctly, we recognize the demands of
the public in some regions, including western regions, for
regional representation in the Parliament of Canada.
Naturally, the committee can study the way to do it within the
readjustment process, and we support that. However, there is a
limit to the capacity to represent the regions in this House.
According to the Constitution, this chamber represents the
population. This is a constitutional fact.
If we want effective regional representation, we have to
reform the Senate. This is our position and I believe that, in this
regard, the position of the Bloc contains a contradiction. You
cannot oppose Senate reform and support an effective regional
representation in Parliament.
I would also like to make a few personal comments about the
position of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. I will no say
anything specific, but just point out that there is another
contradiction here between the public objectives for the next
election and the fact that the Bloc does not intend to run in that
election. This is intrinsic to their position on sovereignty. One
cannot have sovereignty as the ultimate goal and pretend to be
concerned about the future of the country. This is a fact.
I say to the government that the position taken by the Bloc in
this debate demonstrates that we have an opposition party that
has a vested interest in disagreeing with every possible
proposition. We have seen it during the constitutional debates.
The same applies to the electoral legislation. I am advising the
government to follow the consensus of federalist parties and to
be wary of the Bloc position, given its raison d'être.
(1300)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I have two questions for the hon. member.
I listened to his speech with great interest. I know that the hon.
member for Calgary West is something of a party expert in
matters of electoral reform. The hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster is a member of the House committee
on procedure and House affairs which is about to embark on a
study as he knows pursuant to House reference of replacement
arrangements for the current electoral boundaries readjustment
act.
In his speech he set out a series of parameters. I thought I
heard him say things to the effect that any new bill would have to
comply with certain minimum demands like a freeze on the
number of members if it was going to be acceptable. I could go
on with a list but I do not want to repeat everything he said.
I was very surprised to hear him suggest that the committee
had to comply with these demands if the Reform Party was going
to agree to the bill.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister has been
impressing on me the importance of entering on this discussion
with an open mind so the committee can come to its own
conclusions based on the evidence that it hears from the
witnesses it expects to call both next week and in July when the
committee will be having hearings while other members are
away.
I am wondering if the hon. member is saying we are not to
enter on this discussion with an open mind but in fact are to
come to the conclusions that he has recommended in his speech.
If so, I hope he will communicate those views to the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminister who I think would be
appalled if that were the case given the representations he made
to me.
Second, I did not hear him mention his support for the Senate
in his speech and I know in public utterances, rather pious public
utterances I may say, outside this House the hon. member
suggested that the Senate should block this bill.
I did not hear him mention that again in his speech here and I
wonder if perhaps he could illumine the House on that point and
let us hear his views on what the Senate should do, should have
done, or should continue to do with Bill C-18.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I am happy to
answer both questions.
First, on the issue of the committee study, obviously myself as
well as the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister would
expect the committee to do a wide ranging study, but in the end
we have to give the public a reason to suggest why we would
completely suspend and eventually kill the process that has
been under way.
I would suggest that there are certain minimum parameters
that would justify killing it this time as opposed to waiting for
4838
next time. We are not going to change a couple of commas in the
Elections Act and use that as an excuse, as I said before, to flush
$5 million or $6 million down the toilet. I would suggest that the
public itself has some fairly obvious parameters in mind.
I am rushed here but I will answer the second question which
concerns my position on the Senate.
Obviously now that the Reform Party supports the bill I would
urge the Senate to give it consideration and to see the wisdom in
supporting it. The Senate has the constitutional power to pass or
defeat any piece of legislation. That power is not conferred upon
it by myself.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Madam
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to note to all members that
the making of law in Parliament is a dialectical act, that there are
many players, and what we have seen has been a constructive
interaction as it should happen between the House and the
Senate and in fact the public at large.
If we were looking at the players involved we would have to
take note of the resolutions of the Liberal Party, federal and
British Columbia branch, the resolutions passed there and
adopted unanimously by the annual meeting of the Liberal Party,
conversations between members of the House and senators and a
process that results in a measure coming back from the Senate
and being acted upon by the House. I will have more to say on
the substance of that in a moment.
Let me address one of the problems that has worried me in
connection with this whole process under way and that concerns
some issues of the constitutionality of the very act upon which
the electoral commissions have been operating, the
Representation Act of 1985.
When that first appeared it seemed to me that in artificially
capping the representation for British Columbia and other
fast-growing provinces it raised basic issues of
constitutionality that should be tested. Since the end result was
to eliminate the seat of a New Democratic Party member from
Vancouver, the mayor of Vancouver launched a legal action
challenging the constitutionality of this measure.
(1305)
I would have preferred to see the challenge based on the
simple issue of the artificial capping. Instead, it raised the more
fundamental question whether a measure changing the
proportional representation of provinces in the House could be
adopted by legislation of the federal Parliament alone and not by
the more complicated and difficult procedures envisaged under
the Constitution for that.
I would add that several of the Conservative senators, and
there are contradictions here, who are now arguing very
strongly, and I welcome their support, for extra seats for British
Columbia participated as cabinet members in the decisions
which in effect limit B.C. now to two seats instead of the five
that it would otherwise have been entitled to in accordance with
the 1991 census. But that is in the past and we look forward to
the future.
I should say though that when the mayor of Vancouver
launched his action the federal government did not support it.
Nor did the government of British Columbia. I think this is
worth comment because its chief legal officer at the time has
suggested that perhaps Bill C-18 has a Quebec angle in it,
designed artificially to preserve Quebec seats in the House. I
think this is a rather far-fetched idea but if it were so then in
relation to the Representation Act of 1985 why did the Attorney
General of British Columbia not intervene in that litigation
before the Supreme Court?
I simply commend to members the litigation, in particular the
opinion of Justice Lambert which seems to me even more
persuasive today than it was then.
Let us come on to this particular issue with the Senate itself. I
welcome the discussions that we have had with individual
senators. I welcome the response made by the Senate to what I
think and hope will be an acceptance of the proposal made now
by the House.
I see a similar contradiction in the position of the Reform
Party opposite. I think if you capped the size of the House of
Commons, the point about the Representation Act of 1985, then
automatically either you gel permanently the size of the
representation from fast-growing provinces like British
Columbia and Ontario or you reduce those. You diminish the
representation of provinces in which the Reform Party has of
course members. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are the very
obvious examples.
There are contradictions there. It is very important to
remember this before taking absolutist positions on how many
seats we should have. I think it is worthy of note that British
Columbia delegates to the Liberal Party and British Columbia
members have contented themselves with asking for two seats
more and not the five that on census returns we would be entitled
to.
Let me come back to the issue of what this is all about, Bill
C-18, its substantive measures. It would have been a pity if
discussion of this had been buried in discussion of other issues
on size of provincial representation in the House.
4839
We missed an opportunity in the 1980s to update our
constitution in the areas of the electoral processes. The electoral
processes are more important even than constitutional
processes. They are pre-constitutional, they go to the root of
constituent power. It is basic that they should be in the
Constitution.
I think if the events had been different with the Trudeau
government patriation project of 1980 to 1982, provisions on
electoral representation would have been included in some
detail. As it is, our constitution in comparison to virtually every
other liberal democratic constitution of today is naked as to
provisions as to electoral representation.
You look at the United States, France, Germany, Japan or
India and you find detailed provisions in the constitution or else,
and sometimes in supplement, detailed decisions of the
Supreme Court, jurisprudence constante in the civil law sense.
This makes for a body of opinions, a body of rules that guide in
the case of the United States the state legislatures which are
charged with the duty in effect of becoming electoral boundary
commissions and the similar bodies in other countries.
(1310)
We do not have this. I think the preoccupation in the 1980s
and the early 1990s with the single issue in the Constitution
prevented us from making changes that would bring us into the
21st century. This is very basic.
I think in terms of electoral commissions that the process of
the appointment of commissioners is casual and ad hoc and not
really very acceptable. I say this having served as an electoral
boundary commissioner in a pre-political capacity. The Speaker
of the House, Madam Sauvé, asked me if I would serve. She said
she was anxious to get a non-partisan figure of recognized
public integrity. It was an honour to serve. But I think the
process in which simply the Speaker appoints is not good
enough today. This is as serious a function as that performed by
Supreme Court judges and other senior crown officials. Perhaps
it should go to Parliament for some sort of confirmation which
would inevitably insist upon multipartisan representation or
participation in the choice of the commissioners.
