CONTENTS
Thursday, December 12, 1996
Bill C-78. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7423
Bill C-79. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7423
Bill C-80. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7424
Bill C-364. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7424
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7429
Division on motion deferred 7431
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7432
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7433
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 7433
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 7433
Bill C-60. Report stage (with amendments) 7435
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken) 7435
Motions Nos. 1, 13, 22 and 23 7435
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7435
Bill C-60. Consideration resumed of report stage 7436
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7436
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 7448
Division on Motion No. 13 deferred 7448
Division on Motion No. 22 deferred 7448
Division on Motion No. 23 deferred 7449
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7449
Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 21 7453
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7453
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 7457
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 7461
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7462
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7462
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7463
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7463
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7463
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7464
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7464
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7464
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7465
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7466
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7466
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7466
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7467
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7467
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 7468
Bill C-60. Consideration resumed of report stage 7474
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 7474
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7475
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 7479
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred 7479
Division on Motion No. 6 deferred 7479
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred 7480
Division on Motion No. 8 deferred 7480
Division on Motion No. 9 deferred 7480
Division on Motion No. 10 deferred 7480
Division on Motion No. 11 deferred 7480
Division on Motion No. 12 deferred 7480
Division on Motion No. 21 deferred 7480
Bill C-60 Consideration resumed of report stage 7481
Motions Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 36 7481
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7481
Division on Motion No. 14 deferred 7482
Division on Motion No. 15 deferred 7482
Division on Motion No. 16 deferred. 7482
Division on Motion No. 18 deferred. 7482
Division on Motion No. 36 deferred 7482
Motions Nos. 19 and 20 7482
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7482
Division on Motion No. 19 deferred 7483
Division on Motion No. 20 deferred 7483
Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 26 7483
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7483
Division on Motion No. 24 deferred 7483
Division on Motion No. 25 deferred 7484
Division on Motion No. 26 deferred 7484
Motions Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30 7484
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7484
Division on Motion No. 27 deferred 7484
Division on Motion No. 28 deferred 7484
Division on Motion No. 29 deferred 7485
Division on Motion No. 30 deferred 7485
Motions Nos. 31, 32 and 33 7485
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7485
Division on motion No. 31 deferred 7485
Division on Motion No. 32 deferred 7485
Division on motion No. 33 deferred 7486
Division on Motion No. 34 deferred 7486
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7486
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7488
Bill C-236. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 7493
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 53; Nays, 115 7493
Consideration resumed of motion 7494
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 58; Nays, 107 7494
Bill C-347. Motion for second reading of and concurrencein Senate amendments 7495
(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time andconcurred in.) 7495
Bill C-202. Report stage (without amendment) 7495
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7496
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 7496
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7498
(Amendment to the amendment agreed to.) 7498
(Motions No. 1 to 3 inclusive, as amended, agreed to.) 7499
Motion for concurrence 7499
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 7499
7423
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, December 12, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
in relation to its consideration of Bill C-32, an act to amend the
Copyright Act.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour and the pleasure to present, in both official languages,
the third report of the Standing Committee on Immigration and
Citizenship regarding its study of draft regulations for the landing
of Convention refugees without identity papers.
(1005)
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to say that the Bloc Quebecois also laid on this table a minority
report concerning refugees without identity papers.
There are two main differences between our report and the
majority report. The first one concerns the waiting period. Second,
regarding two of the countries identified in the regulations, namely
Afghanistan and Somalia, we think it is discriminatory. That is
why we have tabled a minority report.
[English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), to
present in both official languages the sixth report of the Standing
Committee on Health.
This is as a result of a decision that was made in the committee
earlier today, recommending that the Minister of Health consider
some transitional provisions relating to the sponsorship clauses of
Bill C-71.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a member of
this committee, I would have a very short, very brief comment to
make following the tabling of this report by the chair of the health
committee. The opposition objected to these proposals.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-78,
an act to establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and to
make a consequential amendment to another act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table today a bill
entitled ``an act to establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine
Park and to make a consequential amendment to another act''. The
result of several years of concerted efforts between the
Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec, this bill is
aimed at improving the management and protection of the rich and
diversified marine resources of that region of Canada, which is an
absolute necessity after the flooding it has sustained.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-79, an act
7424
to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act
to bands that desire them.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-80, an act
to provide for an integrated system of land and water management
in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that
purpose and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1010)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-364, an act to amend amend the Income Tax Act
(change RRSP deduction to a tax credit).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the RRSP system is to assist
Canadians in building up capital to provide a reasonable retirement
income. It is not intended to shelter wealth or to defer taxes on the
amounts accumulated beyond the amounts required to provide for
that reasonable retirement income.
Tax fairness and equity must be protected within our Income Tax
Act. That includes making sure that the tax benefits do not
unreasonably favour certain taxpayers over others. In the current
RRSP system the RRSP deduction favours high income earners
over low income earners.
Therefore to address these matters this bill proposes to convert
the RRSP deduction to a non-refundable tax credit and to establish
a lifetime contribution limit on RRSPs.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
That, no later than the conclusion of Routine Proceedings on the tenth sitting day
after the adoption of this motion, Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code,
shall be deemed reported back to the House without amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate what Bill C-234 is all
about. Bill C-234 eliminates section 745 of the Criminal Code. It
extinguishes the right of a first degree murderer to have their parole
ineligibility reviewed after serving only 15 years of a life sentence.
Bill C-234 makes a life sentence mean life.
(1015 )
On November 21, 1996, in a ruling that my motion on the Order
Paper was in order, the Speaker said: ``The motion moved by the
hon. member for Crowfoot in fact provides the committee with a
period of time in which to consider and report the bill if it so
chooses. At the same time, the motion provides the House with a
mechanism to remove the bill, which is its property, from the
committee so that the House itself can take up consideration of the
bill''.
The Speaker further stated: ``The House does not know what has
occurred in committee and consequently cannot know what
amendments the committee has made to the bill. Therefore, if the
House wishes to once again take possession of the bill, then the
inclusion of the words ``without amendment'' establishes clearly
that the House will be dealing with the text of the bill it adopted at
second reading''.
My motion is based on my privileges and those of my colleagues
being breached.
The action of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs not reporting Bill C-234 back to the House impedes
members from performing their legislative duties. It impedes
members from debating in this House, an open forum unlike the
committee, an issue which is of utmost concern to our constituents.
On December 13, 1994, Bill C-234 formerly Bill C-226, was
referred to the justice committee by a majority of votes in this
House. The minister of defence who was then the Minister of
Transport, and the member for Vancouver-Quadra, along with 72
of their colleagues and all Reform members present in the House
voted to send Bill C-234 to committee. All members who voted to
send Bill C-234 to committee fully expected it to be reported back
to the House, providing members another opportunity to debate the
bill and where the final determination upon the bill could be made
and I suggest should be made.
The fate of this private member's bill, the fate of all private
members' bills should not be left in the hands of just a few
committee members beyond the authority of this House. The House
gave life to the bill and only the House has the authority in its final
determination. For a committee to kill a bill which was given life
by this House and a majority of its members is a violation of our
privileges as members of Parliament.
Bill C-234 was circumvented by the justice minister's Bill C-45.
The committee allowed Bill C-45 to take precedence over the
private member's bill. Bill C-234 was introduced almost two years
before Bill C-45 yet Bill C-45, a government bill, was the bill
chosen by the committee to be dealt with first. If I had not put a
motion forward in committee to have Bill C-234 dealt with, this
7425
private member's bill would still likely be in limbo today in the
justice committee.
Bill C-234 was dealt with simultaneously with Bill C-45.
However, Liberal members of the committee were obviously more
favourable toward the minister's bill which clearly led to the
demise of Bill C-234.
This was evident in that Bill C-45 was promptly returned to the
House. In only 11 days, Bill C-45 was introduced, sent to
committee, reviewed in committee, debated at report stage and
third reading and passed. All this was done with less than two
weeks before Parliament recessed for the summer.
The justice minister had almost three years to introduce bill
C-45, but he chose to drag his feet. He chose to introduce Bill C-45
at the eleventh hour. The justice minister chose to gamble with the
emotions of the Rosenfeldts and the other 10 families whose
children were murdered by Olson. The justice minister lost that
gamble.
The justice minister is directly responsible for Clifford Olson's
August 12 bid for early release. He is directly accountable to the
Rosenfeldts and the other 10 families whose children were ripped
from their lives by the hands of Clifford Olson. The justice minister
is responsible for Clifford Olson's newsmaking attempts for early
release.
The justice minister claimed Bill C-45 was not about Clifford
Olson. He claimed the bill was not a result of Olson's August 12,
1996 date to make application for early release. Why then was the
minister and his government so intent that the bill be passed before
the summer recess? Why did the Liberal government ask us and the
Bloc not to unduly delay this bill?
(1020)
We provided our co-operation despite the fact that we do not
support Bill C-45. We did not then and we still do not support it.
We gave our word that we would not block the passage of the bill
because we did not want to be responsible in any way for Olson's
bid for early release. Unlike the Liberal justice minister, we did not
want the Rosenfeldts and the other families to have to relive a
nightmare they have endured for the past 15 years.
Although Bill C-45 would still give the likes of Olson an appeal
to a judge, which I find absolutely repugnant and beneath
contempt, there was the possibility that he could be denied the full
judge and jury hearing he now has under section 745 by virtue of
the actions of this government.
Bill C-45 was stalled by the Senate and Olson once again
grabbed the spotlight he so predictably seeks.
For the benefit of the members of this House who do not sit on
the justice committee, I would like to read the testimony given by
Sharon Rosenfeldt before that committee on June 18:
Emotional upheaval-that was what I felt on February 8, 1996, when I found out
that Clifford Olson, the killer of my son, had applied for his 15-year judicial review. I
do realize that the full application cannot be made until August 12, but I know that
all the paperwork is ready.
I have known for the past number of years-
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened with
great interest to what the hon. member was saying, but my
understanding is that his motion really deals with trying to bring
Bill C-234 to the House. It does not deal with Bill C-45 which has
already gone through this House nor with the testimony of a
witness before the committee.
If that is the case, at least my colleague should be given the
opportunity to respond and enter into this debate. My
understanding is that the motion-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. The hon. member
for Crowfoot has moved a motion that is before the House for
debate. He is debating the motion and with great respect to the hon.
member for Ottawa Centre, I do not think the remarks that he is
making are far off the subject matter of the bill that was before the
committee and which is the subject of the discussion. He is giving
his reasons as to why the bill should have been reported. He may be
expanding on that, but he is entitled to do so. I invite the hon.
member for Crowfoot to resume his speech.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Merry
Christmas to you too.
If the hon. member would like to debate this motion, by all
means let him enter into debate to express his concerns about
anything I might have to say about this bill.
I will continue to quote what Mrs. Rosenfeldt said when she
appeared before the committee. It is important that this House and
all citizens of this country know the terror, agony and pain that
victims of crime go through. She said:
I have known for the past number of years that it was his right to apply and that in
all likelihood he would. Yet for some reason, although my mind knew it could be a
reality, my heart, emotions and soul denied it. I was afraid to think about it, so I put
my feelings on hold, something I've grown accustomed to. I know how to make
certain feelings go numb. I learned how to survive like that.
You see, I have to stay strong because I made a promise to my son as his coffin was
being lowered into the ground that I would do everything I could as his mom to ensure
that the person responsible for killing him would be brought to justice. I promised I
would never leave him until that happened. I know I have to put him to rest and that he
7426
deserves to be put to rest, but the laws in our country prevent both of us from
experiencing any peace.
When I learned that Olson had indeed made the application, I was stunned.
Suddenly many images flashed through my mind. I felt shock but I shouldn't feel
shock. I felt angry but I shouldn't feel angry. I felt hurt but I shouldn't be hurting. I
felt betrayed and I felt panic. I couldn't breathe and I couldn't stay still. I kept pacing
from room to room. I wanted to cry, I wanted to scream and I wanted to run-.
I hope the justice minister is hearing this. I hope that all
members of the House are hearing this eloquent description of the
pain and agony this mother is going through and which this
government is perpetuating by the actions it has taken. Mrs.
Rosenfeldt went on to state:
Why do we have to go through this again? I felt weak and vulnerable. I cannot
lose my dignity again-.I went into the family room and I took my son's picture off
the cabinet. I sat down and stared lovingly at him, outlining his face with my hands.
He looked so perfect. You see, I always have to reconstruct his face in my mind
because a hammer was used on him. He was beaten beyond recognition. I cradled his
picture next to my heart and once again made the same promises I had 15 years
earlier. I got on my knees and I asked God to give me the strength to keep my
dignity.
This is very important to me because after Clifford Olson took my child's life, he
also took my dignity for a while. I will not let Olson and the system do that again.
(1025)
The justice minister failed to stop Olson. He failed to protect
Sharon Rosenfeldt, her family and the 10 other families whose
children were murdered by Olson, from feeling shocked, angry,
hurt, betrayed, weak and vulnerable. Instead the justice minister
and the Liberal government are protecting Clifford Olson and
granting him rights he ought not to have by refusing to eliminate
section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Bill C-234 protects the rights of victims. It protects the
Rosenfeldts and other victims from enduring the painful memory
of having their young children ripped from their lives.
Bill C-234 would abolish section 745 of the Criminal Code. It
would take away the rights of killers to a review of their parole
ineligibility. In doing so it would restore truth in sentencing by
making life mean life with no hope for parole until at least 25 years
of that sentence have been served.
In closing, to the members on the other side of the House who
voted against Bill C-234, who voted in favour of allowing first
degree murderers the opportunity for early release, I ask: What
value do they place on the lives of their brothers and sisters and the
lives of their children? Do they feel their lives are worth only 15
years? Will the joy and excitement which rings in the voices of
their young children be forgotten after just 15 years?
I would like the justice minister and all members of the House to
pause, particularly at this time of the season when our thoughts turn
to our family members, both close family members and extended
family members, and to members of our communities, to our
friends and neighbours, and think about their own children and then
justify to Canadians why their lives and those of all their family
members is worth a meagre 15 years.
Convicted murderers, rapists and others who take it upon
themselves to assault or take the life of another human being throw
all their rights away the minute they launch their deadly attack, all
their rights, except to a fair and just hearing. For the criminal
justice system to provide a killer with a so-called glimmer of hope
or to restore their rights is a further injustice to the victim, the
victim's family and an offence to Canadians because the killers did
not offer a glimmer of hope of any kind to their victims. No, they
viciously and sadistically murdered them.
Bill C-234 would restore that justice. It would make victims
rights a priority. It would protect the families of murder victims.
More important, Bill C-234 if adopted by the House, would place
some real value on the lives of all Canadians.
I appreciate the Chair having ruled my motion to be in order and
for allowing members of the House to make the final decision on
Bill C-234. I would ask all members, whether or not they support
the bill, to at least bring it back to the House so that it is this House
which will make the final decision and not a handful of members of
Parliament in the justice committee.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member went on at length to talk about his interest in ensuring the
safety of Canadians.
(1030 )
It was the hon. member and his party that voted against every
single piece of legislation that was introduced by the Minister of
Justice that deals with the question of safety of Canadians. This is
the very same member who did not hear the outcry from Canadians
whose families were slaughtered by criminals. Many of my
constituents have been killed by guns, by violence.
When the Minister of Justice introduced legislation that would
ensure the safety of my constituents, these members voted against
it. They voted against the gun control legislation. They have
sanctioned the use of guns that are used in some cases to commit
crimes. These are members of a party that voted against everything
that had to do with the safety of Canadians from coast to coast.
Now they stand up enraged, saying they were entrusted with the
safety of Canadians.
They talk about the testimony of people who appeared before the
justice committee. Where were they when people before the justice
7427
committee were appealing for support for the gun control
legislation? Why did they not support the gun control legislation
that would have helped reduce crime? Why did they not support
other government initiatives that deal with the reduction of crime?
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot suck and blow at
the same time and that is exactly what this member is trying to do.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, if this hon. member wants to stand
before his voters during the next election and tell them very clearly
that he voted in favour of the criminal rather than a safer society on
Bill C-45 and on this private member's bill, let him do it.
Although he has taken the time of the House to raise the issue on
the gun control bill, he has not told us how the registration of rifles
and shotguns will reduce the criminal use of those firearms.
Neither has the justice minister nor has any member explained how
that will create a safer society.
Why did Reform vote against Bill C-41? We voted against Bill
C-41 because the government created alternative measures for
violent offenders. When Reform introduced an amendment to
exempt violent offenders from alternative measures the
government killed that amendment with this member's support.
Not only does Bill C-41 allow a legal process by which violent
offenders may never see the inside of courtroom, it also encourages
the courts to use conditional sentencing. From the time that Bill
C-41 became part of our law two and a half to three months ago, the
courts have freed rapists in at least in two cases, and a third one has
just come to our attention. Serious violent offenders have been
allowed to walk free while their victims have been traumatized and
afraid to leave their residences. That is why Reform voted against
some of the nonsense that comes down the pipe from the justice
minister.
If this member wants to stand before his voters in the next
election and debate with myself or any other member in the Reform
Party, he will be skinned alive. Why will he get skinned alive?
Because Reform wants reasonable and common sense legislation
brought forward to deal fairly and in a balanced way with the safety
of society and this legislation does not do that.
When our courts are encouraged to give conditional sentences to
rapists that allows them to walk free while their victims cringe in
their own homes, afraid to walk the streets, afraid to leave their
homes, then there is something wrong with our justice system.
We will take them on in the next election and we will deal with
these issues. We will allow the people to decide who is sucking and
who is blowing. We can see clearly who is sucking and who is
blowing in this country. It is the Liberals over there.
(1035)
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what we have heard today is evidence of the Liberal
philosophy. As a matter of fact, Canadians were astonished not
more than a couple of months ago when the Minister of Justice, in
the face of the people's cry for justice and in the face of all the
victims of crime, tell them that the prime consideration of the
criminal justice system must be the rehabilitation and reintegration
of criminals back into society.
What about the millions of Canadians who are talking about the
protection of society? What about consideration for the millions of
victims of crime? The government continually supports the
criminal. It does not give a whit for law-abiding Canadians. It does
not give a whit for the victims of crime. The member for Ottawa
Centre and the other Liberal members who are cheering him on
today are evidence that the Liberal government cares only about its
weak-kneed philosophy toward crime. It does not care about the
cries of Canadians or the protection of Canadian society. Its system
of justice stinks.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, all across the country there is a cry
about the justice system and the Young Offenders Act. There is a
cry for greater protection for those who are the most vulnerable in
our society, our children and our senior citizens.
For the last 25 years that kind of philosophy has held sway in the
creation of laws that grant greater and greater rights to the criminal.
The Liberals have had the opportunity to show that their
philosophy would create a safer society. However, that philosophy,
that bleeding heart mentality, has failed. If it had worked it would
have been wonderful but it has not worked. It has failed.
The victims of crime who appeared before our committees are
crying out for some sort of changes. Those victims are full
testimony of which I speak. They represent the common sense of
the vast majority of Canadians who are speaking out on this whole
issue of crime and the protection of society.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity to make some submissions with
respect to this matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I remind hon. members
that the hon. member for York South-Weston has the floor. I think
members might want to hear his speech.
Mr. Nunziata: Canadians, in due course, will have the
opportunity to pass judgment on the record of the government with
respect to criminal law reform.
Over the last three years and many years before that, Canadians
have expressed in clear and unequivocal terms their desire for a
balanced and just justice system. We have seen over the last
number of years a justice system that is unjust, a justice system
7428
that is imbalanced, a justice system that appears to put the rights of
criminals and those charged with criminal offences ahead of the
rights of victims, families of victims and Canadians generally.
Canadians are not happy with the criminal justice system.
(1040)
What the government has done or what the government has not
done, Canadian people will judge. It has had the opportunity over
the last three years to bring in some meaningful criminal law
reform.
For example, the government has made some progress with
respect to the Young Offenders Act but the progress has been
limited. It did go far enough. The Young Offenders Act still does
not have the support and respect of Canadians. In my view it is an
invitation for young people to break the law. It treats 16 and 17
years olds like children. Sixteen and 17 years olds are able to
understand the difference between right and wrong. They are able
to drive. For all intents and purposes they are adults but for some
reason the government insists on treating 16 and 17 year olds like
children.
The police across the country, those involved in the criminal
justice system, have been crying out for changes to the Young
Offenders Act.
What about murder in this country? What about murder and the
penalties for murder? A law on the books today allows convicted
killers like Clifford Olson, like Paul Bernardo, like Colin Thatcher,
like all the other hideous murderers, to apply to be released after
serving only 15 years of their sentences. That is unconscionable.
That is not what Canadians want.
Canadians want a justice system that reflects their abhorrence at
the crime of murder, premeditated first degree murder; the
degenerates in our society who believe that they can deliberately
take the life of another individual and then only serve 15 years.
I had a bill before Parliament, a bill that has been endorsed by
every police association across the country, a bill that was endorsed
by every victims' group across this country, a bill that was
endorsed and approved by the overwhelming majority of
Canadians. This government had a choice. It had an option. It could
side with the criminals, it could side with first degree killers,
Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo and others, or it could side with the
victims, the families of victims and the overwhelming majority of
Canadians.
What route did the government take? Initially my bill to repeal
section 745 of the Criminal Code was endorsed in principle. Over
80 Liberal members of Parliament supported that bill. That was the
will of this Parliament, the supreme law-making body in this
country as far as criminal law is concerned. Over 80 Liberal
members of Parliament, including the Minister of National
Defence, the minister of Indian affairs and others indicated
publicly that they would support the repeal of section 745.
That bill, having received the endorsement of this Parliament,
was then sent off to the justice committee. What a farce that was.
The committee members rushed the bill through within a matter of
hours. Is that a reflection of the government's commitment to
consultation? We had mothers of murder victims pleading with the
justice committee. Priscilla de Villiers and others came forward.
Mothers of murder victims pleaded with members of the justice
committee, saying: ``Please bring some sanity to our criminal
justice system''. Those pleas fell on deaf ears.
The Liberal majority on the justice committee decided that they
did not care about their constituents. They were not really
reflecting the views of their constituents or all the people across the
country who want to repeal section 745. Instead they became
voting machines again, trained seals.
(1045 )
They were told what to do by the Prime Minister's office. They
were reflecting a bleeding heart attitude to the criminal justice
system which has caused Canadians to have disrespect for the laws
of this country. Instead of truly representing their constituents and
staying true to the votes they cast in this House of Commons, they
decided to save the Minister of Justice some embarrassment.
The Minister of Justice was listening to a bleeding heart
minority in this country that believes convicted first degree killers
should have the opportunity to be released after 15 years.
Instead of responding to the wishes of Canadians, this
government decided to respond to the wishes of convicted killers.
This government decided to perpetuate the injustice in our criminal
justice system by simply tinkering with section 745 of the Criminal
Code. In so doing, the government not only exhibited an abysmal
ignorance of the will of the Canadian public but it called into
question the parliamentary system.
The other night the Prime Minister said on television that he was
a democrat. He said that he believed in democracy. But democracy
spoke in this House in its purest form. Members of Parliament
voted to repeal in principle section section 745 of the Criminal
Code. Then what did this government do? It used the back door. It
manipulated the process. It voted not to report the bill back to this
House. What a shame and what a shameless act to circumvent the
will of the majority, the will of this House.
Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker, that you in your wisdom decided
that was unjust and undemocratic. Now the opportunity rests with
this House to bring that bill forward. Government members have
the option to change their minds but they would have to reconcile
7429
the votes they cast several years ago to repeal section 745 with
their vote today.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot pretend on a vote to
be committed to criminal law reform and the repeal of section 745
and then acquiesce in this House like trained seals, like voting
machines. Wake up and smell the coffee, my friends. The people of
Canada want changes to the criminal justice system and they want
them now. MPs either represents their constituents or they do not.
They are either true representatives of the people or they are not.
This is not the time to engage in partisan politics. This is the time
to truly represent and bring meaningful changes to the criminal
justice system, and here members of Parliament have that
opportunity. When they go to seek a further mandate from their
constituents they will have to explain to their constituents why they
sat on their hands and allowed themselves to be manipulated by
backroom boys in the Prime Minister's office when they had a
choice. That is what they will have to reconcile.
The repeal of section 745 and criminal law reform are matters
that will put this government to the test in terms of its commitment
and credibility. On many occasions over the past three years the
Prime Minister has invited Canadians to judge his government by
the red book. He waved that red book inside and outside of caucus.
He said ``you judge us based on the red book''.
Lest we forget, there is a major chapter in the red book on
governing with integrity. That was the commitment the Prime
Minister made on tape, on radio and television stations. Each
member of Parliament, I included, went out to the people of
Canada and said: ``Vote for us because we will provide honest
government. We will govern with integrity. We promise you that
we will not be like Brian Mulroney. We will not engage ourselves
in duplicitous governance. We will govern honestly with you, for
you in our government''.
(1050 )
Their actions with respect to section 745 and my private
member's bill would lead one to seriously question the credibility
of this government and would challenge Canadians to reflect on the
promise to govern with integrity. If they were truly governing with
integrity and with honesty they would reflect the wishes of
Canadians.
This is not a frivolous matter for Canadians. This is a serious
matter. They fear for the lives of their family and children. They
want a balanced justice system. It is time government members
woke up and realized what Canadians want.
If they are true democrats in the true sense of the word, then they
will stand and insist that the bill be brought back to this House and
that this House once again pronounce itself. They will have the
option either to vote for or against it.
Dare they vote against the repeal of section 745, each and every
one of their constituents will be made aware of that. The Canadian
Police Association, as we speak, is asking every member of
Parliament to indicate what they have done to contribute to the
amelioration of the criminal justice system in this country. All
members of Parliament should start thinking about what they have
done personally, as a member of Parliament, not as part of a voting
machine but as an individual member of Parliament, to improve the
criminal justice system in this country. Yes, their constituents will
judge them, based on the contributions they have made in
improving the criminal justice system.
I plead with those members of Parliament who have a genuine
interest in criminal law reform to stand up for what they believe in
for a change. Stand up for meaningful changes to the criminal
justice system so that Canadians can stand proud of their elected
representatives.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for York
South-Weston on a very eloquent speech. He hit the points just
right this morning not only about the failure of the Liberal criminal
justice system and the inadequate legislation which has been
brought forward over the last three years but also, and perhaps just
as important, the failure of the Liberal government to live up to its
commitment to Canadians to restore integrity and credibility to the
House of Commons and to the governance of Canada. Perhaps that
is even more important because it strikes at the very heart of the
problems that are inherent in the system of governance which
exists in Canada today.
I have travelled throughout my riding and across Canada and I
know that what the hon. member for York South-Weston said was
very true. Canadians are deeply concerned about the inadequacies
of the justice system. They know that the legislation which has
been brought forward over the past three years is totally inadequate
in addressing the criminal problem which we have in Canada today.
I commend the hon. member for York South-Weston for
bringing forward this private member's bill. Had it been supported
by the Liberal majority, it would have seen the repeal of section
745. It is what Canadians want. It is what they are demanding. It is
what they are crying out for. It is high time that those people over
there started to listen to Canadians.
One of the things I am asked as I travel around the country is
what can we do as individual members of Parliament and what can
Canadians do. Every day we see members of Parliament tabling
petitions in the House. Those petitions are protests from average
Canadians from coast to coast. They are crying out for justice, for
change and for the reform of the system.
7430
I would like to ask the hon. member for York South-Weston
what is the next step. He and others have tried. I have tabled nine
private members' bills in the House of Commons in three years,
and seven motions, trying to move the government of the country
which enjoys the majority in this House. I have tried to move it
in the direction that I feel the majority of Canadians want it to
move in.
(1055)
What can be done now that it has squashed the member's private
member's bill? We know the majority of Canadians are crying out
for that change.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I guess when you are at 50 per cent
in the polls you can afford to be smug and arrogant. However, as a
journalist pointed out the other night, when the government is
faced with honest questions from Canadians, it is like a bucket of
cold water.
The government, it appears, has been sailing along for the last
three years assuming that re-election was a matter of course,
assuming that the Canadian public would continue to support it
regardless of its actions.
Canadians are much smarter than that. History is full of
politicians and political parties that have taken the public for
granted. It is full of politicians and political parties that have
become smug and arrogant.
Many a political party has been leading substantially in public
opinion in between elections. I have been through a lot of elections.
I have seen a lot of politicians and leaders, David Peterson, Lyn
McLeod, Brian Mulroney; the list goes on and on of people who
had substantial support in the weeks and months and a year before
an election.
It is important that Canadians continue to speak out about their
feelings about the criminal justice system. Quite frankly, I am
shocked that people like Darlene Boyd, Debbie Mahaffy, Priscilla
de Villiers and Donna French have not been able to move members
of Parliament with respect to section 745 and criminal law reform.
These are women, mothers who have lost children to murders,
hideous, awful murders that have shocked the country. These are
mothers who, in order to deal with their grief, have channelled their
energies into trying to change the criminal justice system.
There are members of Parliament who pretend to be
sympathetic, who pretend to understand, who pretend to share their
grief. However, when the time comes to be truly representative and
to listen to these mothers who have lost children to murder, what
happens? Members of Parliament turn a deaf ear.
It is important for all Canadians right across the country to
continue to speak out, to continue to challenge their politicians, call
their members of Parliament, tell them how they feel, tell them
that they are not happy, tell them that unless there are meaningful
changes to the criminal justice system, when they have the
opportunity to vote they will take that matter into consideration.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was in my office and I
could not help but rush down here to participate in this debate on
the motion. I would like to put the facts straight.
The only difference between their proposition and our
proposition is on the fundamental debate of whether 745 should be
repealed.
The government members believe that the measures the Minister
of Justice put forth are sound measures. Let me remind the hon.
members that if we had repealed 745, like the member from York
South-Weston wants, like the Reform Party wants, it would not
have prevented the likes of Olson that the member hides behind
today from applying for early review.
Let me state also that repealing 745 will not-
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): I thought you said you
were going to put the facts forward.
Mr. Discepola: As I said, the likes of serial killers like Mr.
Olson and others would have fallen under the previous legislation.
Instead, the legislation said that the government would repeal
section 745 for multiple serial killers. They will not be able to
apply.
(1100)
In addition, in order to condemn a criminal in our society, only
one jurist need object and the person is then innocent. That was
changed. In order to apply for early parole eligibility the jurists
must be unanimous, 13 out of 13. It seems to me that if 13 jurists
agree that this person should apply for early parole, and again I
stress, apply, for eligibility. It does not mean that they will get it.
Only the most naive politician would believe that Clifford Olson
would ever get early parole. I am appalled to hear the Reform Party
and other members hide behind Mr. Olson to promote their own
political agenda. If that party had voted with the government in the
spring, Clifford Olson would not even be able to apply. That is what
the debate is about. Shame on those members.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am frankly surprised that the
parliamentary secretary would continue to be dishonest about the
true facts. The fact is, had the government acted-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. I think the hon.
member for York South-Weston, an experienced member, knows
that it would be quite improper to suggest that any hon. member is
dishonest. I would ask him to consider his words very carefully
and, in fact, withdraw the words he used in suggesting that the
parliamentary secretary is dishonest.
7431
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I unequivocally withdraw that.
However, I would like to add that it is an unequivocal misstatement
of fact to suggest that Clifford Olson would not have been able to
apply for parole. If the government repealed section 745 when my
private member's bill was before Parliament, he would not have
had the opportunity to apply.
I am not suggesting that Clifford Olson would ever be released
prematurely. I am objecting to the fact this law gives him the right
to drag the families of victims through the criminal justice system
again after serving only 15 years. That is the injustice of section
745.
I conclude with this. Eighty per cent of those who apply are
successful. Is that the result the government wants, to prematurely
release convicted killers?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): At the request of the
government whip, the division on the motion stands deferred until
5.30 p.m. today.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to present
two petitions to the House, duly certified by the clerk of petitions
on behalf of 416 individuals from across Canada.
The first petition, signed by 28 Canadians, calls on Parliament to
urge the federal government to join with the provincial
governments to make the national highway system upgrading
possible beginning in 1997.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition signed by 388 Canadians, asks Parliament to
zero rate books, magazines and newspapers under the GST.
(1105 )
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
petition sponsored by the Canadian Automobile Association
entitled Roads Work.
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with the provincial governments to make the
upgrading of the national highway system possible in 1997.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have five petitions to present to the House today.
Three of the petitions pray that Parliament have our present laws
on obscenity strictly upheld thus demonstrating a will to protect the
men, women and children of Canada from pornography.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the other two petitions the constituents point out that in
the last 10 years gasoline prices have risen 466 per cent.
The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline in the next election. I fully agree with their
prayer.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to present a petition signed by about 650 British
Columbians, some of whom are my constituents.
The petitioners ask that reading not be taxed. They state that the
application of the 7 per cent GST to reading material is unfair and
wrong. Therefore, they urge all levels of government to
demonstrate their commitment to education and literacy by
eliminating the sales tax on reading materials.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from the citizens of Peterborough who wish to abolish
nuclear weapons.
The petitioners point out that 30,000 nuclear weapons still exist
on earth. They also point out that the International Court of Justice
stated that there exists an obligation to pursuing good faith and
7432
bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament
in all its aspects under strict, effective international control.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable for
the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition which is from residents who are concerned about
the state of the national highway system.
The petitioners call on Parliament and urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
upgrading of the national highway system possible.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my last
petition is from citizens of Peterborough who are concerned about
the national AIDS strategy.
The petitioners point out that the national AIDS strategy, phase
II, will expire on March 31, 1998 and that there is no commitment
to renew or extend it.
The petitioners call on Parliament to ensure dedicated AIDS
funding beyond March 1998 and to renew the national AIDS
strategy.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have several
petitions.
The first petition has to do with the rights of grandparents and
access to grandchildren. The petitioners ask that the Divorce Act be
amended so that in no case may a father or mother without serious
cause place obstacles between the child and grandparents. For the
sake of brevity I will not read the whole thing.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions that in essence ask Parliament not to amend any acts that
would give special rights and privileges to homosexuals.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition
that deals with a local issue. There is a very famous national park in
my riding called the Elk Island National Park.
The petitioners ask that full access be maintained to that park
and that the roads be kept open. There was a threat the roads would
be closed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two more
petitioners that deal with taxes, a very hot subject.
The petitioners ask Parliament not to increase the federal excise
tax on gasoline. There is another budget coming and they are
concerned.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition
which very emphatically asks the government not to tax reading
and to remove all GST from reading materials.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a number of petitions. The first petition deals with the fact
that the percentage of Canadians over age 65 will almost double
over the next 40 years from 12 per cent today to 23 per cent by the
year 2030. The petitioners call on Parliament to work toward fair
and sustainable income programs for seniors, ensuring those in
need receive adequate and stable support.
(1110)
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): The next
petition, Mr. Speaker, deals with the fact that police and firefighters
are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their
duties on a daily basis, but the employment benefits of police and
firefighters offer insufficient compensation to the families of those
who are killed while on duty.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to establish a fund
known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of
duty.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition deals with the fact that although Canada's crime rate
fell again in 1995, its fourth annual drop following 30 years of
almost constant increase, the petitioners call on Parliament to
continue to take a tough line on crime and enact laws that will
provide Canadians with the safe home and safe streets they so
rightly deserve.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty to present two
petitions.
The first petition is signed by 138 residents almost exclusively
from the city of Calgary. They ask Parliament to zero rate books,
magazines and newspapers under the GST and under the proposed
harmonized sales tax, and they ask the Prime Minister to carry out
7433
his party's repeated and unequivocal promise to remove federal
sales tax from books, magazines and newspapers.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by 28 residents of the city of Calgary. It
calls on Parliament to urge the federal government to join with the
provincial governments to make the upgrading of the national
highway system possible beginning in 1997.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my honour to present two petitions which have been duly certified
by the clerk and forwarded to me by the residents of
Oakville-Milton.
The petitioners call on the government to conduct a public
inquiry into the relationship between lending institutions and the
judiciary and to enact legislation restricting the appointment of
judges with ties to credit granting institutions.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, calls on the government to proceed with
amendments to the Criminal Code that will ensure that the sentence
given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing
injury or death while impaired truly reflects the severity of this
crime.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present
a petition from people in my riding and in neighbouring ridings that
draws to the attention of the House the fact that 38 per cent of the
national highway system is substandard.
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
upgrading of the national highway system possible.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions.
The first petition is signed by a number of Canadians who are
concerned about the criminal justice system. The petitioners say it
is not fair and does not demand that criminals pay for their crimes.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament recognize the
need for change within the justice system and work to put the
victims' rights ahead of those of the criminals.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition prays and requests that Parliament
proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that
will ensure that sentences given to people who drink and drive and
anyone convicted of impaired driving causing death would receive
a minimum sentence of seven years.
The petitioners pray that Parliament consider that particular
amendment to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition urges all levels of government to
demonstrate their support of education and literacy by eliminating
sales tax on reading materials.
The petitioners pray and ask Parliament to zero rate books,
magazines and newspapers under the GST.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to present this morning.
The first petition, along with many others in the House this
morning, is an appeal to governments to not tax reading and to
remove the GST on books.
I present these petitions on behalf of myself and of the member
for Lethbridge.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): The
second petition is from constituents around British Columbia who
are bringing to the attention of the government the substandard
national highway system.
The petitioners pray that the government would join with the
provincial governments to make the upgrading of the national
highway system possible.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition is on behalf of residents from all over
British Columbia as well as some residents in my riding.
(1115 )
The petitioners state that the gay and lesbian people want their
families to be self-supporting, free of government interference and
to be valued for being active tax paying members of Canada.
Therefore, they request Parliament to amend the current definition
of spouse to include same sex couples so all Canadian families can
be treated equally.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today. The first one is from Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that our police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily
basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also
state that in many cases the families of officers and firefighters
killed in the line of duty are left without sufficient financial means
to meet their obligations. The petitioners therefore pray and call on
Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund
7434
to receive gifts and bequests for the benefit of families of police
officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Oshawa, Ontario.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society. The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
pursue initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in
the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the
disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is from Kentville, Nova Scotia.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or
impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome or
other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by
avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy. The petitioners
therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require
health warning labels to be placed on containers of all alcoholic
beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks
associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is with respect to section 745. There are several
hundred signatories to be added to the hundreds of thousands of
Canadians who have submitted petitions. The petitioners from
Richmond Hill and Woodbridge are asking that the Government of
Canada immediately repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code, the
provision that allows convicted killers to apply for early release.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is with respect to the Young Offenders Act and
is signed by constituents in the city of Cornwall, Ontario. They call
on this government to immediately bring in a new Young Offenders
Act empowering the courts to prosecute and punish the young law
breakers who are terrorizing our society by releasing their names
and lowering the age limit to allow prosecution to meet the severity
of the crime.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by
residents of Swift Current, Saskatchewan and district.
The petitioners state that whereas 38 per cent of the national
highway system is substandard and whereas Mexico and the United
States are upgrading their national highway systems, the
petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal government to
join with provincial governments to make the national highway
system upgrading possible.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it agreed?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I know you are aware that I have
Question No. 9 on the Order Paper. It has been on the Order Paper
since February 28 of this year. Prior to that the same question was
on the Order Paper in the first session of this Parliament.
The question simply states: ``What is the total dollar amount
spent on advertising by the government and its crown agencies in
fiscal years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 by province in each of the
following mediums: television, radio, daily newspapers, weekly
newspapers, monthly newspapers, billboards and direct mail?''
What I am trying to find out is if the federal departments can be
accountable for how they spend their advertising dollars. Certainly
they should be.
Mr. Speaker, you will probably recall this because at one time
you were the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and I
raised this issue with you many moons ago. You assured me that all
but four departments had done their work, had presented the
information and that the information would be forthcoming. I have
since talked to your successor and he assured me that all the
information had been gathered and it was just a matter of putting it
in a report and that I should have it shortly.
I keep talking privately with the government House leader's
office. I have not received an answer to my question. Lately I have
had no assurance that it would be answered at all.
I am very confused by the mixed messages I am getting from the
government House leader's office, and particularly his
parliamentary secretary. Perhaps because his last name starts with
Z he is the last one to know what is going on. However, I am getting
tired of waiting.
7435
(1120 )
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. colleague that the Bible
says that the last shall be first. I am sure an assurance was
previously given but I reassure my hon. colleague that we are
working on his request.
It is somewhat simplistic to presume that asking for information
on four years of work literally involving hundreds and hundreds of
groups and agencies within the Government of Canada is just a
matter of pressing a button. It is important for the hon. member to
remember that civil servants are spending their good time doing
other important work for the people of Canada. While this matter is
urgent in his mind, the reality is that it is not forthcoming with the
same due speed he would wish.
I know he is a patient man and we hope to have the answer before
Christmas.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Everyone knows the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is, as the parliamentary
secretary says, a patient man.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I would like it verified which
Christmas we are talking about.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I assure my hon. colleague that we are
hoping it will be a Christmas in the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question was, shall
the questions stand. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7435
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-60, an act to
establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and
amend other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There are 36 motions in
amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill
C-60.
[Translation]
Motion No. 2 is identical to a motion proposed and rejected in
committee. Consequently, and pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5),
it will not be selected.
Motion No. 35 cannot be submitted to the House, because it has
not received the governor general's recommendation. Standing
Order 76(3) requires that notice of such a recommendation be
given no later than the sitting day before the day on which the
report stage is to commence.
[English]
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group
No. 3, Motions Nos. 1, 13, 22 and 23. Group No. 4, Motion No. 5.
Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 12 and 21.
[Translation]
Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 14 to 18, and Motion No. 36.
[English]
Group No. 7, Motions Nos. 19 and 20. Group No. 8, Motions
Nos. 24, 25 and 26.
[Translation]
Group No. 9, Motions Nos. 27 to 30.
Group No. 10, Motions Nos. 31, 32 and 33.
[English]
Group No. 11, Motion No. 34.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting. I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1,
13, 22 and 23 to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-60, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 1 the
following:
``AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada promises to respect the legislative
authority of the provinces;''
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-60, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 4 the
following:
``(4.1) Notwithstanding subsection (4), where the Minister proposes to establish
any policy or standard under that subsection, the Minister shall consult each
province before establishing that policy or standard with a view to obtaining the
agreement of the provinces to the proposed policy or standard.
(4.2) Where, after being consulted under subsection (4.1), a province advises the
Minister that it disagrees with the proposed policy or standard and the Minister then
establishes that policy or standard, the policy or standard shall not be applicable to
the province where the province also advises the Minister that it does not wish that
policy or standard to apply to the province.''
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-60, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 30 on page 6
with the following:
``20. The Minister may enter''
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 35 on page 6 the following new
Clause:
7436
``20.1 No agreement entered into by the Minister under section 20 shall infringe
upon any power that the province may exercise over the inspection of food or a related
matter pursuant to section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.''
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Yesterday when I was moving a motion
regarding travel for the standing committee on human rights, I
believe there was an error. Either I misspoke or there was an error
in transmission.
In any event, for further clarification, I would like to seek the
unanimous consent of the House to amend the motion or to move a
motion that would indicate ``televised hearings''. Therefore, I
move:
That, as part of its study of new technologies and privacy rights, six members of
the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and Fredericton
during the week of February 10 to 14, 1997, for the purpose of holding televised
hearings, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the
terms of the motion proposed by the parliamentary secretary. Is
there unanimous consent that the House consider the motion at this
time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is not unanimous
consent. Or did the no mean yes and it is agreed that we can
consider the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the
terms of the motion proposed by the parliamentary secretary. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-60, an act to
establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and
amend other Acts as a consequence, as reported by the committee
with amendments, and of Motions Nos. 1, 13, 22 and 23.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
you have done such a nice job of reading the amendments, which
we introduced this morning with the help of my colleague, the
member for Lotbinière, and since you have grouped the motions,
including Motions No. 1, 13, 22 and 23, in Group 3, you will note
that they refer essentially to the federal government's intention of
interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction. Naturally, we must
condemn this vigorously throughout this 35th Parliament, since
this government takes advantage of its vast spending authority to
blunder into areas of jurisdiction that, in many cases, are strictly
the preserve of the provinces.
I am pleased to lead off the debate at report stage of Bill C-60.
Through this legislative measure, the federal government is getting
ready to create the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
The basic responsibility of this new parapublic agency will be to
set standards for the safety, quality and manufacture of Canadian
food products, as well as to develop minimum standards for
imported products. This is obviously a very weighty responsibility
for the government, and I am not in any way questioning the good
intentions of the departments involved or their concern for public
health.
(1130)
However, I would like to remind the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and the cabinet generally that their policies are hardly
original.
I would point out that Quebec has had unified food inspection
services for close to 20 years, yes, a 20-year head start on Canada.
The federal government has wasted 20 years meddling in
provincial jurisdictions in an attempt to get a glimpse of what they
were up to so that it could then turn around and adopt the same
strategies.
In terms of results, it would be hard to think of a worse approach,
but then this is typical of this country: going over old ground,
rewriting existing legislation, and changing the commas in order to
be able to call it something new. Finally, let us return to the initial
point of my speech, instead of launching into a stinging criticism of
the state of this over-bureaucratized country.
As I was saying before, the purpose of Bill C-60 is to establish
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Although this agency comes
under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, it will consolidate the inspection services of two other
major departments: Health and Fisheries. This leads me to believe
that the federal government has studied the Quebec model
thoroughly, for the bill provides for essentially the same bodies as
in the Quebec government's system.
But the worst is yet to come. In its bill, the government calls for
the agency, once created, to take precedence over all other food
inspection systems. I find this federal attitude more than a little
insolent.
7437
I would like to draw the attention of the minister and his cabinet
colleagues to a concept that is very simple, but ever so hard for
the federalists to grasp: interference. This is a gift possessed by
certain categories of people, particularly those elected members
who belong to a federalist party, to duplicate, and even to deny
the existence of, Quebec's distinctiveness in administrative and
other matters.
Parliamentary rules prevent me from naming these individuals
who are such past masters of the art of denying Quebec its
fundamental right to affirm its identity and its distinctiveness. I
cannot name names, but I can assure you that there are so many of
them in this House, that they take up more than one side of it.
We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that the government is
showing its arrogance toward Quebec and the other provinces by
attempting, in the preamble of this bill, to assume a certain
legitimate right over provincial activities.
In this connection, our amendment is aimed at limiting the
impact of such an element, which would have the effect of
dismissing all of Quebec's demands in one fell swoop. For decades,
the provinces, Quebec in particular, have been objecting to the
federal government's attempts to restrict some of the provinces'
vested powers, and even to grab up those powers, without any
consideration of the provinces' constitutional jurisdiction in these
spheres of activity.
The federal government is increasingly moving to centralize
powers, while continuing to claim that it is doing the contrary, in
order to downplay its illegitimate actions. Such cavalier
interference into areas of provincial jurisdiction cannot help but
slow down the constructive discourse that could be initiated
between the provinces and the federal government. The Liberal
Party, with its eye on the next election, is in the process of
undermining the credibility of the agency in question. According to
Liberal logic, the agency could control all food inspection services
in the country by developing national standards. To us this is
unacceptable, because it considerably restricts the ability of the
provinces to establish and administer their own set of standards.
(1135)
The provinces would otherwise be free to decide whether or not
they wished to go along with certain food safety standards that are
more a matter of local custom than public health. Perhaps I may
recall what happened last spring, when the Bloc Quebecois
protested against the decision of the Minister of Health to prohibit
and indeed ban consumption of raw milk cheese.
You will recall that Quebec is by far the biggest consumer of this
kind of cheese. In the other provinces where this kind of cheese is
eaten, consumers are mostly former Quebecers or people who have
been to Quebec and who appreciate this type of cheese. This is one
example of eating habits in Quebec that are different from those in
other parts of Canada.
At the Department of Health, people were thinking about all this,
and probably because they had nothing else to do and had to justify
their pay cheque, they said: ``From now on, no more raw milk
cheese will be imported or manufactured; cheese will have to be
made with pasteurized milk''. Of course there was a howl of protest
from the official opposition, supported by consumers. I remember
that someone put a question about this to the Minister of Labour,
whose roots are Italian. I cannot refer to him by name, but he is a
fellow citizen, formerly from Italy. When he saw he would no
longer be able to get his favourite cheese, he said: ``Oh dear, I will
have to talk about this to my minister, because she is making a
serious mistake''. See, that is a good example.
In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, they make a kind of
tourtière called cipâte, made with partridge and hare. It is a local
specialty. Tomorrow morning, an inspector with the new agency
might say: ``Cipâte is no good; it might be dangerous to the health
of the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. So there will be a nation-wide ban
on making tourtières with hare and partridge''.
I realize you are going to say I am exaggerating. Eighteen
months ago, who would have thought that a few senior officials at
the Department of health would consider banning the consumption
of the best cheese in Canada? But it happened.
Without the media coverage, the government would never have
backed down under pressure from the Bloc Quebecois. Not that the
Bloc was incapable of doing a good job as the official opposition,
but because the government, although this is a constitutional
monarchy, often behaves like an autocratic and totalitarian
government. It prefers to ignore the public interest and support the
interests of the major lobby groups, while maintaining an illusion
of power based on order and the public good.
In concluding, Bill C-60 is an important bill that will affect three
departments. We in the Bloc Quebecois found a number of weak
points in Bill C-60.
(1140)
We intend to introduce more than 35 amendments in the course
of the day, and my colleagues and I will do everything we can to try
and make the Liberal majority think twice. I know that several
people on the government benches think our amendments are very
constructive and could improve the bill considerably. The purpose
of the first group of amendments is simply to prevent the federal
government from infringing on provincial jurisdictions.
7438
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we are at the report stage of Bill C-60. My colleague
from the Bloc Quebecois has proposed a large number of
amendments.
This bill went to committee prior to second reading, and the
purpose of a bill's going to a standing committee of the House of
Commons before coming to this House for approval in principle is
to allow the committee more opportunity to make amendments and
reshape the bill in the most effective and useful manner after
hearing witnesses and government officials give reason for the bill
and what should be in it and what should be changed from the
initial bill tabled.
Reform tried to use this opportunity to introduce several
amendments at committee stage. In fact, 25 Reform amendments
were proposed in committee during the clause by clause
consideration of the bill after we had heard from a number of
witnesses.
Because we have introduced our amendments at committee stage
we of course are unable to reintroduce the same amendments at
report stage. Therefore we have not introduced amendments at this
point because we sensed a wall of resistance by the government to
any proposals we would make.
The rationale behind the majority of our amendments to this bill
was simply to make the new single food inspection agency more
accountable to Parliament. I have noticed that some of the
amendments proposed by my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois
move in that same direction, but often in a slightly different vein
than those amendments we proposed. Even in committee my
colleagues from the Bloc and Reformers often voted together on
issues where we could make the food inspection agency more
accountable to the Parliament of Canada and not just leave it as an
option that the committee at the wishes of the government could
look into the effectiveness of this new agency, but in fact that it
must review the effectiveness of the agency and that the agency
must be more accountable to this institution.
Over the years Parliament has less knowledge and less control
over what is happening in the vast bureaucracy, the new agencies
that have been constructed by governments. We feel that the trend
needs to be reversed.
While the government members of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food could at any time review anything, we
all know that because the committee has a majority of government
members, the committee need not review anything if the
government does not wish it to.
We are trying to reverse that trend so that government will be
seen to be more accountable and will indeed be more accountable.
The new food inspection agency begins its operation under this
legislation in 1997. It will become one of Ottawa's largest
bureaucratic entities, with 4,500 employees and a budget of $300
million. We are not talking small potatoes here at all.
Federal officials contend that ending interdepartmental overlap
and duplication in such areas as enforcement, risk management,
laboratory services, informatic systems and communications will
save taxpayers $44 million annually starting in 1998-99. But
surprisingly, no detailed breakdown is available to back up this
estimate.
When we ask questions about where exactly is the $44 million
going to be saved, departmental officials did not know where that
was. They really had not arrived at that stage yet. It was just a
figure they seemed to have pulled out of the air and expected the
savings to be realized.
(1145)
We are very concerned about this new federal food inspection
agency not because we think it is a bad idea but because we see
examples of previous experiments along this line and what has
happened. The most obvious one is the Pest Management
Regulatory Agency, which was created to be accountable and
responsible to the department of agriculture. However, it has run
amok and has no confidence by and from the industry. This was
revealed the other day in our committee when several people from
the industry appeared on the issue of cost recovery. The prime
example they put forward as an illustration of the failures of cost
recovery was the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which was
designed very much along the same lines as this agency.