One of the things that is very noticeable with the recent group
of commissioners is the absence of continuity. When I sat we
had a great advantage. A member of our commission, Olive
Woodley from Vernon, had served on several different
commissions. Therefore when I from my specialized
professional viewpoint would advance a proposition she would
counter by saying ``this is how we did it in the past and this is
why''. Of course, I yielded to those arguments when they made
sense.
It is a fact that none of the members of the 11 commissions, 33
in all, has had any previous experience. They are neophytes.
References have been made to the judges as chairmen but the
judges traditionally have been neutral and have not interfered.
So the work is thrown upon the lay commissioners. Is this a good
thing?
In the past the chief electoral commissioner was consulted by
the Speakers in making appointments. This time the chief
electoral commissioner was not. We have this in evidence to the
committee on House Procedures, given on the evening that Bill
C-18 was adopted by the House.
The chief electoral commissioner also throughout the regime
of Mr. Castonguay constituted himself a member of each
electoral commission. Mr. Kingsley interpreting his mandate
narrowly and I think correctly abstained from doing this. So
there are commissions in a sense sent out on to uncharted seas.
One of the problems also as I have said is that there is nothing
in the Constitution on this. Mr. Trudeau would have liked to
have got around to it but the facts were he was diverted by the
gang of eight and other situations and this was left out. If you
look at the electoral law passed conformably to the Constitution
on this you will find that while it establishes some antinomies,
things that may be considered, it gives no guidance as to how
they are to be applied. I think this is wrong and that it is for
Parliament to establish the norms guiding and governing
electoral boundary commissioners.
Let us take one example, the principle of continuity. In that
special relationship that Edmund Burke discussed between the
member and constituents, the continuity is very, very important.
It does not really make sense with 208 new members in the
House to have this wholesale revision of boundaries even in a
province like Newfoundland that I understand increased only
738 people between the 1981 and 1991 census. Why revise all
five constituencies? Is it a make-work project?
I do not imply that the commissioners did not act with due
care and consideration. When I acted as a commissioner we
accepted that being a member of Parliament is a difficult role
and that one should respect the relationship between member
and constituent and that continuity was a factor to take into
account.
I think this time the commissions have gone too far the other
way. In an absence of instruction they are entitled to do that. I
think it is time for Parliament to lay down rules.
Let me take some other examples of variations that a more
experienced commission in terms of continuity would have
established.
(1315 )
I was intrigued that my colleagues from the Kootenays made
the point that the commission had taken a two-dimensional
topographical approach to the constituency boundaries in the
B.C. interior. A three-dimensional approach is needed because
there are mountain ranges in the middle. What they have done in
that area is to reinsert what was the rule until 1960 but was
changed then because somebody had pointed out the mountain
range in the middle of the constituency and that to get around it
4840
involved a laborious 48-hour journey. Therefore there are areas
where knowledge becomes very important.
More important, I would raise the issue of the absence of
guiding constitutional principles here.
In the detailed jurisprudence of the United States Supreme
Court, Mr. Justice Brennan elaborated on the principle of what
he called benign discrimination in the formation of electoral
boundaries. Mr. Justice White in the same case raised the issue
of properly taking into account racial factors in making
decisions.
What they were concerned with was whether-and again I use
another term of art-you can indulge an electoral commission in
positive gerrymandering artificially to create an electorate by
geographical distortion to produce a majority for one minority
group that otherwise would not be represented. Why it came to
the Supreme Court of the United States was that another
minority said: ``You helped this one but not us''.
I raise the issue of whether electoral boundary commissions
in Canada should be operating on the basis of creating
artificially single ethnic majority constituencies or not.
I simply cite the example in British Columbia of the five city
seats held by the Liberal Party. It was not planned that way, but it
does happen that the five members each represent different
ethnic communities. There is representation from the
Caribbean, from Italy, from the Punjab, from China via Hong
Kong, and from what used to be called one of the two founding
nations. There are five different people, but each running in a
constituency that is multiethnic.
My own constituency has 22 different ethnic communities. To
gain a nomination for an election you have to seek an interethnic
consensus. That is closer to the Canada of the 21st century, but it
seems to me in B.C. the commission is pushing us the other way,
back to the 19th century configuration.
Again, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing that.
The United States Supreme Court sanctioned just such a rule in
the United States. But this is too serious and challenging a
constitutional issue to be left to commissioners appointed ad
hoc for one particular journey at one particular time. It should be
decided by Parliament.
Those principles should be in the Constitution, whether it is
an amendment to the charter, or the jurisprudence of the
Supreme Court, or both, as it is in the United States and the other
countries I have cited. In other words, the committee on House
procedures has an obligation to establish some sort of motor
principles, directive principles, that could be carried out by
electoral boundary commissions in the future and indeed in the
present case.
There is another big gap in our constitutionalism on electoral
processes. There is no mention of political parties, although 25
years ago the German Supreme Court decided they are the key to
the parliamentary processes and must be included and subject to
the law.
What I am saying is we missed an opportunity in the 1980s to
bring our Constitution up to date on what is basic to any free and
democratic society: a system of fair, responsible electoral
representation. We have to do it now. The time limit imposed by
the Senate originally, in effect six months, was not enough. Two
years would have been reasonable, but I think it can be done in
one year.
I therefore welcome the amendment proposed by the
government House leader to the bill as returned by the Senate. I
welcome the indications being given that this may be agreeable
to the Senate. I welcome the support of the Bloc and I do
welcome the support, if somewhat tardy, of the Reform Party on
this.
(1320 )
There is a heavy responsibility for the committee on House
procedures. It can be done. It will give us a truly modern
Constitution that responds to the need which is basic to a free
and democratic society: a fair, open electoral system
implemented by people responsible to Parliament and subject
therefore to all-party control as to their operations. If possible,
put the controlling principles into the Constitution, into the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that every citizen of Canada
can read them, study them and apply them.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon.
colleague from Vancouver Quadra. We happen to sit on that
same procedure and House affairs committee which will be
reviewing the electoral boundaries redistribution process.
He mentioned in his speech that he has been an electoral
boundaries commissioner. What adequate provisions in the
selection of all Elections Canada officials, including those who
would be responsible for determining who the new
commissioners, would he consider might be fair? What would
be the best process for determining it is not a partisan process
and there could be absolutely no question of gerrymandering or
political influence?
Mr. McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I speak of course only as a
private member, I cannot engage the government. My own
recommendation is conveyed in a series of writings over a
period of time. I spoke most recently to the Institute for the
Administration of Justice which is a sort of trade union of the
Supreme Court judges of Canada.
My own suggestion would be that while the government might
nominate the process should be approved by a parliamentary
committee. It could be the committee on House management,
but it should go to a committee. In that sort of situation there
4841
should be an opportunity for examination of the nominees as to
their qualifications. I would anticipate the sort of situation there
is in other countries, a form of multi-party support for the
eventual commissioners who would be nominated.
Once you get it into a system where Parliament itself speaks
on the qualifications and makes a decision you would inevitably
get a system where the government alone is not imposing its
will, but you would get a consensus choice. It would narrow
down to the people with recognized competence, but you should
probably be aiming for a permanent standing electoral
commission.
You can look at the errors the 1993 commission made. They
are very similar to the ones I would have made 10 years ago as a
commissioner if I had not had a wise person on the commission
who had already served two or three times and was able to say
that something was a foolish proposal or that something should
be changed.
I envision a standing commission, but I also envisage
ratification of the appointments by a parliamentary committee
or some other parliamentary process.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Madam Speaker,
in reference to the hon. member's statement on the capping of
MPs, I cannot quite seem to follow how that is actually going to
carve the boundaries out in stone or stabilize the electoral
boundaries.
Where I am coming from in this is that I see three components
here as far as mathematics is concerned. There is the number of
MPs and the total population of the country. Divide the MPs into
that and you come up with a figure on representation. Based on
that and the movement across the country plus those persons
coming in, I cannot see when you get that figure of
representation how that is not going to affect moving the
boundaries about as well to accommodate that.