Therefore, members will understand why we are concerned that
this agency be held more accountable to Parliament and to the
committee that reviews the effectiveness and the work of the
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
As I said, 25 Reform amendments were put forward in
committee and only two were accepted, one being a clarification of
which minister was responsible for the federal good inspection
agency. There was some concern because the minister of
agriculture was not put in the original document and in fact the
government may be intending to do away with the department of
agriculture. Therefore we insisted that amendment be included.
The other amendment that was accepted was in the preface of the
document. It merely indicated that part of the mission statement of
this new agency was to be cost effective. I am very pleased that was
put in the preface of the legislation. Unfortunately, when we tried
to give it some teeth by putting forward amendments in the actual
clauses of the bill that would ensure its cost effectiveness, the
government put up a wall of resistance and refused to accept every
and any amendment we put forward.
7439
We think that actually more than $44 million could be saved
if the government knew what it was doing and had a responsible
plan in place and had actually thought this thing through more than
picking a number of $44 million out of the air.
With regard to my amendments put forward by this grouping by
the Bloc, Motion No. 1 is an amendment that would require the
government to respect the legislative authority of the provinces but
it does not deal with much else. This may be considered symbolic
but we think it looks like a motion that could be supported because
we certainly do recognize that in some areas the provinces do have
authority.
With regard to Motions. Nos. 13, 22 and 23, we do have some
concerns, particularly on Motion No. 13. While consultation with
the provinces is to be applauded and we support it, the fact that
each province's approval is required to establish standards does
cause us concern that we may see some trade barriers developing
between the provinces, above and beyond what we already have,
using standards as a way to protect one's own provincial area of the
industry at the expense of a neighbouring province. Of course that
is not the way to unify the country. We really do have some
concerns about Motions Nos. 13 and 22.
Motion No. 23 is another amendment with respect to the
jurisdiction of the provinces. We support their jurisdiction but are
not sure that this particular jurisdiction needs to be entrenched at
this point in the act.
I think I will have more opportunities to speak to this bill as we
progress through the various groupings.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is
absolutely no question that the federal government gives a great
deal of consideration to the jurisdiction of the provinces and
believes that the jurisdiction of the provinces is the provincial
responsibility. We also believe very strongly in the process of
consultation with the provinces and with all the stakeholders in the
industry. There is no question that is important.
As well, this government has certainly set forward the
committee's ability to deal with all issues and all matters that come
to its concern that it wishes to further explore. A committee
certainly has the ability to deal with issues such as PMRA,
provincial-federal agreements and any other issue that comes
forward.
(1150 )
There is no way that this government wishes to infringe upon the
provincial ability. However, we feel that the amendments which are
being put forward at present are really not needed within the bill.
This government has and will continue to respect the jurisdictional
legislative authority of the provinces. Indeed, clauses 14, 20 and 21
of Bill C-60 significantly enhance the ability of the federal
government to collaborate with the provinces while fully
respecting the provincial jurisdictions.
With respect to entering into agreements with the provinces,
such federal-provincial corporations may be involved with matters
of potential financial liability. These arrangements will have to be
reviewed by the finance minister.
Clearly, the government will enter into agreements only which
explicitly allow provincial agreement by the provinces. In other
words, we are not going to enter into an agreement with the
province and say the federal side wants this, but the province has
no say. An agreement is an agreement; it is an agreement between
two parties. As a result, the federal government and the provincial
governments will agree before a document is signed.
Furthermore, the Government of Canada will continue to respect
the jurisdictional level of all governments. I should note with
respect to the roles and responsibilities of the Minister of Health
that the intent of clause 11(4) is to clarify and not alter the role of
the Minister of Health in establishing food safety standards. The
current process of establishing food health and safety standards
already provides for consultations with stakeholders and includes
the provinces.
The federal jurisdiction includes setting food safety standards
for all Canadians under the Food and Drugs Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the last time I
spoke in this House on the bill establishing the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency, I spoke of reducing costly overlap and
advocated harmonizing and simplifying standards so as to reduce
the burden of regulatory requirements and promote competition in
business.
I concluded my argument by saying that the focus had to be on
co-operation between partners and respect for legislative
jurisdictions. I even invited my colleagues to reread sections 91 to
95 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which apparently they did not do.
The Province of Quebec combined its food inspection activities
in 1978. Now it is the federal government's turn, and it is proposing
the same thing. It wants to harmonize. That is all very well, but
there is no need to upset the established order. The rules must be
obeyed.
I want to direct your attention to the lack of compliance with the
Constitution and the lack of respect for our partners, the provinces
and the employees. The present government finally decided, in
1996, to standardize food inspection.
In his latest budget, the Minister of Finance announced his
financial game plan for this new agency. I would remind you that
that was on March 6. Here we are, a few days away from
7440
Christmas, and the federal government is pushing members of
Parliament to pass their bill.
And I mean their bill, because there was no serious consultation.
Although the briefs submitted to the Commons Standing
Committee on Agriculture contained some very sound remarks,
they remained on the shelf like dead ducks, in my opinion. The
government apparently did not take them into consideration,
because it continues to propose the same bill at the various stages
of the process, with very few amendments.
(1155)
In my first speech, I denounced the fact that, as presented by the
government, this agency might become a real patronage haven, and
this is an understatement. The Liberals want to use the new
Canadian Food Inspection Agency to reward their friends. At first,
it will have only a few members like the president and board
members. But two years later, the agency having moved and the
employees having lost their permanent status, new appointments
will be made. Who knows what the future holds. There might be a
few Liberal candidates here and there who will have bitten the dust
in the election.
Subtlety is not our Liberal friends' strong suit. It is obvious that,
through this bill and clause 5, the minister is trying to give himself
the power to appoint the president and the executive vice-president.
The odds are he will probably designate a friend or an old
classmate, as is so often the case.
Then, under clause 10, the minister wants to appoint an advisory
board of 12 members. Have you ever seen a cowboy movie with
only one bandit? There is always a gang, is there not?
Also, the minister will choose individuals who share his vision.
Like-minded people do business together, belong to the same party,
help one another. Unfortunately, the Liberal fraternity is still very
well represented in this House.
Worse yet, under section 22, the minister will approve the
agency's corporate or five-year business plan. Can we let that
happen? It is understandable, under the circumstances, that the
minister wants to retain a degree of flexibility just in case. If that is
not remote control, it certainly is acute interference. The
government is trying to control the agency and turn it into a club
for its friends.
Under clause 11(4), the Chrétien government, through its health
minister, will be able to establish policies and standards relating to
the safety and nutritional quality of food. That is exclusively the
prerogative of the provinces. As in the case of raw milk cheese, the
government is interfering in something that does not concern it.
All this is far from reassuring in terms of our government's
transparency. Some will say there is nothing new under the sun, and
they will be partly right, as far as this government is concerned. As
you know, I am a straight talker and I like to see people get their
due.
I often say that we have to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
However, in the case before us today, Quebec could end up
indirectly subsidizing the inspection services of other provinces,
under clauses 20 and 21, which provide for the establishment of
federal-provincial corporations. There is a real possibility that
Quebec could end up paying for this. Looking at how the federal
government deals with the other provinces-and I am thinking of
the GST harmonization process-you realize that ``la belle
province'' is heavily penalized.
The Bloc proposed many reasonable amendments, to make sure
the agency is immune to discrimination and patronage, so it cannot
be misused by the Liberal government. But the Liberals refuse to
make the necessary changes, because these changes would
adversely affect their plans. The fact is that the agency will become
a real haven of patronage.
The Liberals are in a bit of a hurry to pass certain bills before
Christmas. This is not good.
There is something suspicious. Given what the Liberals are
trying to do with this legislation, nothing should surprise us any
more. It is easy to figure out that the Liberal government is trying
to score political points, to win votes, with this bill. An election
will be called in the spring. That is why the government is in such a
hurry.
We in the Bloc Quebecois have proposed amendments designed
to protect our fellow citizens. We want transparency. We believe
the House of Commons committee should monitor or be otherwise
involved in the process.
The bill, as presented by the Liberals, is a step backward, not
forward.
(1200)
This government did nothing to promote debate. I am talking
about a meaningful public debate on the quality of Canadian and
imported foods.
What type and level of services are we going to provide in order
to protect our fellow citizens? Would you believe the government
restricted consultations with the producers, provinces and unions
concerned. Members of this House are the only ones left to block
this legislation. Any hope for transparency in the establishment of
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency now depends on the will of
the members of this House to vote according to their conscience
and for what is reasonable.
I am thinking of the bill to create this agency, because it is
necessary and it is important. But it should be amended to
eliminate the possibility of patronage appointments.
7441
Furthermore, are they afraid to hold a serious debate on the
quality of our services? One could think so, given the fleetingness
of the consultation. There was no consultation, because the
Liberals are in a hurry to ram their bills through.
In conclusion, the government is locating the agency in the
National Capital Region, but for how long? Here again, we must be
vigilant, for they could be tempted to move the head office around,
depending on where they want to score political points. That is
their long term escape plan. This will be a blow to many honest
employees in the National Capital Region. Their rights will be
disregarded.
The Liberals are masters of patronage and political intrigue. In
all sincerity, I must oppose the government's Bill C-60. I urge my
colleagues to vote against it.
In addition, I urge Liberal members to vote freely and join us in
rejecting this bill. In the past, a member of this House stated, not
without attracting attention, that patronage was a political fact of
life. I, for one, say that we must stand up and condemn this manner
of operating. If bills leave the way open to patronage, they should
be rejected.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but his time is up.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the report stage amendments to Bill C-60, the
legislation which will put in place the federal food inspection
agency. I will be making presentations as we go through these
groups of motions but I will only speak to Motions Nos. 1 and 13
from group 3.
First, I support the amendment in group 1. It could be considered
to be a symbolic amendment which asks the federal government to
respect the legislative authority of the provinces with regard to this
legislation. It is important, it is not strictly symbolic and it deserves
to be supported.
This amendment deals with process. I would like to quote from a
brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture,
probably Canada's largest organization representing farmers across
the country. The brief was given to the committee dealing with Bill
C-60. I will read a couple of paragraphs from it. I think it should be
entered in Hansard. I support most of what is presented by the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture in these two paragraphs.
It talks about the process although in part the process that has led
up to this legislation being where it is right now.
(1205 )
``The intention to streamline efforts to save costs and create a
more efficient system is one which CFA has supported from the
outset. The consultation process concerning the structure of the
new streamlined entity was good as far as it went.
``One of the major failings from an industry point of view, even
now as the legislation works its way through Parliament, is a real
business plan with costs and realistic revenue projections that can
be shared with those who are effectively the shareholders. As cost
recovery systems become part of business life, government must
realize that, as in any other business, those who pay call the tune.
When industry is forced to pay user fees it considers itself not just a
stakeholder, but a shareholder''.
I have just one more paragraph from the brief presented by the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the agriculture committee.
``From this point of view, it is somewhat difficult to comment on
the legislation Bill C-60. As are most other pieces of new
legislation, it is enabling legislation. Most of the detail will be in
the regulations which we do not have to review. We also do not
have a clear understanding of the financing of the agency.
Statements such as: `There will be no new cost recovery fees for
the first year of operation, April 1997 to March 31, 1998', when the
industry knows that a new battery of fees will be imposed on April
1, 1997, create at best a level of scepticism, at worst, a level of
distrust. The fact that the legislation creates a single stand alone
food inspection agency with no clear accountability to shareholders
gives us pause. What are we being asked to comment on?''
The closing question is what are they being asked to comment
on? That is so true. With this legislation, as with so much other
legislation that is presented to the House, it has a very broad scope,
without enough detail, not enough clear guidance and restriction. It
implements an institution and a policy which is uncertain at best.
That is what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is saying. It is
also a big concern to me.
The devil is in the details. The regulations will not be debated
and passed in the House either at committee or right here on the
floor. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is very upset about it
and so am I. It has presented its case very well on this new agency.
It does not approve of the process.
I support Motion No. 1 dealing with another part of the process,
asking for the approval of the provinces in regard to this
legislation.
The second motion from this grouping I would like to speak on is
Motion No. 13. I oppose this amendment.
The amendment requires the minister to establish policy
standards in consultation with the provinces. I approve of that part
of the amendment. Of course there should be consultation with the
provinces. There should be approval from the provinces. However,
the amendment requires the approval of each province.
7442
Of all governments, this government should know how difficult
it is to get unanimous consent of the provinces on an issue such
as this. To its credit, the government took the initiative to put in
place the agreement on internal trade. It is an agreement which
required the unanimous consent of the provinces to remove some
of the trade barriers between the provinces that have been put in
place over the last 130 years.
(1210 )
Unfortunately many sections of the agreement on internal trade
are blank because the government could not get the unanimous
agreement of the provinces. Even the completed sections are not
being honoured. It is almost impossible to do anything about an
infringement or failure to honour the agreement because it requires
unanimous consent of all provinces. It does not work. This
amendment calls for unanimous consent of the provinces but it is
highly unlikely that any major change like this would ever pass.
With regard to the agreement on internal trade, I propose-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Could the hon.
member conclude his remarks in the next few seconds, please?
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I thought I had only spoken for
five minutes. I guess our watches are not synchronized.
In closing, since we cannot get unanimous consent in regard to
the agreement on internal trade, other Reformers and I have
proposed that instead of a requirement for unanimous consent there
should be a requirement for the approval of at least two-thirds of
the provinces which would include at least 50 per cent of the
population, the double majority. This is just an example. I am not
saying exactly what should be done here.
I would probably support that kind of formula in this
amendment. But it is not there so I do not support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak once again to Bill C-60, an act to establish the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other
Acts as a consequence.
As I have said before in this House, the need for a federal food
inspection agency comes from pressure exerted by municipal and
provincial governments, the agricultural sector, fisheries and even
consumers.
The setting up of a single food inspection authority was therefore
awaited anxiously, but not at any price and particularly not under
just any conditions.
When Bill C-60 was examined in committee, and in this House,
the Bloc Quebecois presented numerous amendments, which we
are to debate today. The reason for so doing is simple: the bill, as
presented, is deficient in a number of areas. It has, therefore, been
necessary to improve it, primarily in order to reassure the
agriculture and agri-food sector, and especially to ensure that the
federal government respects provincial jurisdiction over food
inspections.
I would, therefore, like to explain to my colleagues on the
government side the reasons why the amendments presented by the
Bloc Quebecois are necessary, useful, unavoidable even, if we do
not wish to see the Canadian Food Inspection Agency become
another den of patronage and source of conflict between the
provinces and agricultural industry representatives.
I will, therefore, explain why it is vital for the government to
accept, and vote in favour of, the amendments we are debating
today. The situation is as follows: the initial block of amendments
address the appointment of future directors of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency.
Bill C-60, as tabled by the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, offers no guarantee of the competency and expertise of
those who will be selected as president and vice-president of the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
We believe it is vital for the bill to be amended so as to ensure
that the person directing the agency is not selected for his political
allegiance to the party in power, but rather for his real abilities in
the area of food inspection. These appointments must, of course,
take place after the provinces and organizations representing
agricultural interests have submitted to the advisory committee the
names of candidates for those positions.
(1215)
Since this is about the quality of decision making in the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the government can hardly
refuse to support amendments in this respect. Common sense and a
desire to avoid wasting public funds should be more important than
the government's partisan interests. This is a matter of fairness and
common sense.
The second group of amendments refers to the powers of the
advisory board, which board shall advise the minister of agriculture
on the mandate of the agency. The Bloc Quebecois wants to make
sure that the minister obtains from the advisory board all the data,
opinions and expertise he needs to make informed decisions.
To be able to do so, the board must be given broader powers.
That is why we suggest that Bill C-60 give the advisory board the
authority to speak out on all matters it deems relevant to food
inspection.
The amendments we are proposing will give the advisory board
the authority to answer all questions and speak out on all issues
submitted to it by the inspection industry, the provinces and the
representatives of its employees.
7443
We also want the advisory board to be able to give its opinion
on inspection service rates, facilities, products and the rights of
the agency. The purpose of these amendments is to let the advisory
board take a position on the real issues at stake in food inspection.
We do not want a puppet advisory board at the beck and call of
the responsible minister.
That having been said, the membership of the advisory board
will also have to be changed. The amendment we are proposing
would add one representative of the union or unions present in the
agency. We think it is necessary to include agency employees in the
board's consulting process if we want to keep abreast of what is
really happening out there in the food inspection sector.
I believe that the quality of the services offered by the agency
will be better protected if the advisory board is given a real
mandate that allows it to speak out on the real issues.
The third group of amendments deals with the status of the
agency and its employees and the powers of the responsible
minister and the auditor general. In my opinion, he should be able
to consult all members of the industry he considers representative
and the provincial governments before drafting his report. This is
not currently the case.
This is why the Bloc is presenting an amendment to require the
auditor general to consult these people and organizations so they
may express their opinions and recommendations on the agency's
operation. The aim is to ensure that provincial governments, the
public and the users of the agency's services may comment on
ways to improve the services, thus requiring the auditor general to
take them into account in his report.
As regards the status of the agency and its staff, we believe it
would be dangerous to make the agency a separate employer under
the terms of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The intent of
our amendment is to avoid describing the agency as a separate
employer in order to preserve the vested rights of employees
assigned to the agency.
Furthermore, we want to enable those who currently represent
unionized employees affected by the agency's creation to continue
to negotiate the assignment of jobs and positions within the agency
and all matters pertaining to personnel management.
The aim here is to protect the rights of employees to ensure that,
after the two year transition period provided in the legislation, they
continue to enjoy the benefits of the Public Service Employment
Act. Otherwise, the situation would be unacceptable.
Finally, we note that the powers accorded the minister are
watered down and at times vague with respect to agreements with
the provinces on food inspection. Under our amendment, these
agreements would be signed by the minister responsible and the
provinces without the need for approval by the governor in council.
(1220)
Our amendment changes the rule so that the minister responsible
for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency alone is accountable for
decisions involving the agency.
This leads me to my conclusion that the minister of agriculture
and his government should not be reluctant to implement the
amendments we are debating in this House, because they are based
on logic and common sense. I would like to think they will apply
good judgement when it comes to time to vote on them.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to rise and
address the concerns that I have regarding Bill C-60. I am
interested in what the members of the Bloc had to say. I share their
concern that the power to investigate and the power to know
exactly what is going on is of utmost urgency.
I understand that the stated purpose of this act is to establish the
Canadian food inspection agency in order to consolidate and
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of federal inspection
services related to food, animal and plant health and to increase
collaboration with provincial governments in this area.
I am concerned, the same as the Bloc is, that this power deals
with food inspection, including risk management. It is very
important that we look at risk management and the power again to
look and investigate. I would be very interested in knowing exactly
what direction we are taking when we speak of enhancing the
efficiency and effectiveness of federal inspection services.
Since they relate to food, animal and plant health, are we talking
about food, animal and plant health as we know and recognize it
now in its natural part in our society or are we talking about food,
animal and plant health that has DNA changes to it? This is not
very clear.
If this new act sets out the new agency's framework in terms of
responsibilities, accountability and organization, exactly who is the
new agency working for? Who is it responsible to? Who is it to be
accountable to? I am sure we would all hope it is the people of
Canada.
Because of the fast moving changes already occurring in our
food chain with plants and animals, should there not be a control
factor somewhere in the agency's framework?
When this new Canadian food agency begins operation in 1997,
it will become one of Ottawa's largest bureaucratic entities, with
4,500 employees and a budget of $300 million.
Federal officials contend that ending interdepartmental overlap
and duplication in such areas as enforcement, risk management,
7444
laboratory services, information systems and communications will
save taxpayers $44 million annually starting 1998-99.
Of course we have nothing yet to substantiate these claims but
certainly duplication is a problem and anything we can do to cut
that down is of benefit to all of us. I am sure most of us are aware of
the massive costs at this time to the taxpayer when federal and
provincial governments duplicate their services, not to mention the
lack of efficiency and effectiveness as a result of this duplicity.
I recently read an article in Reader's Digest written by Premier
McKenna of New Brunswick, a Liberal premier, who speaks of the
terrible costs in duplication of government services. He speaks of
the cost as high as $5 billion a year.
The Reform Party supports downsizing and consolidating the
operations of the federal government, but I fear this act will
accomplish little except to shuffle names and titles. This act will
also continue to decentralize authority for food inspection in the
hands of the federal government.
The Reform Party believes the government should acknowledge
that since the provinces already provide many of these same
inspection services, the emphasis should be on decentralization and
encouraging common inspection standards. Along with what the
Bloc said, the provinces need to have strong impact on this.
I want to backtrack a bit to the part that I spoke of in relation to
federal officials who are responsible for enforcement risk
management, laboratory services and information systems and
communications because that is very easy and it can be said very
quickly but there is a lot in those few words.
I believe we are talking here about looking after our food chain,
and certainly that is what the inspection agency's job should be. On
whose behalf, again, are all these rules and regulations set up? If it
is not for the protection of Canadian citizens, young and old alike,
who is it for?
Where is the information and communication with our citizens,
the Canadian taxpayer? Who is minding the shop, ladies and
gentlemen, and on whose behalf? Two years ago I had to alert
citizens in my constituency all about the possibility of rBST
injections into dairy cows. They were not notified. There was
nothing sent out. There was no communication and no information
given. This is very terrifying.
(1225 )
In laboratory services, we have many fine research scientists
who, I realize, are very excited by all this new knowledge and the
future possibilities. As these new and exciting ideas pour forward,
who is asking Canadians if they want these changes? What about
enforcement and risk management? What laws are being enforced
and where is the risk management control?
I do not believe I am the only member of Parliament who
receives weekly correspondence from my constituents who are
alarmed by the changes taking place in their food chain, alarmed at
the new genetically engineered food. Where is this mentioned at all
in the new food inspections bill? Where is the caution?
I now receive books, letters and all sorts of correspondence from
all over British Columbia asking me to look at the changes and to
consider the apparent lack of caution, as those who would benefit
in a monetary manner push ruthlessly ahead to force their will on
Canadians.
I recently watched ``Jurassic Park''. I am not a movie goer, but I
happened to catch it on TV last week. I did not find it scary in the
physical sense but I found it alarming in the research and academic
sense. I am not the first person to say this, but the message of the
film to me was not can we do it but should we do it.
There are those who would argue that we are overpopulated and
that the world at present cannot feed all of its people and that
justifies scientists' changing our natural world as we know it. I
agree that overpopulation is serious, but surely the answer is not to
move full steam ahead in chaos, for indeed none of us knows where
this will lead us.
Unfortunately, when we talk of global food production we have
to admit there are serious problems. The human population is
growing and we are losing 24 billion tonnes of topsoil a year.
Yes, third world countries need food and I fear all this new
biotechnology hype is not helping the third world. Rather, those
investing are venture capitalists and they need to find investors.
How can we expect a starving third world country to come up with
the money needed to invest?
What are we doing in the food inspection bill to take a look at
what is around the corner? Surely what we do in legislation will
reflect what is to come. We should not have to backtrack all the
time.
Canada and I imagine the United States as well have a lot of food
that is wasted every year. I have been to dumps in the Okanagan
where beautiful ripe peaches, ripe tomatoes and ripe vegetables of
all types have been thrown out. Why did we not dehydrate them or
reprocess them? Surely the food inspection agency could come to
grips with some kind of process so that food would not be wasted.
We send money to these third world countries that we do not
have. That increases our tax burden. Yet we have food which we do
not send. For countries to waste food when there are starving
people in the world is not acceptable. To suggest that we must
protect our food market so as not to flood the market and cause
7445
lower prices is not an argument. Surely we have enough
intelligence nowadays to be able to deal with both major issues.
We now have concerns that there are a number of products which
have been changed. Canola is herbicide intolerant. I am not sure
whether that means more or less herbicide is needed. We have
tomatoes with fish genes in them to make them more tolerant.
There are flavour saver tomatoes. I wonder if anyone has ever gone
to a plant that has been ripened by the sun and tasted a ripe tomato.
I do not think anything can top that. There are pigs with human
genes in them. Even our fish are being engineered to grow faster.
What are the negative side effects? In B.C. we have good
research scientists. One of them spoke on the weekend and told us
that one of the side effects is that this particular engineered fish is a
more aggressive feeder. Therefore it is not unlikely that if released
into a natural setting it could over eat and cause the demise of our
natural salmon. That is not unrealistic to suggest.
We are not using any controls. Food inspection has to deal with
all aspects of food.
Every technology, no matter how beneficial, has unexpected
costs. Today more than ever before we need researchers and
scientists with ethical and moral values. Our research scientists
should be free to explore where their curiosity and expertise take
them in a controlled environment. However, if they have to be
constantly aware of the economic payoff, then our scientists are not
free to do their research and pressure is put on them to produce new
ideas for those who want to exploit our world, as we know it, which
results in the release of these genetically engineered food products
on unsuspecting consumers. They are not being labelled. We do not
really know what we are purchasing any more.
I have presented two private member's bills which deal with
labelling. I hope those bills will be dealt with seriously.
I want to mention that there are occupational hazards related to
biotechnology, which include diseases such as cancer, toxicity and
product allergies. The main hazards are allergies from recombinant
products, diseases, including cancer, and the production of novel
disease organisms.
(1230)
What is the concern? The concern is that many of these
significant hazards are being ignored by the scientists who are
doing research and those reporting on the research that these novel
allergies in food products will impact on workers. In fact the escape
of these genes on the coats of laboratory workers is occurring each
day. Some of them are being taken outside the lab and this matter is
not being dealt with.
I will conclude by saying we should look at all the research we
have. Let us be very cautious that we do not just choose research
that fits our particular purpose at the time and that we worry about
all consumers.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, this group of
amendments concerns mainly the respect of jurisdictions. The
amendments proposed by the member for Frontenac and other BQ
members of the standing committee on agriculture who spoke after
him stand for a principle very dear to Quebecers, that is the respect
of jurisdictions.
Agriculture being a shared jurisdiction, it cannot be denied that
the federal government has a say in that area. But it cannot be
denied either that the provinces also have a say.
As a member of the standing committee on health, I am very
concerned by this issue. Food inspection will be the responsibility
of the future agency of the Agriculture Department, but why is food
inspected? It is inspected to protect the health of citizens, and
certainly not to harm businesses, slaughterhouses or farm
producers. The goal of food inspection is to preserve health,
probably the most precious gift anyone can have.
I used to be political attaché to the Quebec Minister of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Crête: The best!
Mr. Dubé: There are some remarks that I cannot make in this
House and I do not want to be partisan, but I remember very well
that, in 1978, Quebec faced the same problem the federal
government is now confronted with, that is the multitude of food
inspection agencies.
For example, I will tell you what the situation was in Quebec in
1978. At the federal level, there were at least three departments,
Agriculture, Health and Fisheries, and the situation was similar in
Quebec. In addition, the Montreal area, Quebec City and a number
of other major centres in Quebec had their own food inspection
agencies.
Therefore, people dealing with food inspection said: ``We
respect the principles and objectives pursued by food inspection
agencies, but enough is enough. It is impossible to work, food
inspectors are always on our backs and they contradict one
another''. There was no consistency.
So, the federal government is now looking for consistency, very
late of course, almost 20 years after Quebec. We agree with that
objective because, at least, there will be only one federal agency.
However, since there is also one agency left in Quebec, there will
still be some duplication in respect to slaughterhouses.
I know about it. In my riding, there are slaughterhouses, as there
probably are in every riding. These are referred to as type A and
type B slaughterhouses. This may not mean anything to the people
who are listening and who are not concerned by the issue, but these
are the categories. Some categories of meat are approved by the
federal government. Others are approved by the provincial govern-
7446
ment. In some cases, this means duplication for the businesses.
There is still some duplication left, which is unfortunate.
(1235)
That is why I agree with the member for Frontenac. He is telling
us that one cannot stop the federal government from moving
forward, because of some rules involving shared jurisdiction in
agricultural matters. But please, do respect provincial jurisdiction
in this area, as well as in health. Health is even more of a provincial
jurisdiction than agriculture.
Personally, I hope there will be agreement between the
provinces, even if the agency is federal. That would be simpler for
everybody. It is also possible that we, in Quebec, do not want to
control what is happening in British Columbia. If that province is
more interested in letting the federal government do the whole
thing, so be it. Except that, in Quebec, we have a specific culture.
People always equate culture with language, but there is much
more.
You know that, Madam Speaker. You come from a region that
has a specific culture. That can also be true for food, or
gastronomy. Now, this bill is suggesting that one agency could do
the work efficiently for all the different regional cuisines.
A while ago, there was a reference to the cuisine of the
Lac-Saint-Jean region. That is really good cooking. I know,
because I have tasted it. Each region has its own specialties. Even
the region of Edmundston, your region, Madam Speaker, has its
own specialties. You know that people have different customs in
different regions.
I do not want to go into distinctions, but we know that French
speaking people do not eat the same food as English speaking
people, whether they are in New Brunswick, in Quebec or
elsewhere. We must recognize that fact.
In this case, who is in the best position to deal with these
problems? The closest level of government. I am from Quebec. In
my case, the closest level is the Government of Quebec, and all the
more so because Quebec has been a leader since 1978 in matters of
food inspection. At that time, I worked in the office of the Minister
of Agriculture for Quebec, Jean Garon. I can name him since he
does not sit in this House. That is to say that I followed this issue
closely. Everybody quoted him as an example.
Incidentally, during our consultations, I met old acquaintances
from the Quebec department of agriculture. I was told: ``Strangely
enough, the federal government is trying to copy us''. So much the
better if Quebec can influence and try to improve something that
will apply somewhere else. I have nothing against that. But I
believe the federal government should take into account the fact
that Quebec's mindset, culture, way of life, food, and behaviour are
quite distinct.
At least, there is some change, some improvement. Instead of
three federal agencies there will be only one. It remains to be seen
whether this agency will respect areas of provincial jurisdiction.
I want to commend the member for Frontenac for his hard work
on this issue. He brought it up time and time again in caucus, at
every meeting, to make us realize how important this debate is. He
mentioned it to me yesterday, and again today.
He even told me: ``My dear colleague from Lévis, I know you
have some experience in agriculture, even though it is no longer
your field''. Finding his exemplary perseverance and tenacity
irresistible, I came here to speak in favour of his amendments, to
support his views. We will never say it often enough, the member
for Frontenac is a staunch supporter of the Quebec farming
community. Without sounding like a victim, he has often said that
farming was not mentioned enough in speeches in this House. If it
were not for the member for Frontenac, the member for Lotbinière,
and the member for Champlain, we would not hear much about
farmers.
(1240)
If we were to rely on the Liberal Party, the government, to speak
about farming in the House, we would never hear about it. Today is
a case in point. It is frightening.
Food inspection is a concern not only for farmers, but also for
consumers. How is it that no Liberal members of the health and
agriculture committees are speaking on this issue? I am not
allowed to criticize them for being absent, but I can criticize them
for being silent. This is incredible.
In conclusion, I will congratulate the member for Frontenac. I
hope that members opposite will reconsider their position and join
us in this extremely important debate on the issue of respecting
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I realize that the Liberal majority has decided not
to answer the call of the member for Lévis. Once again, they
remain silent on agricultural issues.
I am happy to speak to the amendments proposed by the member
for Frontenac, telling the federal government that, even if it did
update its vision of Canadian federalism and merged together all
federal food inspection agencies, it was high time to make those
changes because there was a terrible mess in that area.
However, in doing so, because of its very limited view of what
had to be done in that sector, the federal government disregarded
7447
the fact that provinces already had some expertise and that they had
developed some know-how.
With his amendments, the member for Frontenac wants to make
the government listen to reason and realize that it should not
interfere in provincial jurisdictions with this bill on food
inspection.
Let me give you three main reasons. Sometimes we hear people
say that separatists are against anything federal, but that is not the
problem in this case; it is a matter of principle, of logic, of common
sense.
Everyone knows about the first example, the raw milk cheese.
Thanks to a Canada-wide way of thinking, a view I would say is
almost cultural, they came to a ridiculous conclusion that mainly
affected Quebec raw milk cheese producers, because there are
more producers in Quebec, but also all Canadian producers, of
course. The Bloc Quebecois led a powerful fight on that issue at the
federal level.
Did the Government of Quebec initiate the same kind of action
in the case of food inspection? Not at all. Our practices are
different, our point of view is different, but this has to do with our
culture, with our perception of the future of our society, and it
translates into concrete initiative like these.
Our first example was the planned ban on raw milk cheese. We
had to wage a public fight, we had to demonstrate publicly the
ridiculous side of the position taken by federal officials in order to
win our case. Quebecers are looking forward to the day when it will
no longer be necessary to do battle in the House in order to get
things that make sense.
I would like to give you another example. If we allow the federal
government to intervene in the area of food inspection, if we let it
set standards and operating procedures, we will get some strange
results. A case in point is lamb production.
Lamb production in Quebec is very different from lamb
production in the rest of Canada. In Quebec, there are many small
farmers with 200 to 300 sheep, sometimes less. In western Canada
the flocks are much larger.
When a disease that should be eradicated is found in one flock,
up to two years ago the practice was to slaughter all the sick
animals and those who might have been contaminated, in order to
eliminate the problem.
(1245)
But the federal government, under pressure from western
producers, who can be counted on to defend their interests, has
changed the procedure. But it has always decided there would be
only one rule across Canada; now, it was quarantine. The major
impact of this in Quebec is that the management of a producer's
herd may be totally paralyzed because, when a producer has 200
animals and they are all placed under quarantine, we might as well
say he has to shut his farm down. In western Canada, if 200
animals out of a herd of 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 are placed under
quarantine, the economic impact is not the same at all.
This is to show you that if we decide that the federal government
can interfere in this way with food inspection and management, we
will get absurd results similar to the one I just described.
There is another sector in which the federal government should
not enjoy unjustified powers, that is, the management of
slaughterhouses. Our slaughterhouses vary widely in size. We need
standards that may differ for the various types of slaughterhouses,
without putting aside the rules on food quality and the guarantee
that diseases will not spread.
There are still small regional slaughterhouses that can work.
They are often multifunctional slaughterhouses that slaughter
different kinds of animals. These facilities need to be regulated
differently from what might be a very large slaughterhouse dealing
with a single species, say pigs. There are major differences in terms
of management, which results in practices being different from
region of the country to another. In that sense, to give the federal
government the power to establish standards and, with these
national standards, to interfere in any province is not doing Quebec
or any other province a service.
I would like to come back to clause 11 of the bill and to the
amendment we put forward so that each province could veto the
use of this provision by the Minister of Health.
We would not want to find ourselves in a situation where the
federal government could decide to get involved, to interfere in a
certain area-raw milk is still an excellent example to illustrate
this point-and the province would then have to prove such
interference is uncalled for. The onus should be reversed and each
province should have a veto on the application of this provision so
that, any time a decision made by the federal government in a given
area is in contradiction with the province's objectives, the province
may say: ``Thanks, but no thanks. This just cannot be done here,
and the reason for that is quite simply that it is not in keeping with
our way of doing things''.
We must therefore ensure that this bill to standardize food
inspection at the federal level does not lead to what would amount
to across-the-board standardization and that those who have a
centralizing, federalist vision of Canada are not given yet another
tool to impose national standards in an area that requires a level of
flexibility unlike what is provided for in this government bill.
We must ensure that the provision about agreements respecting
food inspection entered into by the federal government and any of
the provinces does not leave the door wide open for federal
interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
7448
To let the federal government provide services to the public on
behalf of the two levels of government, thereby directly interfering
with provincial jurisdiction, is only perpetuating a pattern. Once
again, we have a basic choice to make: do we want a federal
system where the delineation between provincial and federal
jurisdictions is an incredible mess? Or could we not at least, while
we are in this system, clarify the respective jurisdictions and let
provinces keep the jurisdiction they have as regards food
inspection?
(1250)
As we can see, provincial governments, or Quebec in any case,
are 10, 15, or 20 years ahead. Back in 1978, food inspection
responsibilities were assigned to one department. Today, in 1996,
the federal government is putting forward a proposal to that effect,
but its proposal still reflects the old political assumption that the
federal government should control all areas of activity.
This could lead once again to the problem of having to manage
national standards, which do not necessarily apply easily and
appropriately to each of the existing areas of activity.
As for constituents of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, those
involved in farming in these various areas, every time they see
duplication of government services, they point it out. They were
delighted to see the federal government reduce the number of food
inspection groups. It was about time, because three departments
were involved, whereas there will be only one from now on.
This bill could, and must, be improved by giving provincial
governments control over food inspection, so that, in two, three, or
five years, we will not be in court over legal complications. If those
concerned by food inspection measures need a loophole, in order to
elude the law, well, let us leave the bill as is, as it will give them an
opportunity to do so. Then, all they will have to do is blame
governments for not minding their own business. Therefore, there
must be a fee structure.
The burden of proof must be reversed. Food inspection must
come under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government could,
through its legislation, manage some aspects which fall under its
jurisdiction, but it must not be allowed to interfere in such a way
that, in two, three, or five years, through regulations, it ends up
with even greater control. This is why I support the amendment by
the hon. member for Frontenac.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division
on the motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Therefore,
division on the motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division
on the motion stands deferred.
(1255)
The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7449
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division
on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-60, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 6 on page 3 with
the following:
``9. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, direct that the head office of the
Agency be in the location in Canada recommended by the committee referred to in
section 9.1.
(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, direct that the head office of the
agency be in a location other than the one recommended pursuant to section 9.1 but
shall not make any such order unless
(a) the Governor in Council has provided the committee referred to in section 9.2
with all the reasons for such a change; and
(b) the committee has approved the change.
9.1 Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to
consider agricultural matters shall recommend, for the purposes of section 9, the
location in Canada of the head office of the Agency .
9.2 Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to
consider agricultural matters shall, after studying the reasons for the change
provided to the committee pursuant to paragraph 9(2)(a), either approve or refuse to
approve, for the purposes of subsection 9(2), any change in the location of the head
office of the Agency.''
He said: Madam Speaker, clause 9 is very simple and almost
laconic. It provides that:
The head office of the Agency shall be in the National Capital Region, as
described in the schedule to the National Capital Act.
The senior officials we met last September 26 have drawn to our
attention the fact that tomorrow morning, six months or two years
from now, after a change of government, a new agriculture minister
could, by order, to ease his conscience and continue to indulge in
patronage, have the agency moved to his riding. Of course, we want
to shield our fellow Canadian citizens from any potential abuse in
that regard.
Let us remember that it can be done through a simple order in
council. Why should the head office of the agency move year after
year? The Liberal government, already in power for over three
years, is very patronage-minded. It could eventually move
agencies from one city to another, and that can be very costly.
Our amendment proposes to involve the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food. It suggests two things. First, the
location of the head office of the agency would be reviewed and
decided by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food,
and not only through an order in council.
This would make the process much more open and at the same
time revitalize the role of House of Commons committees that, in
fact, do not do much except execute orders coming from above, in
this case, from the minister himself.
Once the head office is located somewhere, a future move is
always possible or could become necessary 30 or 40 years down the
road. To govern is to foresee, and people in the government should
be smart enough to expect that the head office of the agency will
not be moved 3 or 4 years from now. But who knows? That could
happen, as in the case of the House of Commons, which moved
from Montreal over a century ago. You may remember that,
according to our history books, the Parliament Buildings were set
on fire following a minor rebellion and, in its wisdom, the
government of the day decided to move Parliament to another
province, Ontario.
(1300)
The second objective is that the future relocation of the agency's
headquarters be subject to an in-depth review of the need for such a
relocation and that the new site be approved by the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Relocating the agency's headquarters, with all this decision
would imply-asking the employees and their families to move,
moving the office furniture, renting space in another city, etc.-is
out of the question without first having carried out a review of the
reasons behind this decision. Of course, if it is a patronage
decision, an irrational decision, then the committee, after hearing a
lot of witnesses, would submit its recommendation to Parliament.
Changing topics, there is no need I guess to ask that the agency's
headquarters, if they are to be established in the national capital
region, be located in Quebec. When we go over the estimates for
the Department of Agriculture, for instance, we see that, year after
year, around 11 per cent of the departmental budget is spent in
Quebec.
Let me remind the House that Quebecers represent close to 25
per cent of the overall population and pay over 23 p. 100 of the
taxes collected in Canada. However, barely 11 per cent of the
agriculture department's budget goes to Quebec.
7450
I approached the minister of agriculture to tell him that it
averages 11 per cent, although there were times when it dropped
to 9 per cent and other times when it reached 13 and 14 per cent,
but on average it is 11 per cent. So, how could he explain why
his department is only investing 11 per cent in Quebec? Well, he
said: ``It is easy to understand, dear hon. member for Frontenac.
There are a lot of infrastructures in the nation's capital, in Ottawa,
offices and such. The nation's capital can almost be considered
as being a part of the province of Quebec''. Are there so many
people living in Quebec but working in Ontario? Could be. But
not enough to make up for the difference and reach 23 per cent,
which would only be fair in our view.
So, if it is true that everything done in Ottawa could be
considered as being done in Quebec, would it not be possible to
establish the new agency in Quebec, since it is expected to open up
in the national capital region? Set on the river bank, it could lean
towards Ontario, a bit like the leaning tower of Pisa. In New
Brunswick, not much leans this way, since it would have to reach
over Quebec.
Would my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who sits with
me on the standing committee on agriculture, be ready to rise now
in this place and to say: ``Dear hon. member for Frontenac, we will
give you something today: we will establish the head office of the
agency in Quebec''?
As you can see, clause 9 provides that the head office of the
agency shall be in the national capital region. I bet you $20 to $1
that it will be in Hull. I am being generous, I bet you $20 to $1 that
it will be in Hull. However, I am almost sure I will lose. It does not
matter. I am willing to take the risk that you make $20 on an outlay
of $1, just so that you can see the major injustice being done to
Quebec once again.
The head office of the agency will be the reflection and the heart
of the agency. It is estimated that some 4,500 jobs will be directly
created by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Of course, all
4,500 jobs will not be at the head office but easily 800 to 900 of
them will be. This is very significant. Readjustments will have to
be made within three departments.
(1305)
Without further delay, I challenge the parliamentary secretary
who could make you win $20, Madam Speaker. I challenge him to
rise now and for once to make a decision not in favour of Quebec
but a fair decision for all of Canada, that is, that the head office be
located on the other side of the Ottawa River, in Hull, Gatineau or
somewhere in the area.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, and I look forward to the
parliamentary secretary's answer.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-60 today. This bill
proposes that the Government of Canada consolidate all federally
mandated food inspection, animal and plant health services into a
single federal food inspection agency. This agency will report to
Parliament through the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
When the new food inspection agency begins operation in 1997,
it will become one of Ottawa's largest bureaucratic entities with
4,500 employees and a budget of $300 million.
Although the Reform Party supports consolidating and
downsizing the operations of the federal government, we fear that
this act will accomplish little except to shuffle names and titles.
Instead the government should be considering the advantages of
privatizing a significant portion of Canada's food, plant and animal
inspection services.
Only $40 million or 13.3 per cent of the agency's $300 million
budget is currently cost recovered. The agency already plans to
dramatically increase this amount to more than $70 million. While
the Reform Party supports user pay and cost recovery, the cost of
the service must reflect the true cost of providing the service, not
the added expense of maintaining the government's bureaucracy.
The act should ensure that a greater priority is placed on cost
avoidance and cost reduction. This is important as the agency
created in this act will be responsible for enforcing and
administering several federal statutes which regulate food, animal
and plant health related products. This includes the Feeds Act,
Fertilizers Act, Health of Animals Act, Meat Inspection Act, Plant
Breeders' Rights Act and Seeds Act.
The act will also continue to centralize authority for food
inspection in the hands of the federal government. The Reform
Party believes the government should acknowledge that since the
provinces already provide many of the same inspection services,
the emphasis should be on decentralization and encouraging
common inspection standards and more harmonization.
For these reasons the Reform Party opposes this bill. Turning to
the bill itself, we have specific concerns.
Provisions in this bill seem to create an environment for empire
building. Clause 5 of the bill states that the governor in council
shall appoint a president and an executive vice-president of the new
agency. These individuals will be responsible for the day to day
operations of the agency. They will provide advice to the minister
on matters relating to the mandate of the agency. There is no
mention of the qualifications required by these people. This type of
situation opens itself up to pork barrel politics.
7451
The bill also states that the president and the executive
vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as fixed by the
governor in council. We do not even know the salary amounts for
these two positions. With this legislation, each member of the
advisory board shall be paid such fees for his or her services as
are fixed by the minister. Again, we cannot tell Canadian
taxpayers how much they will be paying for these salaries.
This bill gives the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
complete control over this agency which is a vital part of the
agriculture industry.
The Liberal member for South Shore has voiced his concerns
over his government's bill in this House. He has commented on the
lack of consultation regarding Bill C-60 in his constituency. The
small and medium size seafood processors in his riding have also
told him that they feel increasingly isolated by this government. I
can assure the member that this isolation is shared by western
producers and processors.
(1310)
This familiarizes us somewhat with the Canadian Wheat Board.
Commissioners on the Canadian Wheat Board are appointed and
have received severance and pension payments that are hidden
from public view. The minister is setting out to create the same
type of regulatory agency with Bill C-60. The issue of severance
packages, pensions, premiums and what have you in that agency is
unbelievable to western farmers and it is causing a tremendous
division.
The Canadian Food, Beverage, Consumer Goods and Services
Coalition submitted some valuable criticism of this bill. It stressed
the need for an agency built around a board of directors that would
be truly accountable and effective in setting these policies. I would
like to point out that this is the direction the agriculture minister is
slowly turning to in hinting he will be making changes. Why is this
not being done before the bill is passed?
The coalition feels an advisory board under the direct control of
the minister will simply contribute to the continuation of the
outdated policies and procedures of the original department. It
stressed that the legislation should focus more on cost effectiveness
and service to the consumer.
We in the Reform Party proposed an amendment to the preamble
to identify cost effectiveness as an objective of the agency. The
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food actually passed
the amendment, albeit by a narrow margin. However, the Liberal
majority on the committee succeeded in defeating all of our other
amendments which were designed to bring more accountability to
the agency and would have ensured more consultation with the
industry.
For example, we would have ensured that the appointment of the
president and the vice-president would have been done in
consultation with the industry and would have been subject to a
special subcommittee on food inspection. This is what the industry
wants but it is not what the Liberals want so they defeated the
amendment. This is another prime example of how this
government operates.
We also put forth an amendment to ensure that the appointments
to the advisory board that is created by this legislation would be
open to scrutiny by a subcommittee of the standing committee. Of
course the Liberal committee majority defeated this excellent
amendment also. The Liberals seemed determined to derail any
attempt by Reform members to give the agriculture and agri-food
committee some responsibility and make it significant and
accountable.
We also proposed an amendment to provide for a one-year
moratorium on any further cost recovery actions so the standing
committee could examine the consequences of the existing and
proposed fees on the competitiveness of the Canadian industry.
Another Reform amendment would have ensured that the fees
would not have exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the
service. Not surprisingly, these amendments were defeated also.
This is unfortunate because it leaves all the power in the hands of
the minister. There is no accountability and there is no consultation
with the industry. These are severe detriments to making this
agency what it should be.
I would like to quote a paragraph or two from a presentation by
the Canadian Horticultural Council on December 10. This is what
the council had to say about the cost of service:
``During the cost recovery round one discussions in 1984, the
food production and inspection branch estimated the total cost of
the fresh fruit and vegetable program to be approximately $7
million. In 1994 when the cost recovery round two discussions
were launched under the food production and inspection branch's
business alignment plan, we were informed the costs for the
program had increased to approximately $17 million'', more than
double what they estimated. ``Suffice it to say that in both cases we
had to rely on the branch's word that the figures were correct.
When we questioned how the program costs could have risen by
$10 million over the 10 year period, especially when a number of
the services had been deregulated, we were informed that the rules
were calculating the costs had changed''. Boy, that is cost recovery.
(1315)
Then we go into user pay. Another short example: ``It is worth
noting that between 1984 and 1994, the principle of sharing the
cost based on public and private good has disappeared. In 1984
one-third of the costs were deemed to be for the public good and in
1994 there was no longer any public good''.
7452
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
important to realize that we are, right now, debating Motion No.
5.
This motion proposes an amendment to section 9 of Bill C-60,
intent to have the committee look at where the location of the head
office should be. The motion suggests that the head office be
looked at within the purview of a committee and the committee
make a decision where that head office should be located.
This amendment is not needed. In reality, during the discussions
with the standing committee and the amendments put forth in the
standing committee, clause 9 indicated very clearly that the head
office would be located in the national capital region. That is very
clearly in the amendment.
There is no legislative precedent in the Canadian Parliamentary
system for having a standing committee to be involved in the level
of detail in the administration in deciding where a building is
located.
The minister is responsible and accountable for his budget. He is
responsible and accountable to the Canadian public. He is
responsible and accountable to this Parliament. Therefore it is very
clear that as part of his duty he must make those detailed decisions
and bring them forward.
I would at this time as well point out that it is of extreme
importance to not only the minister but also to the department that
all regions of this country be treated fairly and equally. We
endeavour to make certain that where we are talking of research
centres or all the facilities that exist in agriculture Canada, the
proper facilities are placed throughout this country in order to serve
that industry as well as possible.
There is no question that the decisions being made are made on
the basis of fairness. I would assure my colleagues from Quebec
that has been the case in the past with the department of agriculture
and the department will continue to make certain that not only
Quebec but all regions of this country are treated fairly with regard
to those types of decisions.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I would just like to comment on this grouping. We
are really only dealing with one amendment put forward by the
Bloc regarding where the agency's national office will be located.
The parliamentary secretary for the minister of agriculture just
spoke and talked about the accountability that is in the system, and
that this type of amendment is not required. I agree with him only
on one point. This type of amendment should not need to be
required. If there were accountability it would not be required.
I want to review with the hon. member some facts that prove that
his argument is a bunch of hogwash. He says that the minister and
the agency will be accountable. Let us look at the record of the
Liberal government. Location is very important.
We have seen governments from as far back as I can remember
playing political games with locations of head offices. Even
recently in this Parliament the Liberals brought forward a piece of
legislation that privatized CN Rail, which means that basically it
should be able to run its own affairs. In the legislation it stated that
the national office of CN Rail had to be located in Montreal. Talk
about politics. What a bunch of foolishness.
(1320)
The previous Tory government decided that for political reasons
the national office of the Farm Credit Corporation had to be in my
province in the city of Regina. That was a political decision. Where
was the accountability? Where is the accountability now, where
was the accountability then?
It is not only with the locations of office locations, it is with the
granting of contracts. All of western Canada was infuriated when
the Conservative government offered the CF-18 maintenance
contract to Canadair instead of Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg even
though Bristol Aerospace had the best tender with better quality
and a lower price to offer.
Because of political expediency there was no accountability. It
was a joke. A few members ran into Prime Minister Mulroney's
office and demanded that the contract with Canadair be accepted
for political reasons, and the Prime Minister bowed to their wishes.
What should be the criteria for determining the location of the
national office? Has it even dawned on anybody to debate the
criteria? The criteria for the location of an agency's head office
should be cost effectiveness, efficiency and productivity. The most
effective and productive location for the head office of the Farm
Credit Corporation may just be Regina, I do not know. I do not
think a cost benefit study has ever been done to determine where
that national office should be.
The most cost effective location for the single food inspection
agency might be the national capital region, but we do not know.
That was not even a consideration. The minister said because there
are other departments involved, this may be the right place. But
nobody looked into it. Nobody crunched the numbers. That was the
last thing on the agenda.
The first priority has always been political expediency: ``How
are we going to maintain the most votes? If we are in trouble in
Atlantic Canada, then we had better put some office in Atlantic
Canada. If we are in trouble in Alberta, we had better put
something in Edmonton or Calgary''.
7453
An hon. member: Stop being so cynical at Christmas time.
Mr. Hermanson: The member says I should not be cynical at
Christmas time. It just so happens that a lot of civil servants have
not enjoyed a very good Christmas because for some political
reason their head office was moved from one end of the country to
the other and they had to tag along. Had they known it would save
them some of their own tax dollars, they may have been prepared to
move from Ottawa to Regina or from Vancouver to Halifax.