Mr. McWhinney: Madam Speaker, our dilemma here relates
to the federal system and the gelling of regionalism in terms of
particular provinces. The reality is if the size of the House is
kept at 295 and the population jumps by a million, let us say
predominantly in British Columbia and Ontario, then either you
deny the fast-growing provinces the benefits of their increased
population or you take them away from Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and probably Quebec.
(1325 )
Having sat as a commissioner but also being a member, I
wonder if that is fair to the people in those provinces. I wonder if
it is politically realizable, first of all. Would we ever get a
measure of that sort through the House or through a
constitutional amendment if it is needed, but I also wonder if it
is fair. I do express grave reserves. It has been pointed out to me
as a commissioner about changing boundaries arbitrarily. We
have to recognize that members do build up a relationship of
trust with the constituency; it is one of the worthwhile things in a
democratic society.
I would say we can live with an increase in the size of the
House for the next period of time. The countries that have gelled
their membership, like Great Britain, have a huge House first of
all, but also have a relatively static internal organization. There
are no provinces and no regional subdivisions which have to be
respected under the constitutional order, so there is much more
flexibility.
I would hate to have to say to colleagues in Saskatchewan that
they must give up two seats, or that Manitoba must give up four
seats so British Columbia can have more. My resolution of the
dilemma is simply to allow the increase to go for at least the next
decade and let us see what happens. It is only going to be two,
four, six, for the next 10 years. Otherwise I do foresee anguished
political choices which involve my voting to deprive people in
other provinces of seats and I do not want to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill C-18, I feel like saying that the
saga goes on. This legislation has created quite a mess; I can
personally attest to that. The causes are not hard to find. The
Liberal government dragged its feet on the issue of the electoral
map. It introduced this bill much too late, which caused
electoral boundaries commissions to sit, because the legislation
had not yet passed all the stages.
Now we are at the stage where a non-elected Senate is
proposing an amendment and, all of a sudden, the other parties
decide that it looks like the most appropriate solution.
To give you an inkling of how absurd the situation is, I will
tell you about my own experience with the electoral boundaries
commission's hearings in eastern Quebec.
Around ten groups had registered to come before the
commission the days I was there. Only two, I believe, finally
appeared because people understood that the hearings had been
suspended for 24 months. Elected representatives, who sit in the
House of Commons, had voted this 24-month delay. And now,
we have to reconsider this bill, which has been sent back here by
non-elected people, and give a different message to voters.
Because witnesses are not appearing at hearings, we are going
to have to start the consultation process all over again. Needless
to say, this will result in more waste, since commission
members, who travelled across Canada, have incurred travel
expenses and received a salary, as they should, for the work they
had done. They were mandated to hold hearings, because the
government did not present its bill on time.
4842
Fortunately, these people are extremely competent; at least,
those I met at the hearings in Rimouski were. The Bloc
Quebecois was the only party to make presentations, both in
Rimouski and in Percé, and I had the opportunity to say that the
disappearance of a riding in eastern Quebec was unacceptable. It
is unacceptable that this area be torn apart in such a way.
It was interesting to see the commissioners' reaction to our
brief. They explained that the present legislation does not give
them any flexibility in the interpretation of the criteria.
(1330)
So, we will still have submitted our recommendations. The
House of Commons committee that will convene on what I
would call the architecture of the legislation, the make-up of
electoral ridings, will have to take into account, in the
redistribution, such criteria as demography, but also the
territory covered, the number of municipalities being served, as
well as sociological and economic components of the territory.
What is surprising is that the current commissioners proposed
to us possible amendments to the initial proposition that they
had made. Due to the inadequate representation of groups that
had registered but withdrawn because of the message given by
the government that everything was postponed for 24 months,
we are now in a situation where a very interesting debate on
other adjustment possibilities cannot be held.
Today, as I was saying earlier, the saga continues. We are back
in the House with amendments from the other place with which
the government suddenly agrees. The government, which
initially felt that a 24-month timetable was needed to
adequately review the legislation in time for the next election
and still allow for consideration of criteria other than
demography, is now back-tracking. It has decided that a
12-month timetable is enough. They gave the population a new
message and I wonder who will be able to find their way in the
mess created by the government and by the amendments of
non-elected people who allow themselves to make propositions
regarding a vital element: representation. The redistribution of
electoral ridings is for the next election.
The next general election should normally be held in four or
five years but it might as well be in one or two years if this
government systematically refuses to acknowledge the repeated
requests of opposition parties for a clear constitutional position.
This government, as a result of the referendum on the
sovereignty of Quebec and the benefits that province will gain
from it, will certainly be forced to adjust and possibly ask
Canadian electors what position they want to take, what kind of
government they want to hold negotiations. We might have to do
that. Therefore, it is important that the type of representation
that we have be clear and accurate, but this government does not
obtain a passing grade in this regard, it does not satisfy the need
for a democratic and satisfactory electoral system.
I would like to draw the attention of this House to an
inconsistency in the amendment under title 2, page 1, which
proposes to replace lines 17 through 21. The amendment
provides for the temporary suspension of electoral commission
work. At the same time, this House will examine the criteria
which should be taken into account for the modification of the
electoral map. We might once more find ourselves in an absurd
situation where the House committee could ask experts-and I
hope that the members of the electoral commissions can be
considered as experts-to come before the committee when
their work as commissioners has been suspended.
Commissioners whose work has been suspended would
therefore be asked to appear as commission members. This is
unheard of.
Of course, these people could always be asked to appear on an
individual basis, but in that case they would be entitled to extra
pay, which will add to the saga surrounding C-18 and the costly
mess it has created. Why do we find ourselves in a situation
where the government and the Reform Party are forced to
change position, which further complicates everything?
(1335)
The Liberal government and the Reform Party must have
received strong messages from their constituents, the former at
the Liberal convention and, in the case of the Reform members
from the West, they must have had the message that the electoral
map had to be changed as soon as possible in order to allow
British Columbia, for example, to have adequate representation.
We, from the Bloc Quebecois, have never been against the
fact that each province be adequately represented in the
electoral process. We only wanted to show that the blind
application of demographic criteria has a major negative impact
on regions whose population is dwindling.
When studying what characterizes an economic, social and
cultural area, we realize that the first thing that brings about
atrophy is the loss of jobs, which leads to the migration of young
people and even of seniors, because they no longer have access
to essential services. Then, one day, those people no longer have
any representation.
That is the effect that the electoral map had on the eastern part
of Quebec. For several years, there were five constituencies in
eastern Quebec. The proposal which was made by the electoral
commission pursuant to the legislation and which only takes
into account the demographic criteria results in the elimination
of a riding. Therefore, the people living in the Gaspé Peninsula
and in the Matapédia area will find themselves in the same
riding, even if municipalities are 300 km apart, not to say 1000
km in winter.
4843
This kind of representation is unacceptable to constituents, to
all the people living in that part of Quebec and Canada. And this
could happen elsewhere. If I look for example at the evolution of
the demographic situation in Saskatchewan, I think it would be
important to take those other criteria into account because if we
consider only the demographic factor, we will systematically
contribute to the perpetuation of something we did before, that
is reduce the impact of resource regions, regions where we have
made sure we occupied the territory and had good
representation.
It is not only out of social concern that we want to guarantee
the future of our regions, it is also for economical and cultural
reasons; if we do not occupy the territory as we did in the past,
the resources in our part of the country will become
progressively under-utilized. Therefore, the type of
representation we want to guarantee is very important.
We were told: ``The Bloc Quebecois does not want to
participate in the next federal election, it says there will be no
such federal election because it will win the referendum on
sovereignty. So why does it take action on this issue?'' Let me
tell you that our mandate is to defend Quebec's interests and, in
so doing, we must respect the choice that Quebecers will make
in the referendum.
We believe we can bring them to choose Quebec instead of
Canada, but if they were to decide otherwise, we all want to be
absolutely sure we conscientiously fought for Quebec's
interests. To do so, we must anticipate all possible scenarios and
make sure that Quebec will always be well represented within
Canada.
Even though I hope this will not happen, if Quebecers were to
choose to stay in Canada, they will require adequate
representation. Adequate representation means, for example,
what we were given by the Meech Lake Accord which was
rejected, following initiatives of the party which now forms the
government. We were offered 25 per cent of the seats, and this
percentage will have to be maintained in the future.
So, we are fighting for the interests of Quebecers, for the
region where a riding was done away with. We are defending the
interests of people in the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé
Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. We want to make sure that
the number of ridings in this region will guarantee adequate
economic, social and cultural development.
(1340)
Just imagine that under the Conservatives, although we had
five members and even ministers, our regional TV stations were
closed. We do not want to be, in the future, in a situation where
we could be further disadvantaged because we would had an
even smaller representation.
Also, how can we be sure, given the uncompromising attitude
of the present government in its dealings with the provinces, and
given its determination not to re-open the constitutional issue,
that it will not have to hold elections within a year? We have to
consider every possibility and try to protect Quebec interests in
accordance with the overwhelming mandate we received as a
result of the October 1993 election.
In the area of readjustment of electoral boundaries, the Bloc
Quebecois has done its duty. It co-operated with the government
for the 24-month period, but it also participated, when possible,
in the hearings to have maximum representation.
The other side, however, never ordered the electoral
commissions to stop working. We found ourselves in a terrible
mess, in which we are sinking deeper with this new amendment.
For my part, I believe that, by agreeing with the arguments of a
non-elected House, the government is insulting Canadians and
Quebecers. The House had decided that a 24-month suspension
was appropriate, but under the pressure of more or less official
representations from a non-elected body, it reversed its
decision, and I believe that it is setting a dangerous precedent.
For people who all said that they wanted Parliament to be
effective, Bill C-18 is the perfect example of everything one
should not do to make sure that it sails smoothly through
Parliament.
With this bill, they accumulated every possible blunder. They
set a deadline, presenting all kinds of arguments in favour of it.
The Reform Party and the Liberal Party did not agree on what it
should be, and today they both come back with a shorter
deadline. They give us the same arguments, but this time to
justify the new deadline. This is not doing much to improve the
government's credibility among voters.
This is a wonderful opportunity to highlight how useless the
Senate is or, in some cases, how obstructive it can be. This year,
we are going to spend $43 million to keep that useless place in
operation, when in fact there is a consensus in Quebec that this
institution is totally useless. In Quebec, we abolished the
Legislative Council 25 years ago. It was similar to the Senate,
and since we abolished it, we have not had to put up with
annoying situations of this kind.
Mr. Milliken: Everyone in Quebec loves the Senate.
Mr. Crête: Everyone in Quebec loves the Senate. Well, I
invite the hon. member making this comment to come to Quebec
this summer and ask people if they know who their senator is. I
think he is in for quite a surprise!
An hon. member: Some question!
Mr. Crête: I suppose I could even put the same question to the
members of this House. Do they know which senator is
responsible for their riding? The Senate has put before the
House proposals which have influenced the government. The
justification for such action remains a mystery.
4844
(1345)
Now we find ourselves in the position of probably having to
hire an information officer to explain to the public what is going
on with Bill C-18. A bill was introduced and a decision was
made to postpone the process for 24 months. Now the Senate has
intervened and the process will be delayed only 12 months. Is
some other body preparing to tell us to act differently?
Our message to the people of Canada is that this Parliament
does not know what it is doing. If it acts this way when an issue
like this arises, what will it do later on when dealing with other
matters?
I hope that we can settle this matter once and for all, and then
move on to something else. I hope that we can focus our energies
on bringing about real economic recovery to take the place of the
timid measures which this government has introduced, and in
the process, end this debate which has taken up more of
Parliament's time and energies than it deserved to.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Madam Speaker, it is the end of the week and I am
sitting here listening to members from the Bloc talking about an
issue that they will not even have to deal with two years from
now. If they win or lose the election, they all said they are going
to quit and go back to their roots.
I want to ask a very specific question because the member
talked in his speech about how much he cared about the
economy and about putting people back to work.
He mentioned during his speech a couple of times, not just the
economy of Quebec but the economy of Canada, and I was
struck by the sensitivity to the whole country and not just
Quebec.
As he knows, we had a Moody's downgrading yesterday
afternoon. We are hearing from many people that the uncertainty
with regard to the issue of separation in Quebec is one of the
factors that is causing the jitters in our economy.
Does the member not think it would be much more
productive, in trying to put his constituents back to work, all of
the people who are out of work in the province of Quebec and in
every region, to talk about building Canada rather than trying to
destroy it?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, I find this question particularly
interesting because the present uncertainty is not due to this
issue. It results from the failure of the Canadian federal system
to resolve its own problems over the past 15 years. It never
resolved its problems. In 1982, it managed to repatriate the
Canadian Constitution without Quebec's consent and since
1982, not one single government in Quebec, whether
sovereigntist or federalist -and we cannot say that people like
Mr. Bourassa or Mr. Johnson have no backbone- has agreed to
sign it. This goes to show that the federal system has problems
of its own to resolve.
The present uncertainty of the federal system reveals itself in
the national debt. As for Canada's rating problems, in the short
term, the deciding factor is not the Quebec issue, but this $500
billion debt and the fact that it was allowed to grow from
approximately $100 billion in 1980 to over $500 billion today.
That is a $400 billion increase in just 15 years! If I were an
investor, I would tell myself: ``There is something wrong with
those guys. We cannot tell where they are going''. That is the
problem with Canada.
Also, the hon. member indicated that he was pleasantly
surprised by my sensitivity to the whole country. Of course, I
have am concerned with Canada, in economic terms. I do have
economic concerns with regard to the Free Trade Accord which
governs trade throughout North America as well as the new
accord which replaces the GATT accords and which has a global
scope. I want countries in the South to have healthy economies
because they import our products. I want English Canada, and
Ontario in particular, to be able to keep going the way it is now
because Ontario is our main client in Quebec and vice versa.
This is something we must bear in mind. So, I want excellent
economic relations to be maintained between Quebec, the
United States, and Mexico.
(1350)
The best way of ensuring direct economic relations for the
future is to see to it that a small entity like Quebec can develop
unhampered, take decisions quickly and get out of the system to
rid us once and for all of this dinosaur, the Canadian federal
system.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup mentioned that he had
attended one of the public hearings to consider the new
boundaries as they were readjusted by the current boundaries
readjustment commission.
I too had the privilege of appearing before the commission in
my province of Saskatchewan. I found the hearings to be very
fair. In fact there were some of the same sentiments in
Saskatchewan. Not many submissions were made because of the
confusion surrounding the whole issue and the government's
mismanagement of the entire affair. I found the whole
atmosphere, the environment of the discussion, to be totally
non-partisan. I found the committee to be competent and
willing to listen to the constructive proposals that were brought
forward through the submissions.
Not being very familiar with what was happening in the
province of Quebec I wonder whether the hon. member found
the same environment and the same competence among the
4845
commissions in his province, at least at the hearings he was able
to attend.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, in response to the last part of the
question, I can say that the legislators on the commission were
Quebecers. They are very competent in their field, as I pointed
out in my speech.
Yet the commissioners themselves told us they were required
by the act to consider only the demographic factor when other
criteria should be taken into account. That was the issue referred
to the House committee.
I think it is important to take these criteria into account and to
give ourselves the time we need to do so, as provided for in the
initial 24-month timeframe.
I would like to add one more thing. Given the mandate we
received from Quebecers, we must anticipate all possibilities. If
we are faced with another election for one reason or another, we
must have as good an electoral map as possible in order to
defend ourselves. Finally, as long as we pay taxes to Ottawa, we
will be represented because there is no taxation without
representation. Quebecers decided they wanted to be
represented by sovereigntists, and they did so in a more
significant way than for any other party in Canada.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We still have two more
minutes.
Is the House ready for the question?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, no. We want to either
resume debate or give the hon. member the chance to ask a
question. I think we are about two minutes away from private
members' business. Rather than launching into my speech and
only getting two minutes into it, if the hon. member had another
question I would gladly defer to him.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster):
Madam Speaker, today I am rising to speak about the changes
that the other place is proposing to Bill C-18. I am glad we have
a chance to revisit the issue.
Bill C-18, as it was originally envisioned by the government,
was a very serious breach of the fundamental principles of
democracy, namely preventing the intervention of political
parties in the design, conduct and outcome of elections in
Canada.