What really happened was that they knew some politicians were
playing some games with the location of their national office and
their lives were being wrecked as a result. It is time we stopped
doing that and look at cost effectiveness.
If this motion had stated that the head office of the agency be
located in the most cost effective location in Canada, I would have
jumped for joy. That would be real progress. But that is not quite
what the amendment says. The Liberals had not even thought about
that as a criterion for the selection of a location for their national
office.
I am sick and tired of playing these silly political games, playing
with people's lives and spending taxpayer dollars needlessly.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division
on the motion stands deferred.
(1325)
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-60, in Clause 5, be amended by
(a) replacing line 20 on page 2 with the following:
``5. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council shall appoint a''
(b) adding after line 24 on page 2 the following:
``(2) The Governor in Council shall ensure that persons appointed to the positions
referred to in subsection (1) have a comprehensive knowledge and a broad
experience of the areas dealt with by the Agency.''
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-60, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 2 with the
following:
``may be renewed for one further term.''
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 3 the
following:
``(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), no person may be appointed by the
Minister to an advisory board unless that person has been recommended for such
appointment pursuant to subsection (1.3).
(1.2) Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to
consider agricultural matters shall invite each province and the organizations in that
province representing agricultural interests to submit to the committee the names of
candidates residing in that province for appointment to an advisory board.
(1.3) Subject to subsection (1.1), the committee referred to in subsection (1.2)
shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), recommend from among the candidates the
persons it deems most suitable to be appointed to the advisory board.
(1.4) The committee shall recommend persons under subsection (1.2) from each
province and the percentage of candidates recommended from a province shall be
equal to the percentage that the population of that province represents of the total
population of Canada.''
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 3 with the
following:
``Agency that such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or
established to consider agricultural matters submits to it.''
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 3 the
following:
``(2.1) On any matter within the responsibilities of the Agency, the board may
advise
(a) a provincial government;
(b) a union representing some or all of the employees of the Agency; and
(c) a person from the agriculture, fisheries, food processing, food distribution and
public health sectors.''
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 21 on page 3.
Motion No. 10
7454
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 3 the
following:
``(3.1) The Minister shall appoint at least one representative of a union
representing some or all of the employees of the Agency to the board.''
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 3
with the following:
``(4) The Minister shall appoint as Chairperson of the advisory board the person
recommended for that position pursuant to subsection (4.1).
(4.1) Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to
consider agricultural matters shall, for the purposes of subsection (4), recommend
the member of the advisory board that it deems most suitable as Chairperson of the
board.''
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 3 with the
following:
``pursuant to the recommendation made under subsection (5.1).
(5.1) Such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to
consider agricultural matters shall, for the purposes of subsection (5), recommend
the amount that each member of the advisory board shall be paid as fees for his or
her services.''
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 44 on page 5 the following new
Clause:
``17.1 The Agency shall, once every year, provide to such committee of the House
of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters a
detailed report respecting all actions taken in that year by the Agency in the exercise
of its powers under section 17.''
He said: Madam Speaker, again, these motions are well grouped.
Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 21 are amendments
proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Lotbinière.
The reason the Bloc Quebecois is trying hard to improve Bill
C-60 is because of the serious risk of patronage. From 1984 to
1993, another party was in office and some people would literally
wake up at night despising the Prime Minister of the time, because
they were so fed up with his politics of patronage.
The party that took over from the Mulroney government does not
fare much better in this respect. This is serious, as you are well
aware. The government, through the governor in council, will
appoint the president for a term of five years which may be
renewed, and also the executive vice-president. There will be an
advisory board of not more than 12 members, who will also be
appointed by the governor in council.
What is even worse is that the regulations governing
employment in the public service will be suspended for an
indeterminate period of time. This means anyone can be hired,
whether it is an uncle, an aunt, a nephew, a niece, a brother-in-law,
a mother-in-law, a sister-in-law, the niece's friend, the
sister-in-law's nephew, even the grandfather, if he still young
enough to go to work. This is a serious matter. We are talking about
an indeterminate period of time which could be six months, a year,
two years, whatever. I have no doubt that the executive
vice-president and the president will all be good friends, good
Liberals.
These people will appoint employees of the new food inspection
agency in a fashion similar to that of the government. We raised
this issue during question period. The director general of the space
agency, which is located in Longueuil, or Saint-Hubert, lives in
Ottawa and refuses to move. So, the government pays $1,300 a
month to house him in a luxurious rental unit. Is it a frient of the
government who is enjoying all this? Of course.
(1330)
Look at the recent wave of appointments in our ridings. Our new
returning officer in my riding is a well-known Liberal. The fact that
he is a Liberal does not make him incompetent, but, by the same
token, one need not be a Liberal to be qualified.
This retired gentleman was appointed, while we have young men
and young women looking for work. They are very competent, but
they do not have a job and have to rely on either unemployment or
welfare benefits. This government has appointed in my riding a
man who is drawing a good pension. Why not have given the job to
a competent young person?
In my riding, the employment or unemployment insurance-we
are not quite sure what word to use any more-board of referees is
chaired by a notary who happens to be the daughter of a former
Liberal member.
When representatives of the farm debt review board appeared
before us at the agriculture committee, I was the only one to ask
them: ``Who do you have to thank for your appointment?''
Jean-Yves, the representative from Quebec-he is from the
St-Hyacinthe area-made it quite clear that he had his political
affiliation to thank for it. And what affiliation is that? Liberal. In
the greater Eastern Townships region, the same Jean-Yves has
managed to win the nomination as Liberal candidate for the riding
of Richmond-Wolfe in the upcoming election. He managed to get
himself nominated.
Are we going to give the Liberal Party of Canada a blank cheque
to waive the public service hiring procedures for an indeterminate
period so that the new food inspection agency can become a
patronage haven? Never. We will condemn this measure with all
our might.
The fact that a person is a Liberal does not make that person
competent. The name of Jean Bienvenue comes to mind; he was the
minister of education in Quebec under Robert Bourassa. Guess
what his political affiliation was. He was appointed superior court
judge in Quebec. The fact that he was a Liberal did not make him a
7455
competent judge. He was appointed by the Liberals, not the
Conservatives.
We have proposed countless amendments to improve on Bill
C-60, so that the people of Canada could have a reliable food
inspection agency built on a solid foundation. To have a solid
foundation, the best qualified people must be hired.
One of these amendments suggests that the education and
experience of the president and the vice-president should match the
agency's management and service delivery requirements. Qualified
people should be hired. Chances are the government party will vote
against that to protect themselves, because they do not want to have
their hands tied, they want to be able to appoint whoever they
please.
(1335)
By ensuring that the president and executive vice-president of
the agency have a comprehensive knowledge and a broad
experience of the areas dealt with by the agency, we would
minimize the risk of seeing one or more unqualified person
appointed to these positions, as was the case of Justice Bienvenue,
to whom I referred earlier.
We are proposing that the president be appointed for a term of
five years and, if he does an excellent job, he could be appointed
for one, but only one, more term of five years. After ten years in a
position, I would say he would have given all that he can give, and
that is enough. I bet our friends opposite will vote against that too.
What they want is to be able to appoint the members of the new
agency for life, like the senators.
I urge our Liberal colleagues to consider carefully what they
want to do. If they want this agency to be above suspicion, it has to
be as free of patronage as possible.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, we are now dealing with group 5. A number of
amendments were put forward by the Bloc to this part of the bill
which deals with the ratification or review of appointments to the
agency.
Reform introduced an amendment to Bill C-60 at committee
stage. Our amendment stated:
No appointment shall be made under subsection 10(1) unless it is approved by a
subcommittee of each of such committee of the House of Commons as is designated
or established to consider
(a) agriculture matters;
(b) health matters; and
(c) fisheries matters.
Government members chose to oppose that amendment in
committee. Had it passed, it would have ensured that members of
Parliament with knowledge and interest in the areas of agriculture,
fisheries and health would have been able to review appointments
to the advisory board of the agency. They would have been able to
review the staffing decisions of the agency. That would have
addressed the patronage issue which my colleague from the Bloc so
eloquently berated.
We support Motion No. 3. It ensures that persons appointed to
the agency's executive by the minister are qualified. It is important
that these executives not be the local Liberal who happens to
donate the most money in the last election.
It is sad that the Conservatives and the Liberals are trying to
outdo each other on patronage appointments. Under the Mulroney
Conservatives, Marjory LeBreton was the de facto minister of
patronage. They did not have a minister in the House, but they
might as well have, it was so blatant. Nobody got appointed to
anything by that Conservative government unless they met the
credentials of being a strong Conservative Party supporter. Of
course she got the biggest plum of all. She was appointed to the
Senate, where she is now able to make her pronouncements after
being a party servant for so many years.
The Liberals, not to be outdone, chose Penny Collenette to be
their de facto minister of patronage to hand out the appointments.
We saw it recently in the appointment of returning officers across
the country for the next election. That is the mindset of the Liberal
government.
(1340 )
That is the fodder that feeds the political machinery. Some hope
that down the road, if they pay my dues, donate enough money to
the Liberal coffers, pound on enough doors or if they support the
right person who happens to make it to the Prime Minister's chair
or the leader of the party at least, they will get their reward and be
well cared for.
It is one's party faithfulness and loyalty that becomes the
paramount criterion for being appointed to these various boards,
without public scrutiny and merit being the primary factor.
We support Motion No. 3.
Motion No. 4 limits the agency's executives to one term. If there
is proper scrutiny of who these people are I do not think that type of
step is necessary.
We support Motion No. 6. It would allow the standing committee
to review the appointments to the agency. The last part of the
amendment is a formula to force the minister to make the
appointments based on an exact province by province formula.
This is an excessive measure. It is getting away from merit and into
a quota system. I believe members are quite aware of our feelings
on people being appointed to positions or being hired based on
quotas rather than merit.
7456
We support Motion No. 7. It would allow the standing
committee to review appointments to the agency's advisory board.
We argued that position in committee and the Liberals rejected
it.
We oppose Motion No. 8. It would allow the advisory board to
advise a provincial government or a union-we are not sure why
the Bloc put that in. Perhaps someone can change our mind with a
good argument.
We oppose Motions Nos. 9 and 10. Motion 10 would require that
at least one of the advisory board members be from the agency's
union.
We support Motion No. 11. This amendment would require the
minister appoint as president of the agency the person that the
standing committee deems to be the best candidate. This brings
accountability and allows elected people to have a constructive role
in matters concerning government agencies and the creation of
these agencies.
We support Motion No. 12. It allows the standing committee to
review matters related to the new agency such as the advisory
board members' pay. One of the things that damaged the Canadian
Wheat Board the most was the fact that no one knew how much the
appointed commissioners received in salary. All sorts of rumours
floated around about what they received. Finally there was a leak
concerning their benefit package if they were to retire or be fired.
Farmers were shocked to find out that they were paying
severance packages of over $250,000 to these appointed
commissioners. It was all kept secret. A lot of ill feelings
developed toward the Canadian Wheat Board and the
commissioners because this fact had been kept secret. Therefore,
Reform supports this motion because it opens things up and
everybody knows the dollars that are involved and whether or not
they are adequate or too benevolent.
We support Motion No. 21. This would allow a review of the
agency's operations once a year by the standing committee.
Anything that can be done to bring elected people into a more
meaningful role in reviewing the work of agencies such as the food
inspection agency is a very positive step.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, several
points have been brought forward by the leader of the official
opposition which we agree are very important to the system.
However, we feel that most of the issues that he mentioned have
been dealt with very clearly within the legislation. I know people
can talk about patronage appointments and a wide variety of things,
such as the offices and positions that people have, but the reality is
there are four or five political parties in this House.
If we look at the representation of the people across the country,
there are always going to be some Liberals who are appointed to
positions. There are going to be some Bloc members who are
appointed to positions. There are going to be some Reform
members who are appointed to positions. Those appointments must
be on merit. On this side of the House we do not question the fact
that people are to be appointed on merit.
(1345 )
We feel that this legislation provides for an appointment process
of the president and the executive vice-president on the same basis
as we would appoint a deputy minister and associate deputy
minister. The process ensures that knowledgeable, well qualified
people will be selected for those positions. The legislation also
allows for the renewal of the appointment of the president or the
executive vice-president for one or more terms as appropriate. As
such it will provide the government with the flexibility to ensure a
consistent and continuous senior management structure in the
agency.
With respect to the role identified for the Standing Committee of
the House of Commons in the selection of advisory board
members, there is no legislative precedent in the Canadian
parliamentary system for having a committee involved with that
type of detail. Yes, we have seen the fiascos of committees getting
involved in the scrutiny of appointments in the United States. Quite
frankly, it is a political tear down when we look at it. I think the
public watches with interest when parties start that process. In
reality, I am certain that the United States is very envious of the
system we have in this country. It is very clear from the people we
have in appointed positions that they do an extremely good job.
The minister is responsible and accountable to Parliament for the
agency and its administration. As we look at it the minister is the
end of those responsibilities. Quite frankly, he has the
responsibility to consult very widely, check with as many people as
possible and make certain the operation is running properly.
The purpose of the advisory board is clearly to provide the
minister with advice with respect to matters relating to food
inspection. Provinces, unions, and others will continue to seek
input from a host of sources that will help the minister with his
decisions.
With respect to the selection of the advisory board members, the
intent of the legislation is to ensure that the minister can choose an
advisory board from as wide a selection of individuals as possible.
We do not wish to inadvertently limit or curtail the possibilities of
choice of that board. Rather than mandating representation from
specific interested parties, it is preferable to have a broad source of
knowledgeable people, including the possibility of representation
from the unions.
7457
With respect to fees paid to the advisory board members, these
fees will be subject to Treasury Board guidelines that are in place
in this country.
With respect to the reporting on intellectual property, this
information is currently available and reported annually. For
example, the food production and inspection agency of Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada issued 1,621 fresh fruit and vegetable dealer
licences in 1996 and is part of the summary list in part III of the
main estimates. This reporting will continue in the agency.
Furthermore, committees of the House will continue to review this
sort of information as part of the main estimates process through
the Appropriations Act.
I reiterate as well that where concerns come up and Parliament
wishes to deal with them, we do have the committee process in
place. That committee process is to allow members of this House to
investigate whatever issues they feel necessary to further
investigate. It will involve members of Parliament. Through that
process I believe the House is well protected too.
The minister who is virtually responsible in the end must take
the resource of what is going on, take the circumstances of the
agency and make certain it is running properly. The House at the
same time has its vehicle through the committees to investigate any
concerns. Quite frankly, both sides of the House have a full
opportunity in committee to voice concerns and bring forward
witnesses to discuss issues that are pertinent.
(1350)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-60, the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency Act. At first blush, the bill seems pretty
innocuous. I looked at it with the hon. member for Frontenac.
However, a closer examination shows what the Liberal Party
wants to do. This is rather disheartening. The government comes
up with nice bills, but it always wants to able to appoint friends.
Because the government wants to remain in office, it does not
necessarily appoint competent people. Not to worry. It does not
matter whether these appointees are competent or not. What
matters for the government is looking after its friends.
Earlier, the hon. member for Frontenac proposed constructive
amendments. My colleague sat on the committee. He made
constructive suggestions, and I am anxious to see whether the
government will have the courage to accept and support these
positive changes.
Why do I say this? It is because, while I am still naive, I do
notice certain things when I look at the current political reality. We
are the official opposition and people often say that the opposition
is only there to block government initiatives. This is not at all the
Bloc Quebecois' vision, particularly since we are not even here to
try to form the government.
Rather, we are here to defend the views of part of the public. I
was elected to represent the Lac-Saint-Jean region. Therefore, I
come here with certain views and I say to the government: ``Listen,
your bill may not be so bad, but we propose this changeor that
change''. But to no avail. I am quite convinced that, when the time
comes to vote, the government will turn a deaf ear.
It should come as no surprise that people are no longer interested
in politics. It is always the same thing. It is always these little
schemes to promote patronage. Of course, this is done quietly. It
does not make the headlines. It is always done in an under handed
way. This is all very disappointing. Even though we are the
opposition-I would rather say the watchdog of democracy-we
should be able to work together at least some of the time, so that
everyone can make a positive contribution.
This reminds me of the bill we talked about recently, which
would have revoked the conviction of Louis Riel. Why did the
government vote against the bill? This is ridiculous. When the
opposition says black, the government says white.
But that is not what it usually says. Usually, it says: ``The
opposition is just there to disagree''. I am sorry, but we do try to
suggest some constructive changes. We try to raise some
interesting points. But all we get is a completely negative reaction
to any contribution we are prepared to make. I must say I find this
very disappointing. I look forward to the time when we have our
own country, so we can go our own way.
I will give a few examples from the bill. In clause 9, it says that
the head office of the agency shall be in the national capital region
or any other location in Canada. That is good. However, according
to certain officials, the head office of the agency could be in Ottawa
at first and then be moved later on by order in council. Basically,
the question that comes to mind is whether the agency could go
where it would be politically expedient. If things are not going well
in a riding, this would be a good thing to have, so the government
hands out a goody. That is what I dislike about the Liberal Party
and the government.
In clause 10, it says that the minister responsible for the agency
shall appoint an advisory board of not more than 12 members to
hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years.
The minister would also appoint one of the members as chairperson
of the advisory board instead of letting people qualified in this area
who have to work with the food inspection people choose their own
representatives.
7458
So the minister is making sure he can control the members of the
advisory board and influence their decisions. That is pretty
obvious. When you give a job to your friends, they can hardly turn
around later on and bite the hand that feeds them.
In subclause 10(5), it says that the minister will fix the fees paid
to the members of the advisory board. However, I may point out
that in clause 8, it says that the president and the executive
vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as is fixed by the
governor in council. The question is whether this is a mere
technicality or whether it is some kind of double standard that
could lead to discrimination. This clause is unacceptable for
another reason.
(1355)
Clause 12 provides that the agency is a separate employer under
the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Clause 13 provides that the
president has the authority to appoint employees to the agency.
When the bill was studied in committee, officials confirmed that
there would be a code of conduct, of ethics, governing the
appointment of agency employees. The thing is, however, that we
will not know the content of the code before the bill is passed. It
reminds me of the code of ethics of the ministers opposite: they
have a fine code of ethics to show that everything they do is proper,
except no one knows what the code is. It is completely ridiculous.
What is the use of a code of ethics when people cannot even find
out what it is about? Here again, it serves to score political points.
The officials told us that the usual rules governing hiring in the
public service would be suspended during the transition period.
Why do we not know what rules will be used?
We note therefore that patronage-discrimination even-will
abound in the future Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This is
why the Bloc Quebecois has proposed reasonable amendments to
prevent the federal government from abusing its power in this
matter.
As I said earlier, we simply want to make a constructive
contribution. I do not want to foul things up. So long as we are
paying taxes to Ottawa, I want to be sure this country is run the best
way possible. I am here to work, to improve bills while we are still
here. I see these sorts of things, and then people ask me why we
want to have our own country.
At some point, people have to try to understand more. As I said
earlier, we wonder why people are not more interested in politics. I
think it is because of this sort of thing.
Our colleague from Frontenac has contributed constructively. I
would therefore invite the government to give it some thought, and
perhaps we could work more together.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, as it is almost 2 p.m., we will now
go to Statements by Members. We will come back to the hon.
member after question period as he has a few minutes left.
7458
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week a very active and giving member of my riding of Brampton
was tragically murdered.
Martha MacDonald was a caregiver with Brampton Caledon
Community Living, an organization that offers support to mentally
and physically disadvantaged people living on their own. She was a
regular volunteer at the Ste. Louise Outreach Centre, a local food
bank, and an active political participant. Her enthusiasm and
passion will be missed.
On behalf of my constituents I offer my deepest condolences to
the family and friends of Martha MacDonald.
In early November, Martha participated in a public forum on
justice issues which I hosted in my riding of Brampton. She was
quite vocal at this community event about the need for greater
attention to the epidemic of violence against women. It is a very
sad irony for me personally that this is my last memory of Martha
MacDonald. Her comments foreshadowed the very tragic and
unfair end to her life.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Monday, I asked the Prime Minister to make the commitment that
his government would give the port of Trois-Rivières the status of
Canada port authority. I have been informed that the Minister of
Transport confirmed this morning, in a letter, that the port of
Trois-Rivières would become a CPA.
There is no need to thank the federal government for that since
the port of Trois-Rivières meets all the established criteria. As the
minister representing the Mauricie region, the Prime Minister had
the responsibility of ensuring, right from the start, that the port of
Trois-Rivières would be given CPA status since it meets all the
established criteria. His responsibility was to do that and not to
make a pitch for some local personality through various means.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister voluntarily ignored the second
part of my question concerning the $12 million accumulated by the
port of Trois-Rivières. The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about that
and demands that the government leave this money for the
7459
development of the port of Trois-Rivières instead of dipping into
this surplus, as it did with the port of Quebec City.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to applaud the sincere and tireless efforts of the
members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Especially at
Christmas, MADD reminds us with a red ribbon campaign of the
tragic consequences of drinking and driving.
(1400)
I commend MADD for effectively changing the attitudes of the
public toward what used to be an acceptable social occurrence,
getting behind the wheel of a vehicle after drinking.
However, the social pressure will not be enough to curb the high
percentage of repeat offenders whose problems are more than bad
judgment.
As a society we also have a responsibility to eradicate the
ravages of drunk driving by addressing the cause, not only the
effect.
Statistics show that up to 70 per cent of the drivers who cause
death and injury through impaired driving do have alcohol
problems.
Therefore I say it is time to enforce rehabilitation, even
involuntarily, to prevent future tragic deaths. We must, as well,
pass legislation like Motion No. 78 which will deal with this
serious offence effectively.
Today I am again wearing my pin in honour of Cindy Verhulst, a
young woman from Mission in my riding whose life was tragically
cut short by a drunk driver.
* * *
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
the House today to pay tribute to a special Canadian music legend.
Many will recognize the name Wilf Carter, but perhaps he was best
known to his fans as Montana Slim.
Wilf Carter was born December 18, 1904 in Port Hilford, Nova
Scotia and died one week ago at the age of 91.
Wilf Carter was inspired at an early age by a yodeller who was
passing through town. Wilf developed his own unique three in one
or echo yodel, which became his trademark in the music industry.
His famous yodel sparked his career, a career that spanned six
decades and kept him on the road well into his eighties.
Wilf began his career while working in the grain fields of
Alberta, singing at local dances, bunkhouses and parties.
Wilf was such a hit in the prairies that the Canadian Pacific
Railway hired him to entertain trail riders on their summer packing
trips through the Rockies.
One of his songs that I recall is ``It makes no difference now''.
The truth is his career made a difference, for Wilf Carter was a
legend in his own time.
On behalf of all Canadians and all those who knew him, we offer
his family our deepest condolences. Gone but never forgotten.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): I am pleased to
acknowledge the initiative of one of my constituents, Rupert
Evans, who travelled to Japan to build a frontier log home in a rural
community north of Tokyo. Rupert Evans, Royal Buchanan, Bill
Power and Dan Babcock spent six weeks in Japan on the project
while enjoying the warm hospitality of their Japanese hosts.
The material and human expertise required to build the home
were Canadian. Mr. Evans and his team amazed their hosts with
their aptitude and dedication. They accomplished in six weeks a
project which normally takes months in Japan. Rupert Evans and
his construction team showed the Japanese what Canadian hard
work and initiative are all about. Their efforts have stimulated
demand for Canadian resources and skill in this field.
We are opening doors to other markets, we are expanding
opportunity for Canadian business and we are establishing good
relations with foreign governments to facilitate trade.
Congratulations to Rupert Evans and his team for a job well done
in showing that Canadian expertise is the best in the world.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I make this
statement on behalf of my fellow island colleagues, four MPs.
A large group of islanders are concerned about a rash of criminal
acts that has occurred on Prince Edward Island. The worst was the
repeated sexual abuse of a three-year old girl in which the rapist
suggested that she was actually the aggressor. We find that hard to
believe. More to the point, a provincial judge sentenced this
individual to only 15 months for this heinous crime.
7460
In response to this, my colleagues and I have received a petition
from the Citizens Against Sexual Abuse of Children signed by
over 11,000 islanders.
These petitioners call on Parliament to review the penalties
associated with such crimes. They feel penalties are far too lenient
and should be increased to provide a deterrent to protect the most
innocent in our society, our children. We also request the Minister
of Justice to formally respond.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to express my support for the ongoing negotiations
between the city of Mirabel and the Department of Public Works
for the purchase of the Bois-de-Belle-Rivière forest educational
park.
Several reasons led me to this decision. In the past, significant
public investments have confirmed the role of
Bois-de-Belle-Rivière as a tourist area. The city of Mirabel has
already said it is interested in protecting local plant and animal life.
It has even created a corporation, called CPEM, that is responsible
for environmental protection in the Mirabel area.
The Centre de formation agricole de Mirabel, headed by Denis
Lauzon, is also very much involved in this project.
(1405)
The people of the greater Montreal area are in favour of
protecting the Bois-de-Belle-Rivière area, and that is why I am
asking the public works minister to accept the request made by the
city of Mirabel.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to give fair warning to the
Liberals that their proposed senior's benefit which places a 50 per
cent tax rate on the income of Canadian senior citizens will not be
tolerated.
The Liberals do not listen to Canadians but they will not be able
to ignore the voice of Canadian senior citizens who will align
themselves at the ballot box in the next election. Canadian seniors
will not stand for the 50 per cent tax rate on their income.
Not only are the Liberals planning to attack OAS, they are also
attacking the Canada pension plan. They plan to triple taxes for the
CPP and cut seniors' pensions in half.
Canadian seniors will support the fresh start offered by the
Reform Party of Canada. We are committed to rescuing the CPP
and guaranteeing that every senior citizen receives every penny
that he or she is entitled to under the Canada pension plan.
Canadian seniors know that Liberal and Tory policies do not
work. Canadians want the security of the Reform Party of Canada.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have heard a lot this week about the Prime Minister's
broken promises. The Prime Minister broke his promise to
Canadians on the GST, on jobs, on the CBC and on many other
issues. Some Canadians even say he lied, but today he went well
beyond broken promises-
The Speaker: My colleague, we had a similar situation
yesterday. We cannot say through someone else's words what we
ourselves cannot say in this House. I judge that word to be
unparliamentary and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw it
forthwith.
Ms. McLaughlin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Some hon. members: Withdraw.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the
word.