The electoral process in Canada is probably the most fair,
unbiased and most professional in the world. Our electoral
process is not perfect and I hope we will have the opportunity to
discuss some improvements at a later date.
The intent of Bill C-18 not only threatens the non-partisan
aspect of our democratic process but it jeopardizes the
reputation that Canada enjoys internationally as a country that
can be counted on to set high standards of impartiality in regard
to the electoral process. Witness that Canada is very often called
on to supervise or observe elections around the world. The
Ukrainian and South African elections are two recent examples
of this.
I cannot emphasize enough the damage that would be done to
Canada's international reputation if Bill C-18 were to have
passed in its original form. It should obvious that Reformers
were correct in their analysis of the bill. The government should
have accepted our amendments.
The reasons why this bill had to be-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 1.54 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4845
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve) moved that
Bill C-243, an Act to amend the Department of Labour Act
(eligibility for assistance for long-service employees), be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that since I had
the pleasure of being elected to this House to represent the
people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I never felt so strongly
that I was speaking on a subject that is important for Montreal. It
is important for Montreal, of course, but for other places as well,
because the main purpose of the bill before hon. members of this
House is to correct a terrible form of discrimination suffered by
workers in Montreal and elsewhere.
I will have an opportunity to explain this discrimination in
detail. First, with your permission, I would like to remind those
listening to us this afternoon about POWA. This is not the first
time that we have discussed POWA in this House. Members
previously elected to Parliament, including the members for
Saint-Léonard, Saint-Denis and Westmount-Saint-Henri,
spoke many times in the past to call strongly for major
improvements to POWA.
I am therefore pleased to speak because I agree with what my
hon. colleagues said in the past. POWA is a federal-provincial
agreement, financed 70 per cent by the central government and
30 per cent by the participating provinces. It seeks to compen-
4846
sate and provide income support for laid-off workers. As you
know, in these tough economic times, there are many lay-offs.
The joint federal-provincial agreement on POWA sets forth
some criteria for workers to qualify. The agreement provides
that workers will be eligible depending on the size of the
municipality or community in which the company is located.
Let me give you the example of Montreal. When people are
laid off in the Greater Montreal, something which has occurred a
number of times in the past, the agreement provides that, to be
eligible for POWA, a minimum of 100 workers must have been
laid off. This is the first condition.
Consequently, before a worker can be eligible for the program
on an individual basis, some important collective considerations
related to the major change occurring, will determine whether
that worker is eligible or not.
The second condition to qualify is that 8 per cent of laid off
workers must be 55 or over. In Montreal, this criteria does not
present great problems, compared to the rule requiring that a
minimum of 100 workers be laid off. I will come back to this
later on.
(1400)
The Program for Older Worker Adjustment has been in
existence since 1989. Quebec and seven other provinces have
signed this agreement, which replaces the former Work
Adjustment Training program, or WAT, more specifically
targeted to the furniture industry and other traditional sectors.
The proposed bill-and I point it out, because I feel it is
important to do so-is designed to correct a terrible form of
discrimination against urban centres with a population of over
500,000, including Montreal.
It is important to keep in mind this basic and unavoidable
reality to understand what is going on in Montreal and what
conditions must be met by a Montreal worker to be eligible in
case of a mass lay-off-which, as you know, is a breach of
contract on the employer's part-including the condition to the
effect that at least 100 workers must have been laid off.
If you look at the lay-offs which have occurred in the recent
past in Montreal, you see that they took place in very specific
industries-textile, clothing and retail-which, of course, are
not the only ones in trouble, but are nevertheless experiencing
particular problems due to national and international factors.
I point this out is because between 70 and 80 per cent of these
industries-textile, clothing and retail-are concentrated in
Montreal. This is particularly true for the textile and clothing
industries which, as you will recall, underwent a first stage of
industrialization. When selecting a site for their facilities, this
being one of the location factors to use an economic expression,
most textile and clothing industries chose Montreal. This is why
70 to 80 per cent of those industries are now concentrated in the
Montreal region. And this is where the problem lies since, on
average, textile and clothing industries have 20, 25 or 30
employees.
It is so true-and I will have the opportunity to come back to
this issue later-that 78 per cent of all requests submitted last
year under POWA in the Montreal area were turned down,
because workers were not eligible. And because this program is
particularly unsuitable to the traditional industries and harmful
to Montreal workers, a consensus was reached, a rare feat in our
political system, and the Liberal Party in Quebec, through Mr.
Bourbeau, formerly the minister of manpower, now the minister
of finance, expressed its wish for a review of the program in
order to bring the minimum of 100 down to 20. The Quebec
government, first under Mr. Bourassa and now under Mr.
Johnson, expressed its desire that this program be modified.
The same wish was expressed by the mayor of Montreal, the
major central labour bodies and all the people who are somewhat
concerned by Montreal's economic development and the
minimum social justice workers are entitled to expect and who
have noticed some problems with POWA. In a rare show of
unanimity, all parties involved called for changes to this
program.
(1405)
And yet, this is the second version of POWA. A first
agreement was signed in 1988 and renegotiated last year by the
previous government, which was not, of course, a Liberal
government. The Conservative government did not yield to all
the demands of these people who know better than anybody else
the real problems of Montreal's workers.
I have very concrete figures that will show to our colleagues
how this POWA program is not suitable for Montreal's workers.
The proof is that, in 1993-94, in the clothing industry, 75
businesses qualified, which means that their employees were
eligible, and exactly 359 companies did not qualify because of
the minimum of 100 workers.
Thus, there were four times more businesses that did not
qualify than those that did, even if there were massive lay-offs.
Four times more businesses could not ensure income support for
their workers-I remind you that these workers are 55 years of
age and more who have given 20, 25, 30 years of their lives to
the labour force, the labour market, and their
community-because of a stupid criterion which is not adapted
to the situation in Montreal.
The same is true for the business sector. As you know, one of
the realities of our modern economies is that the tertiary sector
is becoming the main production sector and, in Montreal,
according to the figures available for 1993-94, 41 commercial
4847
businesses were declared eligible under POWA while 139 did
not qualify.
So, three times more companies and three times more workers
were excluded than included. That is nonsense and, out of
consideration for the workers, the situation must be corrected. I
repeat, because it cannot be overemphasized, all concerned
agree. It is wrong for a worker in a desperate situation, which
often may have drastic consequences over which he has no
control, like a massive lay-off, to have to go through an
eligibility determination process. His eligibility should not be
based on the size of the municipality in which he lives.
The case of Steinberg shows how absurd these criteria are. We
are all familiar with this case and we remember that workers in
13 of the 28 stores that should have qualified under POWA were
in fact excluded. In the case of Steinberg, there is another factor
that should be mentioned, namely that we were in a situation
where there were two categories of employers.
Despite the fact that Steinberg was a chain that had various
stores across Quebec, you will see, Madam Speaker, how absurd
the situation was regarding the eligibility under POWA and you
will feel sad about it. It is a situation that has to change. So,
according to the criteria used, it was possible for a person who
worked in a Steinberg store in Ville d'Anjou to qualify under
POWA, whereas another Steinberg employee who worked in a
Montreal store could be excluded.
You did not misunderstand, Madam Speaker. It was the same
corporate organization, with the same employer, the same
technologies, the same collective agreement, and the same
supervision system, and we ended up with a totally unacceptable
situation where workers were divided into two groups, with
some people being excluded and others included. That is
unacceptable from the point of view of social rights.
Why? Because, once more, eligibility depends on the size of
the municipality where the production unit is located. Let us
take the Steinberg situation. In the case of laid-off workers in
Saint-Jérôme, there had to be 40 workers eligible to POWA if
individual workers were to be compensated.
(1410)
And for the same company, the same production unit, the
same technology, and the same producer, if you were working
for Steinberg in Longueuil, but still for the same company, the
number of laid-off workers was 80 to become eligible.
An hon. member: Twenty in Ville d'Anjou.
Mr. Ménard: Twenty in Ville d'Anjou. Furthermore, we hear
about an opting out agreement which reminds us a lot of the
Conservative regime, characterized by nepotism, favouritism
and insensitivity to workers.
This reality does not concern only Montreal. It is my duty, as
the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, to speak of the
situation in Montreal. But I asked our colleagues in the Reform
Party to come up with some figures for their provinces and I got
some more figures for other provinces which have more
traditional sectors and are concerned with major economic
changes.