Ms. McLaughlin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Of course I withdraw
the word.
Today the Prime Minister is breaking not just a promise but a
fundamental trust with aboriginal people in this country.
In 1969 he tried to assimilate aboriginal people with the
recommendations of the white paper report. Now, 27 years later,
changes are being introduced to the Indian Act which are not
accepted by the First Nations of this country. Five hundred and
eighty out of six hundred and thirty-three chiefs and councils say
they were not consulted about this process.
Following the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples which came out just days ago, it is time for the government
to finally listen to aboriginal people, to consult aboriginal people,
and not to make unilateral changes to the Indian Act.
Aboriginal people are asking for a new relationship with Canada.
Let us see the Prime Minister keep his promise this time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following a CRTC decision, it seems that two French television
stations in the national capital, CHOT and CFGS, will be moved
7461
from their present location, channels 5 and 10, to less advantageous
positions on the cable grid.
Two English channels, one from Pembroke and the other from
Hamilton, will take their place, to the great displeasure of some
10,000 francophones of the region.
Moreover, two American networks, NBC and CBS, channels 9
and 13 respectively, will not be affected at all by this change and
will stay in the channel 2 to 13 range. In my opinion, this is
intolerable. Consequently, the CRTC rules should be changed to
give priority to Canadian francophone and anglophone stations.
In conclusion, I invite Rogers, the cable company, known to be
sensitive to the French presence in the region, to do everything in
its power to prevent this from happening.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
more congratulations are due to Donovan Bailey, the world's
fastest man. He has been awarded the Lou Marsh trophy as
Canada's outstanding athlete of 1996.
He edged out a who's who of candidates vying for this
prestigious honour, all of whom had their own outstanding
achievements in their respective sports. It certainly says a great
deal about the athletic talent we possess in Canada when one has to
win two Olympic gold medals and set a world record to edge out
the competition for the athlete of the year award.
Without a doubt his physical performance was tremendous, but
his athletic skill was truly complemented by the grace he displayed
in victory.
Donovan Bailey not only excels in sprinting, he sets an
outstanding example to the youth of Canada. Congratulations,
Donovan.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
La Bande à Gilet,
a radio program first aired on CJRP then on CJMP, in Quebec City,
have been giving out the BOLO award for five years now. This
award goes to an event or a person chosen by popular vote as
having been or made the blunder of the week.
I am glad to announce in this House that the winner for this
week, whose name will be officially announced only tomorrow at
8.35 a.m., is the federal Minister of Health who earned the title for
his anti-tobacco bill. BOLO to the Minister of Health.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker:
This statement is about the word
The word that may not be heard
It's a word really common
Except with the brahmin
The word L-I-E is not free
It is bound by the House SOP
For in this house of repute
The rules make us mute
The Prime Minister may prevaricate
In front of Canadians so variate
But it's all self-deception
If he misjudges their reception
When he tells campaign stories
That could be writ by the Tories
He can later deny,
And say twas not I
He said we'll kill the GST
An abomination from Mulroney
But if we find that we can't
We'll just let people rant
If I do what isn't a word
I'll deny till all is absurd
The public won't die
If this guy who is shy
Is found to be telling a shmy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we learned
this morning that IBM, CGI and the Informission Group, have just
formed a consortium dedicated to solving the computer conversion
problem before the beginning of year 2000.
Informission Group's RECYC 2000 software was chosen to
adapt the computer systems to enter the third millennium. The
consortium intends to create a software conversion centre which
could be established in Informission's engineering centre, in
Quebec City.
The activities of the consortium should create at least 1,000 jobs
in Quebec over the next three years.
Skilled workers, an efficient R & D assistance strategy and an
aggressive approach on international markets are the factors which
allow Canada to attract projects like this consortium.
Congratulations and good luck.
7462
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that the Port of Montreal will
finish up the year 1996 in very good shape.
By the end of the year, there will be a 3 per cent increase in cargo
handled. There was a spectacular 10 per cent jump in the volume of
container traffic during the first 11 months of the year.
This increase is attributable to shipowners' confidence in
Montreal's port facilities and in the quality of services available
there. It is important to remember that a good part of this increase
came about at the expense of the ports of New York and Baltimore.
The port authority is expected to post a net profit for the
seventeenth year in a row. This profit should be in the
neighbourhood of $11 million.
We pay tribute to the work of the port's administrators and we
urge them to keep up the good work they are doing as the engine of
Montreal's economy.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, at certain times of the year, for
example St. Patrick's Day and Robbie Burns Day, we bend the rules
a little. Today is one of those days. So in your name I will recognize
the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
* * *
Santa Claus (The North Pole): Mr. Speaker, through you and
this democratic House I wish to convey on behalf of all the peace
loving peoples of the world the very, very best.
May you all continue to strive for and encourage all those efforts
that you have been involved in toward the encouragement and the
development of peace operations throughout the world.
(1415)
[Translation]
Best wishes for good health and happiness to you all.
_____________________________________________
7462
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, Statistics Canada published figures showing
that there were five million Canadians living under the poverty
line, a 38 per cent increase since 1989. There are 1.4 million
children living in poverty in Canada, 45 per cent more than in 1989.
Not only are families not getting any richer, but their average
income has gone down by $2,800 since 1989, and this is before the
new EI system comes into the picture and further reduces their
standard of living.
Is the Prime Minister aware that it is incumbent on him as Prime
Minister to do a little more for the poor than wish them ``Good
luck'', which was all he had to say the other evening on television
to those seeking work?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we said when we formed the government was that
we had a terrible situation on our hands.
The government found itself facing an annual deficit of $42
billion. If we had not taken steps to correct this situation, there was
a danger that the social programs that exist for the protection of the
poorest members of Canadian society might disappear.
We took the bull by the horns-
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes we did, and we sorted out
the problem of the deficit better than people thought we would.
What we are seeing today is that, in order to be able to create
jobs so that people in difficulty can provide their families with the
necessities of life, we must contend with the lowest interest rates in
40 years. We have an economy with the lowest rate of inflation in
many years. The conditions are there for the economy to create the
jobs that will make it possible for the most disadvantaged members
of society to provide for their families, in particular their children,
as they would like, in so far as possible.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is somewhat unfortunate that the Prime Minister sees it
as a choice between reducing the deficit and helping people find
work.
We have explained to him how taxation reform alone would free
up $3 billion for active job creation. We are not criticizing the
Prime Minister for trying to reduce the deficit. We are, however,
criticizing his lack of imagination when it comes to creating jobs
and helping people find work.
The Prime Minister was outraged when former Prime Minister
Kim Campbell said during an election campaign that the rate of
unemployment in Canada would not drop below 10 per cent. The
Prime Minister had a lot to say about that on the campaign trail. Is
the Prime Minister more comfortable with an unemployment rate
of 10 per cent now that he is holding the reins?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in January 1994, the rate of unemployment was 11.5 per
cent and it was brought down to 9.4 per cent last year.
Unfortunately, it has now gone back up to 10 per cent, but if OECD
and IMF forecasts are any indication, we will have the best
economic growth of all G-7 countries in 1997.
We believe that the unemployment rate is going to drop. But we
have set up programs. For example, despite the financial difficul-
7463
ties faced by the government, we introduced an infrastructure
program in our first few months in office. You will recall that Mrs.
Campbell said at the time that it was a ridiculous program, and
members of this House used the opportunity to-
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would remind you always to address
your comments to the Chair.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, through you, I voice my indignation at the government's
actions.
Let us jog the Prime Minister's memory. Since the beginning of
the year, and I hope the Prime Minister understands what I am
getting at, through you, the number of unemployed in Canada has
increased faster than the number of new full time jobs: 121,000
more people unemployed, but only 106,000 new jobs. The
government is unable to meet the public's needs.
Is the Prime Minister able to understand that, if the situation
continues to deteriorate in this way, it is because his government is
not guiding the economic recovery, is not stepping in, is creating
only a paltry number of jobs, and dead end ones at that, and
because, to top it all off, UI cutbacks will take effect in January?
This will be a terrible blow to the poorest members of our society,
and it is the government's fault.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Unfortunately,
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has got the numbers
wrong. Since the beginning of the year, even thouh there has been a
loss of around 45,000 jobs in the public sector, over 200,000 new
jobs were created in the private sector in Canada.
Furthermore, in the preamble to his first question, the Leader of
the Opposition spoke about family income. I would like to tell him
that the truth of the matter is that family income has gone up since
we came to office in 1993. Before then, family income had dropped
dramatically during the recession between 1989 and 1991. But
since we have come to office, not only have we halted this decline,
but we have seen family income start to climb.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if family income is the topic, family income is $2,800
lower than in 1989. These are Statistics Canada figures.
There are, however, limits to the statistical juggling that can be
done, like the Minister of Finance's statement he has just made,
telling us we are one of the top countries in the world where job
creation is concerned and promising that the situation will
improve. There are limits to everything.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What is his answer, he
who is so fond of international bodies, to the OECD's statement
that Canada ranks 17th out of 26 industrialized countries with its
1996 unemployment rate? What is the Prime Minister's answer to
Statistics Canada, which is telling us that there were more newly
unemployed people that new full time jobs in 1996? That is what
Statistics Canada said.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): I have before
me the figures for average family incomes in Canada. In 1989, the
average annual family income was $58,000. In 1993, when we
came to office after three years of Conservative government, the
annual income had dropped from $58,000 to $54,000. Today, it is
going back up, at $55,000.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the Minister of Finance wants to talk statistics, that is
what Statistics Canada is there for. We can see that, for 20 per cent
of poorest families, the income is more or less unchanged, and that
for the richest families it has risen, while for the middle class it
continues to decrease. This is what the Statistics Canada figures
show.
I think that the Prime Minister still has a chance to help those
who are becoming more and more familiar with poverty, and he can
do before certain measures of the new Employment Insurance Act
are implemented.
My question is for the Prime Minister.
(1425)
Could he not suspend implementation of employment insurance
reform measures which end up impoverishing the unemployed by
taking billions of dollars away from them in order to wipe the
deficit slate of the Minister of Finance clean?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are measures to that effect. For instance, the changes
we have proposed concerning employment legislation. We have
guaranteed a 25 per cent minimum to families, which is a far better
guarantee than the one in place before, because we are concerned
about their situation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's disastrous performance at the CBC
town hall has sent the Liberal spin doctors into damage control
mode. They have now suggested the CBC, a federal crown
corporation established by an act of this House, rigged the town
hall, purposely stacking it with hostile questioners who did not
reflect the concerns of Canadians.
Unemployment, job security, the GST and national unity are the
concerns of real Canadians. The questions raised at the town hall
do reflect the worries and anger felt by 1.5 million Canadians who
are unemployed.
7464
Does the Prime Minister really think the CBC rigged that town
hall and that Canadians are not really concerned about jobs, about
taxes, and about national unity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not say that the town hall was rigged. It is the first
time that a Prime Minister has gone on a program like that for an
hour in French and an hour in English. If I was afraid to face the
situation, I could very easily have stayed at home. I am not afraid to
talk to the Canadian people.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I replied to all their questions. I
told them that it is not easy to run a country. When we started as a
government three years ago the people were telling us that Canada
was virtually a third world country in terms of its finances. But I
was happy to report to the people of Canada that night that now we
are considered the best of the G-7 because we took the challenge.
I do not deny that there were people there who would like to
work but cannot find a job. We are working on that. It is our
priority. That is why we have established programs to improve the
situation. Another credit to the nation is that Canada created
672,000 new jobs in the last three years. But that is not enough. We
have to keep working on that and it is exactly what we will do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we find it curious that the Prime Minister's colleagues
stood when he said he should have stayed at home.
Canadians have every right to hold the Prime Minister
accountable for his broken campaign promises on the GST. But that
is extremely difficult when the Prime Minister's handlers keep him
in a bubble, away from the public. We can understand why they do
that, because the last time they let him out he attacked a
demonstrator, told a bunch of kids in Winnipeg about imaginary
friends and he ended up abusing Canadians at a town hall meeting.
(1430 )
The Speaker: I would invite the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest to put his question.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is not afraid to
attend town hall meetings, will he assure the House and all
Canadians that he will not retreat back into his bubble, that he will
present himself at more town hall meetings and public forums
where Canadian voters can hold him accountable for his actions
and his deeds?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, not long ago I was challenged by his seatmate. We have a
debate here every week and I am in the House more than many
other members of Parliament.
With regard to the preamble to his question, it is no wonder the
leader of the third party is affected because the support which the
people of Canada have for him is going down month after month.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue here is accountability. The Prime Minister
should expect to be held accountable to the 1.5 million unemployed
for saying: ``That's life, lots of luck, try harder''.
In the last election when Kim Campbell said that unemployment
would remain at double digits until the next century, she accepted
the unacceptable and paid the price. By saying ``that's life'' to 1.5
million unemployed, the Prime Minister is also accepting the
unacceptable and he will pay the price.
Does the Prime Minister, like Kim Campbell, consider the
present levels of unemployment acceptable and the status quo is
good enough? Is that the real reason he rejects public criticism of
his jobs policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we came to power the first thing we did was have an
infrastructure program to create jobs. That was strongly opposed
by the Conservatives. As the House will recall, it was opposed by
the hon. member who is the leader of the third party.
After the program was established he was the first one to come to
the government for money to create jobs in Calgary. I do not blame
him, but it shows that as long as there are people who want to work,
this government will be working to create jobs for them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Industry.
On Tuesday, the Minister of Industry tried to downplay the
serious allegations against the president of the space agency and his
executive vice-president. The minister wanted to put the blame on
Mario Rinaldi, the former vice-president and comptroller of the
space agency. In fact, the latter was fired for having criticized a
number of dubious practices at the space agency.
Does the minister admit that Mario Rinaldi, then vice-president
and comptroller of the space agency, was suspended from his
position because he revealed some dubious practices of his
executive vice-president, Alain Desfossés, to Mr. Evans, president
of the agency?
7465
(1435)
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear that the allegations the hon. member keeps
making are in fact the complaints of a discontented former
employee of the agency, one of four vice-presidents-the
vice-presidential positions having been eliminated in a
reorganization of the agency-who is unhappy because he is no
longer employed in the agency.
He has indicated that he wants to take legal action against the
Canadian Space Agency. It is his right to do so. In the meantime, it
is very inappropriate for a member to make accusations on the floor
of the House where people being accused are not in a position to
defend themselves. The issues will be resolved in a court of law.
[Translation]
The hon. member must be aware of the fact that everyone has the
right to answer charges and to have his day in court.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister hide behind a grievance, when the people against
whom these serious allegations were made are still with the space
agency, unless he wants to protect his former adviser, Mr. Evans?
[English]
The Speaker: We must not impute motives, my colleagues, in
questions.
[Translation]
I would ask the hon. member to please put her question.
Mrs. Venne: This is my question, then. Does the minister want
to hide his appointee, Mr. Evans? Does he want to protect Mr.
Evans, the person he himself appointed president of the space
agency?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite prepared to defend Mr. Evans because he has
not done anything inappropriate.
A few days ago, the hon. member raised a question about the
amount, it was about $100-
Some hon. members: Oh,oh.
Mr. Manley: -which was not even been paid. I am sure her
constituents are delighted with her concern about the amounts
spent by government employees. I am sure her constituents would
also be interested to hear this is the same member who filed a claim
for expenses totalling nearly $5,000, for a Canada-NATO
interparliamentary conference where she did not even attend the
conference meetings. She just voted-
Mr. Loubier: Liar.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River.
* * *
(1440 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Merry Christmas,
Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister is trying desperately to convince Canadians
that he never ever promised to scrap, kill or abolish the GST, but on
television, radio and in newspapers he has said quite clearly that he
would scrap, kill or abolish the GST. Again I say that tapes do not
lie.
As Richard Nixon said in the United States: ``I am not a crook
and I did not erase the tapes'', I am sure this Prime Minister wishes
desperately he could erase the tapes. He cannot erase the tapes, so
why does he not just admit that he blew it and apologize?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish they would quote the whole situation.
For example, yesterday she referred to what I said in the House
about killing the GST on May 2, 1994 before we referred the
problem to the committee. I said: ``We are trying to change the
GST to replace it with a fairer system of taxation''. That is all I
said. We referred the problem to the committee and the committee
recommended harmonization, which was mentioned in the red
book. It was recommended as being the best course to take. A
month later, in December of this year, the Reform Party, on page
131 of its minority report, said: ``Integration of the provincial sales
tax and the GST and tax in pricing are desirable in principle and
Reform has supported this policy''.
In that context we said we would replace the GST with a tax that
would be integrated with provincial taxes.
Look at what is happening in Newfoundland, for example.
Rather than paying 20 per cent, they will be paying 15 per cent next
year under harmonization. That is different from the GST. It is a
different tax. It is integrated.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
might get wild cheers from his caucus, but it sure as heck did not go
down the other night at the CBC town hall meeting.
On April 26 of this year in this House the finance minister said
about the GST: ``We made a mistake. It was an honest mistake''. I
think people respect him for that. Even the Deputy Prime Minister
admitted that she made a mistake. It took a while, but she finally
resigned over the GST. The only person in here who stubbornly
7466
clings to the illusion that the Liberals did not promise to scrap, kill
or abolish the GST is the Prime Minister, who is whistling and
dancing right now.
Why does the Prime Minister not join with his colleagues, the
finance minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, stand and say to
this House, say to the CBC so it can be played on the news tonight
and say to the people whom he scorned in the town hall meeting the
other night: ``I blew it. I am sorry. We made a mistake''?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
virtually every time a member of the Reform Party stands to ask a
question, the member contradicts their party's established position.
The Prime Minister yesterday and today read from the Reform
Party's report on the GST its unequivocal support for
harmonization. He has read its unequivocal support for tax in
pricing. Yet day after day members of the Reform Party stand and
contradict it.
There is another question the Prime Minister might ask them.
Members of the Reform Party stand and say that they would like to
see tax cuts. Perhaps the members of the Reform Party would then
tell us why is it in their report on the GST that they advocated the
base be broadened to tax food and drug products?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what is interesting about the Minister of Industry is that,
each time we raise the question of the space agency, he adopts one
of two attitudes. Either he makes light of the matter, saying: ``That
is nothing, just bits of paper'', or he goes up the wall, pulls himself
up to his full height and lets opposition members have it.
The real problem is not the $100 or so that Mr. Evans may have
spent, it is the principle. The problem of Mr. Rinaldi, the
vice-president, began the day he refused to backdate a document to
save Diana Durnford, an employee in the minister's office, from
having to pay $557.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1445)
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): My question
is this. Why is the minister trying to hide the truth and why is he
refusing to have an outside independent investigation so matters
could be clarified and people would know once and for all what
happened at the space agency?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is difficult to make anything more banal than the
opposition does.
In repeating allegations that were made to the newspapers by a
disgruntled former employee of the space agency who is taking his
complaints to court, the opposition is continuing to cast aspersions
on the characters of people who have done nothing wrong and who
are not in a position to defend themselves here.
The member, who ought to know better, just made an allegation
with respect to an overpayment of $557.82-just so we have some
perspective on the amounts here: $375.85 for unpaid leave and
$181.97 for two days of work-to a former agency employee who
was subsequently hired in my office as a political adviser. Although
the overpayment was a result of paperwork relating to the transfer
of the employee from the agency and although the question was in
some doubt, because that person is of high character and did not
want to be associated with anything that could be embarrassing, she
gave the benefit of the doubt to the agency and repaid the amount in
question. And these people raise it on the floor of the House of
Commons.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, she may have repaid the money, but after the refusal to
backdate a document.
What causes concern in all of this is the incestuous relationship
between the space agency and cabinet. The minister's adviser left
cabinet to go to the space agency, and Diana Durnford left the space
agency to join cabinet. The minister's credibility is a source of
considerable embarrassment in this matter.
I would like to ask him now, and I hope he listens carefully,
whether today, from his seat, he can tell us if he himself looked into
Mr. Rinaldi's allegations before saying they were totally false?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course in my responsibilities as minister I would ask
the agency for a full explanation of all of the allegations. I have
received that explanation.
I have just described in detail how silly one of the allegations is.
The same is characteristic of the allegations that were repeated in
previous days by the member for Saint-Hubert. I am satisfied that
there is nothing wrong.
7467
However, I point out again that Mr. Rinaldi will have his day
in court. If he has been unfairly treated, a court will decide that
and I presume he will be rewarded in damages. But in the
meantime, to cast aspersions of this sort is simply unfair,
unfounded and I would suggest improper.
* * *
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. I would like to refer him to
page 90 of the red book. He said: ``If a government is to play a
positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our
political institutions must be restored''.
Today Canadians from coast to coast are calling into question the
integrity and credibility of the Government of Canada. How does
the Prime Minister reconcile his promise of governing with
integrity with his broken GST promise?
(1450 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy he has the red book. He should read the page
where we stated we would integrate the GST with the provinces
through harmonization. It is stated in the red book and it is exactly
what this government is doing at this time. We have signed an
agreement with three provinces and are about to sign a fourth one.
We are progressing in replacing this tax with an integrated tax.
I gave the example of Newfoundland where the people were
paying 20 per cent tax. Next year they will only be paying 15 per
cent. This is a change from what existed before. This is exactly
what we said we would do in the red book from which the member
is reading.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think what is compounding the problem is that the Prime Minister
refuses to recognize what his promise was. He has now had the
opportunity to review both the audio and video tapes. Not only did
he promise Canadians that he would scrap the GST, he also
promised caucus on a number of occasions that he would scrap the
GST. How does he reconcile his promises to the people of Canada
and the caucus with his broken promises?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish the hon. member would turn to the page in the book
about the GST and read to the House of Commons what the
promise was that this party made to the people of Canada. We
always said that we wanted to replace the GST with a harmonized
tax. This is exactly what we are trying to do at this time. We are not
progressing as fast as we would like.
The Government of Ontario at the beginning of its tenure said it
wanted to have the integration of the two taxes but it has not signed
yet. Some day Ontario will sign the agreement and will have the
same situation as that in the maritimes.
The hon. member cannot even read back to the House of
Commons what he campaigned on when he ran in the last election.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
The unemployment insurance benefits of workers who were laid
off when the Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse closed last April
have now run out. What a wonderful Christmas present it would be
for these workers to have the plant reopen, now that the unions and
the Quebec government have finally reached an agreement with
PACCAR. All that is missing is co-operation from Ottawa, without
which nothing can happen.
Since this is a matter of some urgency, will the minister
undertake to approve before Christmas the financial support
required to re-equip the plant and retrain the manpower?
(1455)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
know, discussions have indeed taken place since the Kenworth
plant closed. There were discussions in Quebec City between
representatives of PACCAR, the Quebec government and the
Canadian government, which I represented.
The negotiations are going well. The word is that the end may be
in sight. There are still a number of elements regarding the business
plans that the Canadian government is waiting for. When we have
received all the information, we will be able to make our position
known. At this stage, it is too early to take a position.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the unions certainly do not think it would be too early if it
happened before Christmas.
One month after the government granted Canadian Airlines a
$20 million tax rebate, could the minister show be as understanding
about customs duties owed by Kenworth, which stand in the way of
the plant reopening?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the
official opposition's position difficult to understand. There are
several jobs and many families at stake, which makes it an
extremely important matter.
7468
Hence the need for negotiation, serious negotiation. There are
a number of elements directly involving the Canadian government,
be it customs duties or the agreement between Industry Canada
and Quebec. We are seriously looking into the matter and, as soon
as a position can be defined, we will gladly go ahead, if that is
what is called for.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Radio-Canada International is Canada's fair and balanced voice
around the world. Most of us recognize and know that it will cease
operations on March 31, 1997. This will mean that Canada will be
the only industrial nation worldwide without a voice on the
international scene.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. What does he
intend to do to preserve Radio-Canada International not just for the
short term, but for the long term?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly recognize how important it is to have an
effective voice for Canada abroad to promote trade, development,
culture and the other values of Canada. To pursue that we in the
government are working on a broader strategy to use new
technologies and all the assets we have. We recognize that
Radio-Canada is an important element of that.
In light of the funding changes CBC had to make, we recognize
that we have to fill in a gap during the time that we work on the
broader strategy. We can say that through the work of the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, other ministers and myself, we will be able
to provide ongoing funding for RCI and at the same time help it
convert to a new instrument for Canada's voice abroad to present
Canada in an effective way.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I hope I have the same
amount of luck with my question as the previous questioner had in
terms of getting a response.
The Globe and Mail told us today that the government is
planning to proceed with allowing multiple licensing for fishing on
the west coast. The minister of fisheries will know that the fishers
on the west coast have indicated they are against this proposal.
With the same enthusiasm that the government called for a vote
by the Canadian Auto Workers regarding Canadian Airlines
International, will the government now follow suit by agreeing to
what the fishers on the west coast and the Government of British
Columbia are calling for, which is to have a vote before the
government proceeds with this issue?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the Fryer report which
was released today. It talks about a number of things and a number
of areas in which action should be taken in support of the
fishermen, the fish and the coastal communities.
I have to tell the hon. member that he did not put all the
information to the House. The recommendation made by Mr. Fryer,
who was the third independent party, essentially was that there was
an agreement reached on November 27 among the three parties,
federal, provincial and the third party, that a vote would take place.
But that vote would take place at the end of 1997, not now.
(1500 )
The Speaker: That completes question period for today. I do not
know when the session is going to end, but should it end tomorrow,
then this would be the last Thursday of this year that we have
together.
In the spirit of the season I would invite all of you to a very small
reception which I will be having in Room 216 from about four to
six o'clock. You are more than welcome.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this question will be a little different from my usual one. I
would like to ask the government whether we will be sitting
tomorrow, and if so, will we be debating Bill C-71, the tobacco act,
at report stage?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is possible that some spirits will help us get into the right mood
for the season. It may be that for some, not for me. Your invitation
will be most helpful in establishing the proper mood. I hope I am in
it already and not because of any spirits, I assure you.
The legislative program for today and tomorrow remains at least
for now Bill C-60, the food inspection agency legislation and Bill
C-23, the nuclear safety bill.
I do not intend to call the tobacco legislation either today or
tomorrow.
My most recent report on legislation that we have sent to the
other place indicates that we still do not know how the other place
is dealing with a number of items that require Royal Assent in the
immediate future.
7469
If any of these bills were to be sent back to us for further action,
we propose to deal with them on a priority basis with a view
toward completing consideration before we rise for a holiday
break.
I think it only fair to advise the House that the government sees it
as clearly being in the public interest that some of these bills be
finally disposed of before Christmas and if circumstances compel
the House to sit next week to do this, we are prepared to take the
necessary action to bring this about. I am certain that nobody here
views this as a desirable course, but right now we must await
decisions in the other place.
By way of conclusion, I want to advise the House that we face a
heavy legislative agenda during the winter and we will have to give
serious consideration in January whether the public interest
requires the House returning a bit before the scheduled February 3
date. If members have ideas about travels or vacations in January,
please bear this in mind in making any plans.
In the hope that we can wrap up on schedule I would like to take
this opportunity to wish you and all the other members the best for
the holiday season and, yes, even for the new year.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a question of privilege.
During question period, the Minister of Industry commented
erroneously on my participation in the activities of the
Canada-NATO Parliamentary Association, which took place last
November 18 to 20. I was present at those activities.
In addition, the minister implied that I had wasted taxpayers'
money by not taking part in the activities and meetings of the
association, when in fact I was present. Furthermore, I would like
the minister to note that I was seen there by the Liberal members
for Nipissing, Hillsborough, Saint-Denis, Mississauga West and
South Shore, as well as by Senator Rompkey. I certainly had
enough witnesses.
I therefore ask the Minister of Industry to withdraw his
untruthful comments about me.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, the minister who made the
remarks is here. He may wish to clarify.
(1505)
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me make one thing very clear.
If there is one thing that I consider to be despicable and beyond
reproach, it is to make accusations of people who are not in a
position to defend themselves. I admit I accused-
Mr. Loubier: Cheap.
Mr. Manley: There is a bird in the front row over there. I
accused the member for Saint-Hubert, based on information that I
received from two of the members of the committee that she has
just cited.
If she is prepared to stand in the House and say in the presence of
all of us that she attended the working sessions and not only the
social sessions of the Canada-NATO Parliamentary Association in
Paris, that she attended the plenary session and voted on the
resolutions, then I abjectly apologize to her.
I wish that she would accord to others the right to be able to
answer accusations that are made of them.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I think it is now clear. Accusations were made. He
said he was mistaken.
[English]
We are trying to clarify a situation. Let me put everything into
perspective as I understand it. During the course of question period,
the hon. Minister of Industry raised a point about whether another
hon. member attended some meetings that had to do with NATO.
The hon. member, who was mentioned, stood in her place and
said that she was at all the meetings. That was her position. I then
asked the hon. minister if he would clarify what he said and, in my
view, he said that if the hon. member claimed that she was there,
and she did, she said in front of all of us that she was there and she
did everything, I can only accept the member's word.
Having accepted her word, the hon. minister said that he abjectly
apologizes and withdraws. In the absence of any other information,
unless there is more information, I have an accusation and a
withdrawal. I do not want to get into an open debate.
This is a question of privilege and the hon. member has asked
and the statement has been withdrawn. In my view, the statement
has been withdrawn.
I address myself to the hon. Minister of Industry. Did the hon.
Minister of Industry withdraw his statement?
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, I was not there. If the hon. member is
saying in this House that she attended the working sessions and that
she voted in the plenary session, then I cannot deny that. I cannot
say otherwise. Therefore I abjectly apologize if that is what she is
saying. I accept it.
7470
(1510)
The Speaker: In my view an abject apology is a withdrawal and
I accept it on behalf of the House. I consider this matter to be
closed.
I am going to move on to a point of order, the hon. whip of the
Reform Party.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
you know, there is an all-party agreement on the way question
period is run; the order of the questions, the rotation and how it
goes from one party to the next.
During question period after the fourth question from the official
opposition you then go to a Liberal member and then normally to a
Reform member. Mr. Speaker, this time you failed to recognize the
fourth member of the Reform Party and I wondered why. We had a
member standing who was not recognized.
The Speaker: I consider that to be a reasonable question. There
has been an agreement for three years that we have gone to. When I
come to the ninth question, which is the fewest questions I believe
we have had in this session, I usually go to an independent member.
That is the reason why today in my judgment I went to the
independent member for Kamloops. That is a reasonable question.
Do I have a point of order over here? Is this the same point of
order?
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding that I cannot speak on it but I was named by the
member opposite.
The Speaker: Order. Is the hon. member talking about the point
of order by the hon.-
Ms. Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, I tried to be recognized.
The Speaker: As far as the question of privilege is concerned I
have ruled on that and we are beyond that now.
I am talking about a point of order here. Let me clear up this
point of order and I will return to the hon. member's question of
privilege. I am going to the hon. member for Sherbrooke on a point
of order.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is on
the same point of order. I was interested in the remarks made by the
whip of the Reform Party about question period and how it
operates. This is fundamental to the very workings of the House of
Commons.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke has the floor. I
would like to listen to him.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, my
understanding of question period is that this is very much the
preserve of the Speaker. You will know that taking instructions
from the party as far as I am concerned and as far as my knowledge
of the rules and the traditions of this place is concerned is a direct
contradiction.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Charest: As I was saying, this is a direct contradiction of
the role of the Speaker which consists of first and foremost of
protecting the rights of the individual member of Parliament. That
being said, I noticed during question period something unusual in
that the member for York South-Weston, if I understood correctly,
was given a position in question period by agreement with
members of the Reform Party who substituted one of their
members with the member for York South-Weston. With the
complicity of members of the Reform Party, who are now
controlling the order of questioners that you, Mr. Speaker-
(1515)
The Speaker: I address myself to the hon. member for
Sherbrooke. I thank him for his vote of confidence. Ultimately the
Speaker has to take responsibility for question period, and I do.
At the time when I was looking for a questioner, I looked to the
House and the member for York South-Weston was on his feet.
No one else was on their feet-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I can see we are going to get into a protracted
discussion on this, but today I recognized the hon. member for
York South-Weston and I take complete responsibility for that.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we all know how it works here in the House. There is an
agreement between the parties, and the Speaker protects the rights
of independent members. It is very clear that today the member for
York South-Weston worked out an agreement with the Reform
Party so that he could have a turn to speak.
The member for York South-Weston has been successful in his
attempt to join the Reform Party, unlike the member for
Sherbrooke who tried to do the same thing almost one year ago. It
is as simple as that.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I
would concur with what the hon. member has said.
We certainly accept, Mr. Speaker, your intervention that you are
in fact responsible for question period and we abide by your
rulings, but I would hope that in the future, if the practice is going
to be what the hon. member for Sherbrooke has said, that perhaps
there could be a fuller debate among all the political parties and
7471
members in order that we fully understand the practices which are
going to commence.
As the hon. member for Sherbrooke has said, if these cozy
relationships between the Reform Party and the hon. member for
York South-Weston are to take place, I think the House should be
informed of them.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when you were
instructing the hon. member for Sherbrooke, he said very loudly
and distinctly: ``That's a lot of bull''. I suggest that he withdraw
that statement.
(1520 )
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I want the record to be very clear
with regard to this whole episode. The Minister of Health is
absolutely right with regard to the precedent that has just been set
in this House. This precedent goes to the very fundamental rules of
how the House works, of democracy itself within this place and of
the role the Speaker plays with regard to the rights of the individual
members.
As of today the record shows that a deal was entered into
between the Reform Party and an independent member so that the
independent member could take up a position that a Reform Party
member would have held normally in question period, and that the
Speaker of the House of Commons complied with that instruction.
That is what took place. I want to register the fact that this is the
record. I think this is objectionable because with regard to the
workings of the House of Commons this is a situation in which the
Speaker of the House is yielding his responsibility to the parties, a
responsibility that he must uphold and assume in the name of each
member of this House and not in the interest of partisan politics
within the House of Commons.
The Speaker: In these interventions on a point of order, as your
Speaker I am ultimately responsible; there is no one else. I can
categorically say that no matter what deals may be concocted, it
would always rest on my decision as to who would be posing a
question.
I recognized the hon. member for York South-Weston. He was
standing.
Many times over the course of my time in the House, members
have given way to other members who may want to place their
questions. If the way question period is carried out is not
acceptable, then I suggest perhaps the House leaders come together
again and look over whatever agreement was arrived at some three
years ago before I took the chair, and if it needs to be fine tuned,
your Speaker is the servant of the House and I will continue to be.
To my colleague from Sherbrooke, I find it rather sad that under
these circumstances, if the hon. member did mean it as a rebuke to
the Speaker of House, it would come out in this way. If the hon.
member wishes to pursue the discussion, I would invite him, as I
would invite all hon. members, to take up the discussion with me in
my chambers. I would be very happy to hear what the hon. member
has to say.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to
prolong this discussion but as I was sitting in this place near your
chair, I observed the member for York South-Weston standing.
No one else in this House stood at that time.
As a matter of fact, you did not directly point him out. If the
tapes are reviewed they would show there was a pause while you
looked through the House. There was no indication that another
member wished to speak at that point in time.
(1525 )
I certainly do not understand the accusation brought from the
member for Sherbrooke in that case because you had no choice at
that time but to recognize the standing member.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just
for clarification so that those watching will know how the rules
work, there is a schedule for the S. O. 31s, the one minute
statements that precede question period. In times past we have
given a spot to his co-worker, the hon. member for Saint John, who
has spoken in a traditionally Reform spot because we knew she had
something to say and we let her say it.
In times past, the Bloc Quebecois has substituted in the member
for Yukon in the Indian affairs committee, another member of a
minority party who was substituted in on a Bloc's schedule. This is
because members of Parliament have privileges that are exchanged
and we help one another out if it is appropriate.
Where we help out the member for Saint John on occasion or if
somebody stands and is recognized in the House because no one
else is standing, there is certainly nothing inappropriate. It
certainly does not deserve the condemnation of the member for
Sherbrooke who used the language he did to address the Chair.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I think this has gone on long enough.
I would like to bring this point of order to a close.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of personal privilege in that I was named by the
member for Saint-Hubert as someone who would verify her
attendance at all the NATO sessions. In fact, I was at a 12 hour
voting session of NATO on the plenary session and the member
7472
was touring the Versaille with one of my assistants. So the member
was not there.
The Speaker: We have a member who has risen in this House
and made a statement implicating another member of Parliament. I
have ruled on one point of privilege, and that is behind us. I am
dealing with another point of privilege where the member for
Mississauga West has made a statement. The member she made a
statement about is in the House now.
If the hon. member for Saint-Hubert would like to make a
statement of clarification, I invite her to do so.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I
most certainly would.
The member for Mississauga West unfortunately did not take
part in the activities of the Canada-Nato committee on Monday,
November 18. She declined to fly to Toulouse with the committee,
because, as she told us, she was already familiar with the facilities
at L'Aérospatiale in any event.
So I do not think the member has any business casting
aspersions, since she herself did not participate in all the activities.
(1530 )
[English]
The Speaker: I think we are having just an ongoing debate. I
would rule that this is not a point of privilege on either side and I
would like to rest this here.
I have a question of privilege that I am going to hear before the
point of order. The hon. member for Sherbrooke on a question of
privilege.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, now that
it has been confirmed that the Reform Party did enter into this
agreement with the member for York South-Weston, my point of
privilege is derived from the remarks that you have just made in
regard to the functioning of question period.
I return to the principle that is the cornerstone of the operation of
government, the principle of the recognition of the rights of the
individual member elected in his or her respective constituency
with all the rights and privileges associated with that election.
You have in your remarks, Mr. Speaker, just informed the House
that if the House wished to review the operations or the functioning
of question period, that there would be a consultation among the
leaders of the recognized political parties.
What am I to draw as an individual member, considered at least
in this place as an independent member, from the remarks that you
have just made? If I am to understand them correctly, it means that
my rights in regard to the functioning of question period is
something that will be negotiated by the respective leaders of the
recognized parties in the House of Commons.
Who will in that respect, Mr. Speaker, speak up for the rights of
the individual member of Parliament? Who will at this point-
An hon. member: You are the one that made the deal, John.
Mr. Charest: Oh, please. Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed-
An hon. member: You have got your privileges too.
The Speaker: I want to hear the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Mr. Charest: In this respect, Mr. Speaker, if the leaders of the
respective parties are given the opportunity to debate, to decide, to
influence you in your decision in regard to how question period
must function, when and at what point will the individual members
for whom this is a basic cornerstone of the operations of Parliament
be given equal rights and equal time? Surely you can see from
those remarks how the basic rights and privileges of each member
are affected, in particular my own rights and privileges.
One remark, Mr. Speaker, with regard to rising or not rising. I
hope the members will spare us the grand designs about members
rising in this place when every day for the last three years members
have been constantly designated for question period, not when they
rose but actually were sitting right in their place and never rose. I
hope we will be spared the great sermons about rising or not rising
in their places.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an interesting question and I suppose you would have
to rule whether or not it is a question of personal privilege, but
certainly it is a question regarding the privileges of members of the
House of Commons who keep the government accountable to the
people of Canada.
Having said that, the rules of this Chamber, as all members
should realize, and the hon. member who just spoke should realize,
are rules that have come to us by custom, that have come to us by
precedent.
Those very precedents on question period evolved over a long
period of time and changed, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, very
drastically in the past 10 years to the point where the major
political parties do have assigned periods during question period.
The role of the Speaker also has evolved to the point where the
Speaker must follow those precedents and those customs as have
evolved here in this Chamber, not in any other chamber under the
so-called British parliamentary system, because each system is
7473
different and each system has its own system of changing the rules
of procedure for question period, as the Speaker so well knows.
(1535 )
I am very surprised that the hon. member would rise in the
Chamber and bring this up as a point of personal privilege. It was
approximately seven years ago that we adopted as a custom in this
Chamber the point of respecting designated questioners by the
major political parties in this House. It was so left up to the Speaker
that if the person designated for that political party did not stand,
the Speaker was free to choose, as is stated in the rules, the person
who catches the Speaker's eye who rises first. The Speaker has to
follow those customs.
The hon. member is perfectly correct. Perhaps we should take it
under advisement and appoint a committee of people from outside
the Chamber to examine the rules and to bring in some of the
changes that are necessary to bring back the power of the
individuals in the House of Commons. However, it is very
surprising that the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party
should be objecting to the very rules that were brought in while the
Tories were the administration in power in this House.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to say also that I remember those days the member talked about. Of
course I was an independent in the House seven years ago.
I find it unbelievable that the member for Sherbrooke is talking
about being hard done by. He and his party used to laugh and cajole
every time I would try to stand. I thank the Lord for John Fraser
who was the Speaker then. He told me: ``If you have a question, I
will make sure that you get on''. I did not get on very often. I know
that in the 34th Parliament I had exactly 15 questions, precious few,
three or four a year, which is a darn sight less than what the
independent member for Sherbrooke gets. It is unbelievable that he
would cry foul on this.
I know that our party as well as other parties in the House of
Commons would be willing to make some of those changes so that
independent members would get recognized more freely, but in the
next Parliament so that it will not look quite so self serving that
someone would want it now. There is nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention something you said
earlier. When you stood up and said that the member for York
South-Weston was the only member on his feet, the member for
Sherbrooke hollered out: ``That is a lot of bull''. He challenged
you, Mr. Speaker and he challenged the position of the Chair. He
was asked by one of my colleagues to withdraw.
I am asking you, because he respects the Chair as he certainly
should, that he would withdraw the comment he hollered at you:
``That is a lot of bull''. He did not holler it at another member of the
House, but at you and you should not stand for it, Mr. Speaker.
Please make him withdraw.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
really torn with this issue. The members for Sherbrooke, Beaver
River, Gander-Grand Falls, the Minister of Health and others
have already spoken to the issue.
I think we would all agree that the direction the Speaker has
given the House that if it is the wish of the membership of the
House to reconsider some agreements or arrangements that were
arrived at when we first came to this 35th Parliament
approximately three years ago, that possibly it might be timely in
the early part of the new year to sit down and have a discussion.
Now specifically to the point raised by the hon. member for
Sherbrooke regarding members outside of the official parties. I do
not have the records, Mr. Speaker, but I would deem and feel
confident in saying that those members who are outside of the
``official parties'' at this time in this Parliament have had their
privileges safeguarded, protected, defended by you the Speaker,
and others as the member for Beaver River said earlier with regard
to your predecessor, Mr. Fraser.
I would hope that if the House chooses, it would make that
undertaking to have those discussions among the parties as
suggested so that we could put this matter to rest for the time being.
I think we are all fatigued, we are all stressed. But certainly there
should be no doubt in the confidence of the Chair and its speaker.
(1540)
The Speaker: My colleagues, in my view this is a debate. I
know all hon. members wanted to participate in it but in my view it
is probably time to move on.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Sherbrooke, with all
respect, that this point was brought up by the hon. member for
Winnipeg Transcona early in the Parliament. At that time I did do a
lot of thinking about it. As your Speaker, I have tried to be as fair as
I can with all the members and parties, especially the independent
members. I have always felt that it was my responsibility to see to
it that the independent members had as much of a chance as anyone
in the parties. I will continue to strive to do that. I would like to
move on at this point.
Is this a different point of order?
An hon. member: It is about withdrawing ``bull''.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I did not hear the word. I would just
as soon move on from here.
7474
7474
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-60, an act to
establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and
amend other Acts as a consequence, as reported by the committee
with amendments, and of Motion No. 5.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am not raising a point of order. I will use the three minutes I have
left to conclude my speech on Bill C-60, the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency Act.
Earlier, I said I was very disappointed by what I heard when the
hon. member for Frontenac asked members for their views on this
legislation. The bill includes provisions that can certainly be
associated with patronage. As I explained, the government appoints
friends so as to remain in control.
I said I was very disappointed, because it is always the same
thing whenever the government introduces legislation. It comes up
with a nice bill and with the best possible intentions, but we can
always see this will to keep control over everything.
The hon. member for Frontenac made very constructive remarks.
I will conclude by saying that, in my opinion, the official
opposition is not here only to oppose measures, but also to provide
a different perspective, particularly since the Bloc Quebecois
expresses the views shared by a large number of Quebecers.
I am anxious to see which ministers will vote against the bill. As
usual, unfortunately, it is a bit like taking the views of Quebec and
claiming that they are totally erroneous.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-60, an act to establish
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Frontenac who did a tremendous job. He introduced a host of
amendments to the bill which, as was to be expected from the hon.
member, are based on common sense and the public interest.
(1545)
Although the subject has not been widely publicized, it is a very
important one that affects the daily lives of Canadians and
Quebecers. The bill merges the inspection services of three
departments, health, agriculture and fisheries, which from now on
will be consolidated in one and the same agency that comes under
the department of agriculture or the minister of agriculture.
This agency will have an annual budget of $300 million-this is
big bucks-for three years and a staff of 3,400 employees. That
being said, now for the bad news: the three entities that existed
before had a total of 4,000 employees, so we are losing 600
inspectors. When we say $300 million, we must not forget that this
reflects a budget cut of $44 million. So there is every reason to be
concerned, but I will get back to that later.
The general position of the Bloc Quebecois on this issue is
negative. We are against the principle of creating this agency,
because we in the Bloc Quebecois consider that constitutionally,
this is an area that comes under provincial jurisdiction, in Quebec
and in the other provinces. So we are against the very entity that
will be established by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
We are annoyed and concerned. Annoyed because considering
the powers given to the minister by this bill, the minister will be
able to appoint the chairperson, the deputy chair and all the
members of the advisory board that will be created along with this
agency. We are concerned because, as other members have already
pointed out, this is a new patronage mill, and when we make this
kind of remark to the government, it is clear we are referring to the
patronage appointments made by the Liberal Party of Canada.
When we talk about patronage and the Liberal Party of Canada,
we know what we are talking about, and so does everyone else. In
Canada, in Quebec, for instance, returning officers, who play a very
important role in our electoral process, are still appointed on an
exclusively partisan basis. Nowadays we would have to look far
and wide in Canada to find a returning officer without solid Liberal
roots.
We had another example today, when a new lieutenant-governor
was appointed, a lady who probably comes from a good family and
has the qualifications. I know she was president of the Quebec
Office des personnes handicapées, but all of the insiders know that
her greatest qualification is, no doubt, having been a Liberal Party
of Canada candidate in the past. So her appointment today as
lieutenant-governor of Quebec is because of her good Liberal
connections, and we can be pretty sure that there has been no great
consultation with the Government of Quebec.
We had another example this morning, and another yesterday in
my very own riding. It was announced, a bit prematurely because
the official announcement had not been made, that the port of
Trois-Rivières would be recognized as a Canadian port authority.
And who was on the guest list? Two people who could not have
been representing anything other than the Liberal Party of Canada.
When it comes down to it, it is like an opening ceremony for a
section of highway, a Cegep, a hospital or a CLSC in Quebec
attended by a representative of the Parti Quebecois.
7475
That is not how we do things in Quebec, not even, I think, how
the Quebec Liberals do things. Here we have an imperialist
mentality, Mr. Speaker, which you no doubt recognize. We must
speak out against it, because it is such a primitive notion, as if
the Canadian state belonged to the Liberal Party of Canada.
(1550)
Returning to Bill C-60, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
and the powers assigned to the Minister of Agriculture, there are
certainly grounds for annoyance here. We know that this is just one
more den of patronage that has just been created by the Liberal
government to which it can appoint its buddies. Justification for
annoyance, justification for concern.
Concern, because, as has just been said, when food inspection
services affecting the daily lives of Canadians and Quebecers are
cut, when 600 inspector positions are cut, when $44 million are cut
from services, one cannot help but be concerned about the quality
of services that will be delivered throughout the country in future.
We are all the more concerned because there is a trend to
privatization in an area as vulnerable as food inspection. According
to what we hear, a new system has been developed, which may well
take the place of the present system, if we are not careful, rather
than complement the government system. That is very important.
According to our information, the inspectors could be in conflict
of interest or the business could be in conflict of interest with itself.
One wonders whether private funds are involved. If the owner of a
slaughter house has to provide direct or indirect payment to the
inspector supervising his production and if the inspector is
pressured by his employer, where does his loyalty lie?
Whose interest is the inspector going to want to protect, the
private interest or society's? His employer, who has power over
him, or the public whose interest and health he is paid to protect?
With this sort of privatization, which is so fashionable, in the
neo-liberal context of deregulation, we are dealing with a basic
issue: people's health. I would be very happy to be in my own skin
rather than the government's in the event of public health problems
involving poisoning as the result of laziness or some sort of lack of
control in which the interests of the employer and those of the
public are in conflict.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate the concerns of the Union
des producteurs agricoles. It has significant reservations regarding
this bill. It would like to have people from the agricultural milieu
who know what they are doing, who are capable of making the
distinctions and recommendations required in food inspection,
rather than masses of pals of the Liberal Party.
Furthermore, the Union des producteurs agricoles wants all the
budgets-and this may not be easy with the $44 million
cut-currently with health, agriculture and fisheries to be
transferred. The three budgets should be combined, and not cut.
There is the danger of cost recovery. It underlies all of that. We
hope all of this will not be done on the backs of farm producers, and
it is the hope of the UPA as well.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on
Bill C-60 which, as was just mentioned, will establish the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency. The purpose of this bill is to group under
a single agency all the federal government's food inspectors.
(1555)
First, I want to mention, like the hon. member for Trois-Rivières
just did, the excellent work of my colleague for Frontenac, who is
the official opposition's critic for agricultural issues. Thanks to his
vigilance and to his knowledge of the industry, he has been able to
raise basic issues relating to agriculture and more specifically to
the creation of this agency.
My first point was mentioned by the hon. member for
Trois-Rivières, but it is worth repeating: Quebec cleaned up its
food inspection sector several years ago already. It grouped
together its inspectors who, until a few years ago, were spread out
in several departments of the Quebec government, and at the
municipal level. The situation was such that a municipal inspector
would go to a restaurant to check certain things.
For instance he could check the sanitation of the premises. Then,
the health department inspector would come along to check the
quality of the food. He would be followed by the agriculture
department inspector, who would check the origin and quality of
the food items. This meant a series of visits, of forms to complete,
and of reports which, more often than not, would not bring about
any changes, but would definitely create problems for those trying
to do business in an intelligent manner.
Giving a single agency responsibility for all this at the federal
level makes sense, but in our opinion, we repeat, the federal
government ought to abandon its responsibilities in this area and
reach an agreement with the provinces, most of whom, I am
convinced, are doing this efficiently, providing quality inspection
services and ensuring that our fellow citizens feel secure when
buying food for home consumption or when they eat out.
Having said this, passing this bill will not solve the problem. In
examining Bill C-60, we note three terrible flaws. Clause 10, which
refers to the establishment of an advisory board, as there are in a
number of other areas, provides for an advisory body made up of
people from a variety of backgrounds, who ought to be competent
in the field in which their expertise is sought, people who meet
together to study the various issues put before them, in order to
7476
report to the minister and to advise him, so that he may make good
decisions. That is self-evident. No one is against the establishment
of such an advisory board.
Yet we see in the bill before us that it is the minister who will be
appointing these men and women, who will be sought out in related
fields, and the minister alone will have the power to appoint them
to this advisory board.
(1600)
That is where we start wondering and having doubts about the
credibility of this advisory board. If the minister alone decides who
is to be appointed, it seems likely, considering the way the Liberal
government operates, that there will be few people on this board
who do not already share his point of view.
In our experience, more often than not, the Liberal government
will appoint its friends, people who are clearly identified with the
Liberal Party, organizers and fund raisers who will be asked to
advise the minister.
The hon. member for Frontenac, the opposition critic for
agriculture, told me that in the agriculture committee, he put the
following question to witnesses who came to share their expertise
on a bill. He asked them where they were from and what their ties
were with the Liberal Party of Canada. One of them, who was from
Saint-Hyacinthe, said quite frankly that he owed his appointment to
the fact he was Liberal.
I see the Minister of Health who agrees with me, and who thinks
it is quite normal to proceed in this fashion. It is the Liberal way.
My colleague managed the incredible feat of having this put on the
record of the House. There it is, printed proof of this practice of the
Liberal Party. I am sure no one will challenge this.
This practice has an inherent risk, and that is our message. We
are very critical of this section which gives the minister so much
power. If this advisory board consists of people who are, I would
not say subservient, the term is perhaps a bit too strong, but who
tend to think along the same lines as the minister because they
share the same political views, go to the same political meetings,
give funds to the same political party, how can we trust the
integrity of these people when the time comes to make decisions
and advise the minister?