You will be surprised to hear this, but I have figures for Nova
Scotia. In Nova Scotia, according to the latest figures available,
ten businesses obtained their certificate of compliance for
POWA and 36 were excluded, also on the basis of the number of
laid-off workers.
The same thing happened in Ontario, a somewhat more
dynamic region, the country's industrial heartland, where 184
lay-offs were certified in 1993-94, and the workers in 663
companies were excluded. I must remind the House that workers
are eligible on a collective basis before being eligible on an
individual basis.
That is to say that there is something in this program that must
be reviewed. For my part, I have been speaking on that matter
for a long time. You know, in politics, we develop a special
interest for some matters; for me, it was POWA, because I am
from a mostly working-class neighbourhood.
As a matter of fact, I made several representations to my
colleagues from the Liberal Party and the Reform Party to whom
I want to address my thanks for their co-operation; I think we
are going to agree that some amendments are needed.
In fairness, I do not want to leave our viewers with the
impression that we are the first to address this issue. MPs in the
previous Parliament, particularly the Liberals when they were
sitting on this side, also called for amendments to the agreement
on POWA on several occasions. And if it is not against our
Standing Orders, I would like to quote one our most
distinguished colleagues, the member for Saint-Léonard, that
we are delighted to see participate in today's debate. I know that
we share the same views on this issue and I am very pleased
about that, because he also represents the Montreal region and I
know he is sensitive to the reality of non-eligible workers.
In short, let me quote some of his most famous words: ``Mr.
Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to table a
petition signed by 2,657 Canadians who call upon the
government to amend the regulations concerning the Program
for Older Worker Adjustment.
As you know, in the metropolitan region, those employed by
companies of less of 100 employees are not eligible. It is a case
of discrimination-this is the term used by the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard-when we know that in Canada, 98 per cent of
companies are small and medium-sized firms with less than 100
employees''.
What are our chances of getting his support in this very
important matter for the workers of Montreal and to what extent
can he have some influence within his government? I can talk in
a non-partisan way because this is a question which concerns
all members of Parliament. Whether we are members of the
4848
Reform Party, the Bloc or even the government, we all know
what it means to lose one's job at 55 years of age. Disruptions
can happen in our economic community over which we have no
control.
At 55, after having devoted one's life to a job-but you are not
of that generation, you are a young woman-workers have given
20, 25 or even 30 years to the job market. We have no right to
leave these people without adequate financial protection. I see
that the hon. member for Saint-Léonard is nodding in
agreement.
(1415)
Such is the intention of the bill. There is nothing complicated
in what we are saying, nothing original, I admit. We are saying
what the Liberals said before us, what Quebecers are saying
through their minister of finance, Mr. Bourbeau, and through the
mayor of Montreal, and what the labour confederations are
asking for. What we are saying is that Montreal's work
environment does not prepare workers who could be laid off in
the sectors which are more likely to be affected.
It is in this context that I ask today, innocently but with
enthusiasm, the consent of the House to put the following
motion. I move, seconded by the member for Bourassa:
That Bill C-243 presented in my name, be deemed read for the second time
and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
I conclude by mentioning that I am convinced this bill must be
examined by a committee. I want to let the government know
that I am open-minded. I am willing to change my mind if some
dimensions of the debate have escaped me. I am open-minded
and I know the members are sensitive to the reality faced by
Montreal workers. I am confident they will give the necessary
consent in this matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There is no unanimous
consent.
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Madam Speaker, I
would like to take part in this important debate, because I find it
essential, as the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
mentioned in his speech, where he quoted one of my most
famous statements-I was not aware that I was now
famous-and read a petition containing more than 2,000 names.
So, for information purposes and for the record, let me add that I
tabled more than 5,000 petitions concerning the Program for
Older Worker Adjustment, or POWA.
For the benefit of our viewers and listeners, I will describe the
program. It is intended for 55-year-old workers who lose their
jobs following massive lay-offs. These last few years, God
knows there have been quite a few of those. In the past, as the
hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve mentioned, we had
a program to assist older workers from special sectors, whether
it be the textile, clothing or footwear sector. The program often
allowed exceptions depending on the community or the number
of the lay-offs.
After the change in government and with evolving economic
conditions, the Tories abolished the program and introduced a
new one involving the provinces. POWA did not target any
particular industry, it included all economic sectors. However,
to limit public expenditures, because there were some major
economic constraints, they introduced the rule of 100 jobs for
every municipality of at least 500,000 residents. If you take
Montreal, the number would apply to the city of Montreal. For
example, in La Salle, it would be 60 jobs, and, in Saint-Léonard,
it would probably be 80. But, to my mind, for the unemployed,
this has always been a kind of discrimination.
(1420)
The difference between the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and myself-There have been a
number of meetings on the subject and we even attended some of
these together, and I said this before and I say it again today, if
you want to get rid of discrimination, you get rid of it across the
board. If 100 is discriminatory, then 20 is just as discriminatory
as 100, because where do you draw the line, Madam Speaker?
An example: 74 per cent of small businesses in Canada
employ fewer than five workers, and 97 per cent employ fewer
than 50. Since three quarters of all small businesses in Canada
employ fewer than five workers, we would correct only 25 per
cent of the discriminatory practices in this sector. As I said
before, when you get rid of discrimination, you get rid of it
across the board. If a practice is discriminatory, you get rid of it
altogether. That is why, since October 25, with the advent of the
new Liberal government I have been working with the
Department of Human Resources Development to deal with all
aspects of this problem. It is a social problem.
When a 55-year old worker is laid off, either in a collective
lay-off or individually, it is very difficult for him to get a job.
This is a social problem that has been with us since the sixties.
Twice attempts were made to deal with the problem through
programs which, unfortunately, failed to deliver. I am working
with the minister, with the human resources development
committee to which the hon. member wants to refer this bill, and
our
4849
objective is to deal with this problem once and for all through
the reform of our social programs. We have young people, older
workers, women and the disabled who need our help.
As we approach the 21st century, we have an economy that has
changed completely, and we must deal with this through social
measures that go beyond the consideration that 100 jobs are
affected in a company. It is a problem because we are talking
about older workers. What difference does it make whether a
person works in Saint-Léonard, Ville LaSalle, Chicoutimi or
Laval? That should not be a problem. We have to deal with the
social issues.
At the time, I asked the hon. member to join me, with his party
colleagues, so that we could all work together. All parties are
represented on the Committee on Human Resources
Development. When the report is comes out this fall, they want
to prepare a study that includes these programs. The minister is
working on this with his department. We will then be in a
position to respond.
Reducing the number from 100 to 20 does not get rid of the
problem. There will still be discrimination, because 74 per cent
of small businesses have fewer than five employees, and more
and more small businesses are being set up. We cannot depend
on big companies to create jobs. We saw what happened. Like
me, the hon. member is from East Montreal, and we all know
what happened to the big companies in Montreal during the
recession. Only small businesses will be able to create real jobs.
In fact, this government is committed to creating jobs by
developing small businesses, so we cannot discriminate in this
area. I would urge the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to continue his efforts, as I continue
mine, to help older workers.
We must find a system, a comprehensive solution so that
everybody has a job, whether the company has ten, five, twenty
or fifty employees; we all know that units are becoming
increasingly smaller.
The member knows quite well that if this bill were to pass
tomorrow morning, there would be just as many cases in the
ridings as there are today, because the problem would still be the
same. Even as members of Parliament we do not know what to
say sometimes; we often see cases where they are close to the
100 threshold. I know of many instances where there are 80,
even 95 employees affected in a plant which does not qualify. So
if the limit is 20, what will we say when there are only 17 or 18?
The discrimination will be exactly the same.
(1425)
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the Steinberg case.
I am well aware of that case because I met the parties involved
several times here in Ottawa and in my riding. I am still working
on it and I hope to solve that Steinberg problem because it is a
simple matter of interpretation. We could solve it even within
the existing program. The problem is that a civil servant
somewhere decided to consider different parts of the company
as separate units. Steinberg was a single employer and we know
it moved employees from one supermarket to another, in
different municipalities. These people had to follow orders, go
and work a week or a day in such or such a place. When
Steinberg closed its doors they were in one store rather than
another, and the choice had not been theirs.
I believe that together we could have that decision reviewed
and we could bring justice to these employees. However, the
general problem can only be solved with the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the committees which work on the
matter. As it is, we have to allow some time. Social programs are
not going to be reformed every year. We are in a favourable
period and we must act. I am glad we are doing this now, because
I think the timing is right. We have to press on.
I urge the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve not to
give up. His bill did not get unanimous consent and could not be
referred to a committee, but it is a subject that we should come
back to. There is a problem in our society which has to be solved,
but solved for good. As I said earlier, you do not correct a
discrimination by creating another one. That discrimination has
to disappear completely if we want to leave some hope to our
workers, even those less than 55. Should there be some lay-offs,
they should expect some compensation, even if they are young.
They should be able to access a system allowing them to
continue paying their mortgage, the rent, their children's
tuition. Today, that security does not exist.
I congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
and I urge him to continue his battle; he will always get my
support on this. I am convinced that the reform of social
programs will answer this bill.
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, excuse my inexperience, I am
willing to learn. We presented a motion we hoped would be
votable to defer a bill and I understand that the government is
not going to accept it on the basis of specific criteria which it
finds discriminatory. If we were to present our proposal and say
that we are committed to remove any mention of eligibility
according to a specific number, be it 20 or 100, can we ask the
House to reconsider the motion and vote again on it, if the
member for Saint-Léonard is willing to be consistent?
You do understand my point of order, Madam Speaker. The
member told me that it was not admissible because it was
discriminatory. I am willing to remove the element found
discriminatory, and I ask the House to reconsider the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent to amend the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
4850
(1430)
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has
introduced a bill. Over a month ago, he came to me and asked me
to support this bill, but I told him that I could not back it in its
present form. He had all the time he needed to make the
necessary amendments. I think that in my speech, I was honest. I
congratulated the member and encouraged him to keep at it.
However, if he is only interested in politicking, then I am not
biting.
I maintain that he had all the time in the world to come up with
some amendments. I made it clear to him from the very
beginning when he asked for my support that I could not give it
to him. Now that we are debating this bill in the House and he is
making his speech, he is coming back to this point. The best
thing to do now is to have this debate and, if he wishes, he could
introduce another bill at a later time or, as I suggested, raise the
matter before the human resources committee. This would
certainly help the cause of these older workers a great deal.
However, if he is interested in politicking, then politicking he
will get.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, indeed we do not have any
interest in politicking. If that had been the case, we would have
referred to the question of social reform and mentioned the fact
that some precedents do exist since the unemployment
insurance formula was changed in Bill C-17 to reduce benefits.
The unemployment insurance system was changed, even though
social reform has not yet been finalized. Therefore, a precedent
does exist.
However, in the measure-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but I think
the hon. member will agree with me that-
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I would like to finish my
point of order. To the extent that we are not interested in
politicking, we have just heard the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard say that one of the program's provisions was
discriminatory. We are prepared to support his suggestion that
the discriminatory provision be removed and that the whole
matter be referred to committee. This being the case, we would
support the hon. member for Saint-Léonard's proposal.
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Let there
be no mistake. I will not tolerate, and I do not expect that you
will either, being accused by the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard of politicking. Let me tell you-and I would like
to wrap up, if I may-that I have been involved in this issue
since 1989. The riding I represent is fairly disadvantaged as
compared to that of the hon. member for Saint-Léonard and I
find his comment uncalled for.
The real question, the one workers will remember, is: Does
this government want-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order! The hon.
member for Saint-Léonard, on a point of order.
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, given the hon. member's
lack of experience, I shall remain calm and ignore these last
remarks. What I want to say however is that the chief opposition
whip's remarks baffle me. He has been sitting here long enough.
He should be familiar with the Standing Orders by now. If he
reads the bill, he will see that there will be nothing left if my
proposal is agreed to. It will become an entirely new bill.
When I said that I had stated my views, or my intentions to the
hon. member the first time he had come to see me, a few months
ago, to ask for my support, I meant that I had made the same
objections to the bill as I did in my speech today. This bill
reduces the number of jobs in a municipality with a population
of 500,000 from 100 to 20 and this, retroactively. Basically,
there is still discrimination.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): With all due respect, I
say to the Government Whip that this is a matter for debate and
not a question of privilege or a point of order.
(1435)
Mr. Duceppe: My colleague, the Government Whip, said that
I have been a member long enough to be familiar with the
procedure.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but this is not
a question of privilege.
There was no unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the points
you are raising have to do with the debate. This is not a question
of privilege.
The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie on point of
order.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I would like you to explain to
me why wanting to set the record straight-when I am accused
of not knowing the procedure despite having been a member for
a number of years-is not a question of privilege.
Is it not clearly a question of privilege? I would like to know.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In any case, it does not
really relate to what the hon. member said and, I repeat, this is a
matter for debate. Resuming debate.
Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): If it is not a point of
order, the debate will resume immediately. The hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, every member of this House
has the right to understand your decision and I would like to
understand it.
I raised a point of order about something. The hon. member
for Saint-Léonard alleged that-
4851
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order! Order! I repeat
again that there never was unanimous consent, so we cannot
return to the question you raised at first.
Mr. Duceppe: Question of privilege!
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): On a question of
privilege, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, when I said that the member
for Saint-Léonard had said that I should know the procedure
since I have sat here for several years, you told me that he did not
say that. Could you tell me what he said?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): On this point, we will
check the blues when they come out and I will get back to you on
it.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to address this bill. It gives me an opportunity to discuss
some of the serious unemployment problems in Canada and to
determine if the government's response has been adequate and
propose some constructive alternatives.
I would like to start by saying that the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has proposed some fairly significant
changes to the government's older worker adjustment program,
one of which if passed would cost millions of dollars more and
require the renegotiation of six federal-provincial agreements.
As well intentioned as this bill is, I think the consequences
and the cost of implementing this bill have not been considered
as long and as hard as they would need to be.
This bill would dramatically change the eligibility rules for
the program for older worker adjustment, otherwise known as
POWA. Section 5.1 of the Department of Labour Act gives the
minister the authority to enter into agreements with provincial
governments for the purpose of making income assistance
payments to older workers between the ages of 55 and 65.
Workers are eligible only if they have been affected by major
permanent lay-offs and have exhausted their UI insurance
benefits.
The federal government has entered into POWA agreements
with six provinces: Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. As there is a
limited amount of money allocated to POWA agreements, the
government establishes in each agreement a formula for
determining what it considers to be a major layoff. The formula
is based on the size of the city or community, the size of the
company and is different in each federal-provincial agreement.
(1440)
Here is an example of the formula used in a Quebec POWA
agreement. In a community, let us say, of a million people you
would require a number of employees to equal 100. If your
community or city has 165,000 people then you need only 80
employees to qualify under a POWA agreement. As the size of
the community decreases so does the number of employees.
Just to illustrate this, in a community of 50,000 people you
would require 50 employees to qualify. In a community of
17,000 or fewer you would require 20 employees to qualify
under this program.
Eligibility for POWA assistance is determined for each
specific mass layoff and then for the individual employee
affected by the layoff. Interestingly, between April 1, 1992 and
December 23, 1993, 380 layoffs in the six provinces were
designated under this program. Annuities were purchased for
3,500 older workers for a total cost of $104 million to the federal
government and some $39 million to the provincial
governments.
Officials have told us that the federal contributions to POWA
have been capped at $50 million and estimates for 1994-95
confirm that the government will spend $50 million on POWA.
The hon. member is proposing in this bill to change this
program significantly with huge financial implications and
creating a potential problem in the area of federal-provincial
relations. This bill would remove the discretion the minister has
in negotiating federal-provincial agreements. Instead of leaving
the determination and eligibility for POWA based on the size of
the community, impact on the community, type of industry, size
of the company and the number of employees affected, this bill
would require both federal and provincial governments to
include all companies with 20 or more employees.
This member's office has confirmed that it has no way of
knowing how many companies or how many employees would
become eligible for coverage under POWA as a result of the
changes proposed by this bill.
The member is asking Canadian taxpayers to write a blank
cheque.
How could anyone in this House support this bill not knowing
how much it is likely to cost the federal government? Not only
would this bill require the federal government to assume new
and unknown program cuts, which would surely be in the tens of
millions of dollars, the bill would also require that the province
increase its contribution to the program for older workers
adjustment.
Second, I would point out in regard to this bill in clause 5.1
that the amendment would immediately rescind all current
federal-provincial agreements and require the Minister of
Human Resources to renegotiate each one of them.
4852
What would this mean for federal-provincial relations? What
would this mean for older workers who are already receiving
assistance under the POWA program?
This bill clearly creates more problems than it solves.
The Reform Party would like to thank the hon. member for
introducing this bill. While we cannot support it, it is always
enlightening to investigate a government program and see how
the problems were addressed in the past, what was wrong with
the approach and possibly how it could be done better in the
future.
When we look at the program for older worker adjustment, we
see a government using its powers to design a discriminatory
program which supports older workers, subject to a completely
arbitrary formula based on the size of the community, type of
industry, the size of the company, and the age and employment
status of the employee.
This means if I were a worker aged 59 living in Montreal, laid
off from a company with more than 100 employees in the textile
industry and had just used up the last of my unemployment
insurance benefits, I would be eligible for assistance under
POWA.
(1445 )
On the other hand, if I were a 59 year old Montrealer laid off
from a company with 90 employees, not 100, in the textile
industry and had just exhausted my UI benefits I would not be
eligible for assistance under POWA.
While I admire the government's intent to keep the cost of
POWA capped at $50 million, I am frankly amazed that the
government would implement a program that is this
discriminatory.
What about older workers who are in exactly the same boat
but did not work for the right size of company or a specified
industry? What about all the older workers who are in the same
or worse circumstances because they worked for themselves all
their lives? No one is coming around to them with a guaranteed
annual income.
I believe that if the government is going to create a program
for older workers who have exhausted their UI benefits and have
little opportunity for employment, then it had better include all
older workers, not just a few selected workers in a few selected
industries in a few selected provinces.
While we may sympathize with the plight of older
unemployed workers and while the intentions of the government
and my hon. friend who introduced the bill are entirely noble,
the fact is that many Canadians are facing tough times and
would like the government to buy them an annuity until they
reach age 65.
What would happen to these older workers if there were no
pilot program? Many of them would find work eventually or
would find work elsewhere. A number of them would rely on
their families for help until they did find work. Unfortunately
some may have to resort to welfare.
In my opinion, Canada is not short of safety nets. In fact, I
believe we have too many. The program for older worker
adjustments is an illustration of this point.
Specific groups of people who are hard pressed lobbied the
government for help and the government, in a legitimate desire
to help, creates yet another social program, another income
supplement program.
In our view, Canada needs only one income supplement
program and it should be administered through the income tax
system. How much money would be saved by using this Reform
approach? We say billions.
The government's social programs are an overlapping,
confusing mess that few politicians and few Canadians
understand. It is time to bring some common sense back to our
social programs and to get our social spending under control.
This is why I am here in Ottawa and I intend to do my best to do
just that.
Let me summarize once more why we cannot support the
measures in the bill. The bill changes the eligibility criteria for
POWA programs, increasing the number of persons eligible for
the benefit and as a result would dramatically increase costs
both for the provincial and the federal governments.
Reformers were sent to Ottawa to save the taxpayer money not
to find new ways to spend it.
The bill would remove the discretion that the minister has to
negotiate provincial-federal agreements. While that is not
necessarily all bad, it may not be in the best interest of the
Canadian taxpayer.
The bill would require the government to immediately rescind
and renegotiate six federal-provincial agreements. This would
likely cause a problem not only in the area of
inter-governmental relations but for older workers now and in
the future.
I understand the member's motivation for presenting the bill.
I am sure he has the best interest of the older laid-off workers in
his constituency at heart and I commend him for that, but has he
taken into consideration fully the Canadian taxpayer? What we
really need is a complete overhaul of our social programs.
My colleagues across the way have set for themselves the
onerous task of reducing the federal deficit to 3 per cent of gross
domestic product in three years' time while maintaining an
acceptable level of social security.
We still spend $70 billion a year on these programs, half of all
the money taken in. If the Liberal government is going to reach
the target it has set for itself, it has no alternative but to reduce
program spending, not increase it.
4853
We feel that if there is a problem for all older, laid-off
workers, whether they work in a big company, a small company
or for themselves, then the government should not be selective
in which older workers qualify for assistance.
(1450 )
This having been said, we think the social safety net for older
workers is sufficient and there is no need for POWA. To this end
we will be making a proposal to eliminate the program through
our standing committee under section 81(7).
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Madam
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill proposed
by the member from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve because it
brings to the attention of the House the very difficult adjustment
problems faced by laid-off older workers.
These problems have caused the government to arrange a cost
shared program to offer assistance for older workers who have
been involved in major layoffs and this program has been in
place since 1988.
Under the program, the federal and provincial governments
have purchased annuities to provide income assistance to 9,000
older workers. The federal government has contributed $254
million, the provincial governments, $109 million as their
respective portion of cost.
The effect of the bill proposed by the hon. member from
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve will be to change one of the major
criteria of the program for older workers adjustment and to place
that change into the Department of Labour Act.
At present, the program criteria are contained in the cost
shared framework agreements negotiated and signed by the
federal government and the participating provinces. The bill
would make one of the layoff designation criteria part of the law.
Specifically, the bill would allow any layoff involving at least
20 employed workers to be eligible under the program. This bill
would significantly change one of the fundamental concepts
behind and the criteria for eligibility in the program for older
worker adjustment.
Presently, to be eligible under the program, a layoff is
considered relative to the size of the community. This
consideration is directly related to the degree of difficulty that
laid off older workers will face finding new employment. The
more laid off workers with similar skills, the greater the
competition for jobs and the degree of difficulty in finding a job
also depends on the size of the labour market.
Under the current federal-provincial framework agreements
that govern eligibility at least 20 workers must be laid off in
communities with a population of 10,000 or less and at least 100
laid off in communities with a population of more than half a
million. There are various categories in between.
I have no difficulty with proposals to change the numbers
involved. In fact, the lower numbers might even be an
improvement, but a graduated entry requirement is a way of
measuring both the hardship faced by the laid off workers in
finding re-employment and the disruption to the community
caused by the layoff.
On the other hand, to establish in law a universal minimum
would mean that practically all layoffs would need to be
covered, thereby removing the targeted measures of limited
prospects for re-employment and significant economic
disruption in a region. The effect would be to change the
fundamental program criteria and that without any consultation
with our provincial partners.
The bill is well intentioned and it would help more older
workers. However, I am concerned that if enacted it could
potentially cost the federal and provincial governments billions
of dollars. As we know, during times of scarce resources the
measurement of targeting mechanisms contained in present
legislation could be overwhelmed by sheer volume and drive
cash strapped governments out of the program. That would not
help unemployed workers.
Where in the event that criteria were changed without
commensurate funding increases, the advantage that smaller
communities have now because of the graduated entry
requirements would result in small communities being left
behind.
The government recognizes the needs of unemployed older
workers and has programs in place to help those in greatest
difficulty. Improvements need to be made to address the needs
of older workers and that is being done in the social policy
review.
I would bring to the attention of the House a program that was
instituted between the federal government and the province of
New Brunswick called Jobs Corps, where older workers are
allowed to earn up to $1,000 a month for a year and in return
would work for 26 weeks. They could earn up to $8,000 on top of
that without penalty to the original $12,000.
The government recognizes the need to help older workers
who are trying to move in a direction of active programming to
decrease the potential for dependency and away from passive
programs.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the member's motion.
I encourage the member to participate in the social policy
review process and welcome consideration of all of his ideas.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I accept the point of
order, but the time allowed for Private Members' Business has
now expired.
4854
Is there unanimous consent of the House to hear a point of
order?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Nunez: Madam Speaker, I request the unanimous consent
of the House to pursue the debate. There are two members
waiting for their turn to speak. It should not take too long. This
is an extremely important debate. Normally, a Bloc Quebecois
member should have spoken before a Liberal Party member. I
am a bit confused.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent to extend private members' hour?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped
from the Order Paper.
It being 2.55 p.m., pursuant to order made Friday, May 6,
1994, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.54 p.m.)