Will these people, who were appointed because of their political
allegiance, have all the freedom, all the independence they need to
be able to tell the minister when he gives them dossiers they will
have to think about and when he asks for their advice, will they be
able to muster the requisite credibility, freedom and independence?
Will they be able to tell the minister: ``Here are the guidelines you
suggested; they do not reflect what the people in this sector want;
they do not meet the needs of the public''? Hardly.
This is not to say that being a Liberal means being incompetent.
Conversely, to be competent, you do not have to be a Liberal. I
think the first criteria should be competence. That is what my
colleague mentioned in his speech, and what is reflected in the
amendments he is proposing.
In fact, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, through the
hon. member for Frontenac, suggests that the Standing Committee
on Agriculture appoint these people. I think this is a very useful
suggestion and I also think that every time the federal government
makes appointments, its appointments should be scrutinized by the
various parliamentary committees.
(1605)
In this way, thanks to the way the parliamentary committees
operate, because their members represent the government and also
the various opposition parties, we have an opportunity to question
these people, and I will conclude on this note, and have the
assurance that wise choices are made so that the best candidates
will be chosen to give the best possible advice to the minister.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise to speak to Bill C-60 at report stage. My colleague from
Frontenac has indicated we have reached the motions in Group No.
5. Curiously, it is a point I like to criticize the government on. The
motions in Group No. 5 refer to the way the government can
organize the human resources in these agencies, that is, how it
appoints people to the agency.
I must say right off that the federal government tried the same
thing in another bill, the one on fisheries, because it tried to create
the fisheries tribunal and make it quasi legal, a quasi tribunal. In
that instance I mentioned government fronts. Once again, it is the
same thing: a patronage haven.
When the minister claims the right to appoint people himself and
to define, extend and renew mandates, what are we talking about?
How does this differ from hiring someone from the public service?
At least this person becomes apolitical, he will have to work under
all future governments, regardless of their colour. But in this case,
they take money and make absolutely sure that this will be a place
that provides a job for the friends of the party. My colleague from
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead made this point very clearly.
Here we are approaching Christmas, two weeks away from it.
The Liberals are trying to ensure a fine Christmas present for their
friends by pushing us to debate this bill. They want to be sure that
there is something under the tree for their friends, once the bill is
passed, like the gift of future jobs. It is time to get real.
My hon. colleague from Frontenac has raised some goods points.
We will never say it often enough today: when the Bloc Quebecois
sends its soldiers to the front, them come prepared and, as a good
7477
soldier, the hon. member for Frontenac has done an excellent job in
this matter. I can see him smile, but he is modest.
I would like to come back to a few points. If the federal
government wanted to be consistent and say: ``This is not a
Christmas present for our friends'', would it be prepared to accept
that the agency be made up of people, if nothing else, appointed by
the Standing Committee on Agriculture?
Why refer to this committee?-I notice the parliamentary
secretary responsible for agriculture is joining us. We have had the
opportunity to work with him. He is from Nova Scotia-Someone
described it earlier as a patronage haven, but I will address that
later. But I want to make sure to catch the attention of the hon.
member, because there are still a few good Liberals. We must not
lump them all in the same category. Since the good ones are so few,
when we catch one, we better make sure they hear what our
expectations are.
(1610)
As I was saying, to prevent the proposed agency from becoming
a patronage haven, why would its members not be appointed by the
advisory board?
The parliamentary secretary opposite has had to face us in
committee. The people opposite know they are in majority any way
in the various committees, but at least official opposition members
and the other members of this House can have a say. That is what I
call transparency; that is what I call having faith.
My second point is the following. Why not ensure that
candidates are selected from within the various communities and
that the appointments to be considered in committee are made by
the community. Let me explain.
If we are looking at an inspection system for fisheries, for
instance, the fisheries community would submit to the Standing
Committee on Agriculture a list of recommended candidates who
have knowledge and expertise in that area. I am sure a joint
fisheries-agriculture committee can be struck at that time for the
specific purpose of considering who should be appointed to the
agency.
Why oppose such an amendment? Perhaps to make sure that the
only requirement for getting appointed to the board of this agency
is to be a card-carrying member or friend of the Liberal Party.
Let me now move to another point that needs to be addressed.
This agency is supposed to be a Canada-wide agency. Since Canada
is made up of ten provinces, why not have specified, for each
province, in the formula for determining how many administrators
or inspectors will be involved, a percentage that would take the
relative demographic importance of the province into account.
Why not?
In just a few minutes, we were able to make three suggestions to
improve the perception, the political philosophy behind all this.
We realize that it may be reasonable to try to ensure that, in
Ottawa, the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. We
cannot go against virtue and oppose the idea that the various
inspection systems are being consolidated under a single agency,
since we currently have a fisheries division, a food division, and a
drug division in the health sector. The idea makes sense, but the
problem is how these changes will be implemented.
The work done by the hon. member for Frontenac regarding this
issue will have to be taken into consideration, if we want to
improve the bill to make it good for all Quebecers and Canadians,
including those in Nova Scotia, whom the parliamentary secretary,
who is listening carefully, represents.
If the government does not support the amendments or motions
moved by the hon. member for Frontenac, what will Canadians and
Quebecers think of the bill?
They will think: the more things change, the more they stay the
same. In Canada, we switched from the Conservatives to the
Liberals. But what has changed? What has changed is that the
friends of the Conservatives have lost their jobs; they have been
replaced by friends of the Liberals.
The bill is a means to appoint Liberal Party friends who are in
waiting. Indeed, not all the Liberal friends got jobs, and they are
getting impatient.
The government has an opportunity to clean up the situation and
to rebuild the credibility of the bureaucratic system. It has an
opportunity to restore public confidence through the people who
will represent the public and who will work for it.
(1615)
But if, once again, the government lets go of such an
opportunity, what will people think? If they are friends of the
Liberal Party they may think they will receive a nice Christmas
present, but if they are ordinary citizens they will probably think
the government is pulling another fast one on them.
I pointed out earlier that the government is doing the same thing
with the Fisheries Act. The Bloc Quebecois is opposing this, again
thanks to the information provided by the hon. member for
Frontenac, who prepared the amendments very well. The Bloc
Quebecois will once again oppose the bill.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to add my voice to that of my fellow Bloc Quebecois members
in condemning this bill. We often have occasion to discuss a new
bill in the House. Generally, when a bill is brought before the
7478
House, it has been gone over by ministers' advisers and the various
groups working in the same area. After a certain amount of
consultation, a bill is tabled and, as is the custom in Canada,
brought before the House for discussion and improvement through
amendments from the various parties and the various members,
even those forming the government.
But this time, I am very surprised at the arrogance with which
the government threw this bill onto members' desks and told them:
``Whether it is good or not, vote for it, we are going to pass it''.
Although we tried to suggest some entirely logical amendments
that the government could easily have lived with, we met with
complete arrogance.
I have noticed this arrogance getting worse for a number of
months now. Having come to office with a red book full of fine
promises and good intentions, this party began by holding
pseudo-consultation sessions that consisted of a few days spent
examining-they did not really know what to do-issues such as
the Canadian forces abroad. After these brief sessions, they would
say: ``There, we have just kept our promise of consulting members
more thoroughly, of giving them more opportunities to
participate''. The page was turned, and lo and behold, we found
ourselves back in the Trudeau era, when the interests of friends of
the party dictated what got done, not the interests of the people of
Canada and of Quebec.
Today, this government is gagging us and asking us to quietly
approve a bill like this, a bill that gives the minister the power to
appoint everyone who will run this agency or who will advise the
government. This is completely ridiculous. We could always say
that this is a government without much experience, that it is
perhaps full of good intentions and should be given a chance. But
look at its track record. They say that history repeats itself, and
when you look at the past performance of the Liberal Party of
Canada, can you trust such a government?
I have already said in the House, and I repeat, that trusting
Canada's interests to the Liberal Party of Canada is worse than
putting Dracula in charge of the Red Cross blood bank. I have
already said in the House, and I repeat, that trusting this
government to make unbiased appointments is out of the question.
We have only to look at the three years since they have been back in
office. It is unbelievable. Take the Senate appointments alone.
Have you ever seen a more shocking display of patronage? Mr.
Mulroney would never have gone that far; he consulted the
provinces before appointing senators.
(1620)
Never. This government is not characterized by its transparency,
but by its arrogance. That arrogance is felt in its bills, in its
appointments, in its political speeches. This Prime Minister is the
total incarnation of arrogance.
What I have difficulty understanding is how Liberal MPs are
keeping silent, preferring to serve a party, and their party buddies,
to serving the interests of the people in their riding. Off-putting,
that. I see them with their heads down. I understand their
embarrassment to speak on such a bill. They prefer to say nothing
rather than defend such a thing. Their constituents would laugh at
them. As the kids I used to teach would say: Believe that? Give me
a break!
It is incredible to table such a bill and to force the Liberal MPs I
see around me to keep quiet, to hunker down in embarrassment in
their seats. Their red book has not only changed colour to blue,
things are even worse than that.
We are worse off than in the days of the Conservatives. I
remember those days. I know how things work within a traditional
party, but they would never have gone that far. The most corrupt
party, the most patronage-riddled party, the most self-serving party
in Canadian history is the Liberal Party of Canada.
I understand the shame we can see on the faces of hon. members
opposite. When I run into them in the halls, they tell me that it
makes no sense to be forced to vote in favour of such a bill. They
tell us the same thing in committees. They tell us they can no
longer talk to their leader, they do not see him any more. They only
get instructions, it is a matter of believe or die.
If they do not toe the line, they face the same fate as the member
for York South-Weston, who dared to remind party members, at
the time of the budget, of their promise to abolish the GST. He was
told: ``You dare question; out you go''. He is a loyal member,
whose fine interventions while he was in opposition helped bring
down the Conservative Party. He opposed patronage and arrogance.
Now he finds that his party is behaving even worse, ten times as
badly as the Conservatives. It makes appointments and tables bills
simply to be able to pay back the party faithful, increase election
funds and behave more arrogantly than before.
Meanwhile, the Liberal members elected in good faith are
keeping their mouths shut. They have a responsibility. I see the
many members opposite listening bowing their heads in silent
approval.
I would like them to rise and express their approval rather than
encourage me to continue, because what I say is true, and they are
unable to control their own party. Let them rise, instead. Perhaps
they stand a better chance of being re-elected if they rise than if
they pipe down, as they have been for the past few months.
The government is endlessly introducing bills, without
consultation, full of things that could be corrected through the wise
counsels that could be provided by Liberal, New Democrat,
Reform and Bloc Quebecois members.
7479
The best example involves the member for Frontenac, who
proposed amendments that would be acceptable to any citizens'
committee, whether it sat at city hall or as part of a softball league.
They would say: ``We are putting a softball team together. Is it
all right with you if we talk about it among ourselves before
appointing people to run our club?'' Everyone would say: ``By all
means, let us talk about it.'' That is all the hon. member is
suggesting in his motion.
His amendment says: How about it, if the agriculture committee
of this place, where all the parties are represented, said, for
instance, let us make a list of all the suggestions received from all
over the place, or just about, and put a subcommittee in charge of
meeting the candidates to ensure, first, that they meet the
legislator's requirements and, second, that they have adequate
knowledge-that is what the amendment says-in order to
effectively perform their duties?
(1625)
After these consultations have taken place, recommendations
would be made to the minister. The minister may retain fifteen of
the names on the list as acceptable candidates and these people
would be appointed. Or else, he would go back to the committee,
saying he objects to such and such a candidate for this reason or
that. Could there be anything simpler?
That is how things are done everywhere else, even on a parish
council. On a church wardens' board or a school board, that would
go without saying. But no, the Liberals have raised arrogance to the
status of a motto. ``Arrogance, arrogance, arrogance''. During the
election, it was ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. Now it is ``arrogance,
arrogance, arrogance''.
Then they come and tell us: ``Take it as it is. It is Christmas time;
it will go down well. Do not worry, we will make objective
appointments.''
As I said earlier, the past foreshadows the future, and to trust this
party to make objective appointments is to dream in technicolour, it
is a Christmas story that will turn out badly.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal members
present seemed to really enjoy my speech, I would like to get the
unanimous consent of the House to continue indefinitely.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
7480
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
(1630)
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question will be on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[Translation]
The next question will be on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
[English]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
7481
are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, official
languages; the hon. member for Bourassa, immigration; the hon.
member for Peterborough, Trent-Severn Waterway.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate
informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-347, an act
to change the names of certain electoral districts, with
amendments.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-60, an act to
establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and
amend other acts as a consequence, as reported by the committee
with amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: We now move to mitions in Group No. 6.
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There
have been discussions with the two opposition parties and I think
you would find unanimous consent that the remaining groups of
motions be deemed to have been read, seconded and a recorded
division called for. Then the remainder of the afternoon will be
open for debate.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member's request?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I was not consulted.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member asked for the
unanimous consent of the House. Did members not hear the
question?
Mr. Plamondon: No, Mr. Speaker, we did not.
The Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. member please repeat her
question?
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my suggestion is to allow the
remaining time to be devoted to debate on the amendments before
the House. Therefore, I ask that the House give its unanimous
consent that the remaining groups of motions be deemed to have
been read, seconded and a recorded division called for.
(1635)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member's proposal?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: We will now move on to Group No. 6.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-60, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 4
with the following:
``12. Notwithstanding that the Agency is a separate employer under the Public
Service Staff Relations Act,
(a) section 7 and subsection 69(3) of that Act do not apply to the Agency; and
(b) for the purposes of paragraph 92(1)(b) of that Act, the Agency is deemed to be
designated pursuant to subsection 92(4) of that Act. ''
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-60, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 4
with the following:
``12. The Agency is deemed to be included in the definition of ``federal
undertaking'' in section 2 of the Canada Labour Code and that Act applies, with such
modifications as the circumstances require, to the Agency and its employees.''
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-60, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34 on page 4
with the following:
``13. The employees of the Agency shall be appointed pursuant to the Public
Service Employment Act.''
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-60, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 4
with the following:
``13.(1) Subject to paragraph 12(a), the President has the authority to appoint the
employees of the Agency.''
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-60, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 4 the
following:
``(1.1) One year after the Agency is established, the President shall provide, for
study, to such committee of the House of Commons as is designated or established to
consider agricultural matters, a detailed report respecting the criteria used in making
appointments under subsection (1).''
7482
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-60, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27 on page 29
with the following:
``93. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act, or any provision of this Act, or any
provision of any Act enacted or amended by this Act, comes into force on a day or
days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.
(2) The Governor in Council shall not make the order referred to in subsection (1)
unless it has been advised by the Minister that the Minister has prepared a Code of
Conduct and Ethics to govern the appointment of employees by the Agency.''
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 18. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
We will now move on to Group No. 7.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-60, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34 on page 5
with the following:
``16. Notwithstanding section 9 of the Department of Public Works and
Government Services Act, the Agency may, with the approval of the Minister,''
7483
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 37 on page 5 the following new
Clause:
``16.1 (1) Notwithstanding section 16, the Agency shall not procure goods and
services, including legal services, from outside the public service of Canada unless
the Agency has satisfied itself that such goods and services are not available within
the public service of Canada.
(2) Notwithstanding section 16, where goods and services, including legal
services, are to be procured from outside the public service of Canada, the Agency
shall, before procuring those services, call for bids for those services from the private
sector.''
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 19. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next vote is on Motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
We now move on to the motions in Group No. 8.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-60, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 8 on page 7 with
the following:
``corporate business plan, for study, to such committee of the House of Commons
as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters for study by that
committee.
(1.1) After studying the corporate business plan, the committee referred to in
subsection (1) shall either approve or reject the plan.
(1.2) Where the corporate business plan is approved, the committee shall advise
the Minister of the approval and the Minister shall table a copy of the plan in the
House of Commons for approval by that House on any of the first fifteen days on
which that House is sitting after the Minister is advised of the committee's approval.
(1.3) Where a corporate business plan is laid before the House of Commons under
subsection (1.2) and rejected by that House, the Agency shall not implement that
plan.''
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-60, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 7 the
following:
``(1.1) Before submitting its plan to the minister, the Agency shall consult
(a) any person from the agriculture, fisheries, food processing, food distribution and
public health sectors whom the Agency considers appropriate to consult;
(b) any government of a province that has advised, in writing, the Agency of its wish
to be consulted; and
(c) the unions representing some or all of the employees of the Agency.''
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-60, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 7 with the
following:
``detailed statement of the assessment by''
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 24. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
7484
The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
We now move on to the motions in Group No. 9.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-60, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 9 on page 8 with
the following:
``24.(1) Subject to the regulations, the Minister may, on January 1, 2000, fix the
fees to be paid for a service or the use of a facility provided by the Agency.''
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-60, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 20 on page 8
with the following:
``26. (1) Before fixing a fee under section 24 or 25, the Minister shall consult with
the advisory board and may consult with any persons or organizations that the
Minister considers to be interested in the matter.''
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-60, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 8
with the following:
``persons or organizations that have an interest in the matter or that have
expressed an interest in the matter to the Minister.''
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-60, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 8
with the following:
``27. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Treasury Board may make
regulations for the purposes of sections 24 to 26.
(2) Every regulation the Treasury Board proposes to make under subsection (1)
shall be sent by that Board for study and approval to such committee of the House of
Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters.
(3) Where, after studying a proposed regulation referred to it under subsection
(2), the committee rejects that regulation, that regulation may not be made by the
Treasury Board.''
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The next division will be on MotionNo. 27. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next division will be on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
7485
The next division will on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
We now move on to the motions in Group No. 10.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-60, in Clause 31, be amended
(a) by replacing line 29 on page 9 with the following:
``31. (1) The Agency must keep books of account''
(b) by adding the following after line 31 on page 9:
``(2) One year after the Agency is established, the Agency shall make available
for inspection its books of account and records for that year.''
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-60, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42 on page 9
with the following:
``(c) provide a report to the President, the Minister and such committee of the House
of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters on the
audit, opinion and assessment.''
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-60 be amended by adding after line 42 on page 9 the following new
Clause:
``32.1 Before providing the report under paragraph 32(c), the Auditor General of
Canada shall consult
(a) any person from the agriculture, fisheries, food processing, food distribution
and public health sectors whom the Minister considers appropriate to consult; and
(b) any government of a province that has advised the Auditor General of Canada,
in writing, of its wish to be consulted.''
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 31. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next vote is on Motion No. 32. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 33. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
7486
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
We now move on to the motions in Group No. 11.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-60 be amended by adding before line 1 on page 10 the following:
``32.1 The provisions made by any Appropriation Act for the fiscal year in which
this section comes into force or a subsequent fiscal year, based on the Estimates for
that year, to defray the charges and expenses of the public service of Canada within
the Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans and Health in
relation to any matter for which the Agency is responsible by virtue of Section 11 are
deemed to be an amount appropriated for defraying the charges and expenses of the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency in such amount as the Treasury Board may, on the
recommendations of the Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and
Oceans and Health, determine.''
Recommendation
(Pursuant to Standing Order 76(3))
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the
appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the
purposes set out in the following amendment to Bill C-60, An Act to establish the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other Acts as a
consequence. That Bill C-60 be amended by adding before line 1 on page 10 the
following:
``32.1 The provisions made by any Appropriation Act for the fiscal year in which
this section comes into force or a subsequent fiscal year, based on the Estimates for
that year, to defray the charges and expenses of the public service of Canada within
the Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans and Health in
relation to any matter for which the Agency is responsible by virtue of Section 11 are
deemed to be an amount appropriated for defraying the charges and expenses of the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency in such amount as the Treasury Board may, on the
recommendations of the Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and
Oceans and Health, determine.''
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 34. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
now on debate on the motions in Group No. 6. You may have notice
that we proposed six amendments in this group: AmendmentsNos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 36, which specifically concern clause
13 of Bill C-60.
I would like to take a few moments to read clause 13, since this
is the crucial clause and the amendments the official opposition is
presenting this afternoon are specifically aimed at improving Bill
C-60.
If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food thinks this is obstruction, he is mistaken. I will read
clause 13, and there is not a single municipal council in the
smallest municipality in Canada that would accept a clause like this
one.
13. (1) The President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.
I may recall that the president is appointed by the governor in
council. And now the president, who will be a friend of the
government, will appoint the agency's employees. This is a serious
matter. When I was mayor of the municipality of Garthby, if I had
appointed the municipal inspector and then told him to appoint all
the employees of the town of Garthby, I would have been in an
excellent position to get him to hire my brothers-in-law, my
nephews and nieces, my friends or people who could be counted on
to give generously to my campaign fund.
As the Prime Minister said so eloquently this week to people
who were looking for work: ``Good luck''. I could tell people who
are looking for work: ``Stick with the president of the Food
Inspection Agency and with the Prime Minister's party, the Liberal
Party''.
We also read in clause 13(2):
13.(2) The President may set the terms and conditions of employment for
employees of the Agency and assign duties to them.
This is still the president. I will conclude with clause 13(3), the
last part of clause 13:
13.(3) The President may designate any person or class of persons as inspectors,
analysts, graders, veterinary inspectors or other officers for the enforcement or
administration of any Act or provision that the Agency enforces or administers by
virtue of section 11, in respect of any matter referred to in the designation.
7487
I may recall that, as I said earlier, for the time being the agency
does not have to abide by the guidelines that usually apply to this
type of agency of department when hiring employees. It does not
have to abide by a principle that is currently recognized and that
is effective in that it affords some protection against patronage.
Our amendments are clear and specific. For instance, our
amendment should be read here in connection with the amendment
concerning the Professional Institute of the Public Service. We
proposed this amendment because, in its present form, the agency
will be a separate employer in the meaning of the Public Service
Staff Relations Act. As a result, many of its employees will lose
their vested rights.
(1640)
We must not forget that this new agency created by Bill C-60
will have a staff of 4,500 in full time positions across Canada.
These employees will come from pretty much everywhere, but,
if they do not suit the president and are considered incapable of
doing the job or do not want to leave Halifax to come and work at
head office, which will be here in the national capital, they will be
replaced by other people the president can simply appoint. The
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada will not be
respected. So, a number of employees will be penalized by C-60.
This sort of behaviour by the Liberal Party headed by the hon.
Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice is despicable. Just
this week, his comment to a woman from Saskatchewan, who has
three university degrees-two bachelors and a masters
degree-and is looking for work, was, simply: ``Good luck''. It is
disgusting.
So, to rule out any abuse or poor employee management and to
make the hiring process transparent within the agency, which will
have nearly 5,000 employees, we are calling for a detailed report
on the hiring criteria used.
I would at this point like to return to this week's, in fact today's,
oral question period. You no doubt followed the questions on the
space agency in the region of Longueuil and Saint-Hubert. Mr.
Evans is a personal friend of the Minister of Industry and was
appointed by him. A fine example of patronage. Today, Mr. Evans
is getting his minister into hot water up to his neck.
The amendments we proposed are aimed at protecting this party
from potential abuse in the case of the food inspection agency. We
are no longer talking about the space agency but about food
inspection. Food is going to be inspected, and human health will be
at stake.
The president and executive vice-president of this agency must
be appointed not because they are friends of the Liberal Party, but
because they are competent and able to do the job. Too often,
unfortunately, in partisan appointments, the individual who has
contributed the most to party coffers is given huge responsibilities.
But in this case, we are talking about your health, Mr. Speaker, and
that of your children and your wife. This is serious.
The report will have to be sent to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-food one year after the establishment of the
agency. Here again, we are concerned by possible patronage abuses
on the part of the government and we want to be able to monitor
this process closely and openly.
Before turning to clause 93, we repeatedly suggested and
recommended in a number of our amendments that the agency
consult with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-food. The members opposite refused.
I can see them, and I also see them in committee. Just this week,
in a committee of which I am a member, I nudged my colleague
from the Reform Party and told him: ``See how bored the Liberal
members seem to be today with the committee on agriculture''.
(1645)
Indeed, they seemed to be bored to death. Some did not seem to
really understand the issue, others did not want to speak, fearing to
drag things out even more, or to ask questions because they we not
familiar with the issue.
My colleague from the Reform Party said: ``Yes, unfortunately,
it is not the top experts on agriculture they have sent to the
committee'', with the exception of the member for Malpeque, who
always has questions or solutions to propose.
This having been said, for the amendments in Group No. 6, the
critical issue was clause 13 of Bill C-60. To conclude, I remind you
again that the Liberal government is going to appoint the president
and the first vice-president for an indeterminate period. We do not
know. I asked whether it would be six months, six years or twelve
months, but they would not tell me anything, claiming they did not
know. So, for an indeterminate period, the chairman and
vice-chairman will be free to appoint anyone they like. In other
words, they are telling people to look for ``jobs, jobs, jobs'', while
the Prime Minister wishes them ``good luck''.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to raise a point of order. Since
it is only 4.45 p.m., I would like to get the unanimous consent of
the House to speak for another five or six minutes so I can explain
to my Liberal colleagues across the way why Bill C-60 should be
improved.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time is up. Since he wishes
to go on for five more minutes, does the House give unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7488
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I see that my
colleagues from the government party want to know more about
the benefits of our amendments aimed at improving Bill C-60.
Mrs. Gaffney: And that is why we allowed you to speak in
debate too.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Thank you very much. I want to
give special thanks to the member who convinced her colleagues to
agree to my request.
I want to address clause 93 of Bill C-60. It is also quite
important, but it should be amended. I will read it for the benefit of
the House:
This Act, or any provision of the Act, or any provision of any Act enacted or
amended by this Act, comes into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the
Governor in Council.
This reminds me that I heard-listen up, this is both funny and
serious, but mostly sad-that according to the government's plan,
Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency,
was to come into force on April 1 next year.
I told you that the Governor in Council would appoint the
president, the executive vice-president, and the advisory board. It
would appear that they have already found a president, an
executive vice-president, and that the advisory board is just about
complete. Some democracy! But I am still introducing my
amendments.
Under clause 93, our amendment provides that the act will not
come into force as long as the Minister of Agriculture has not
prepared a code of conduct and ethics to govern the appointment of
employees by the agency. We want a code of ethics, but not like the
one the Prime Minister wanted for his cabinet. Whenever we ask
him to read from his code of ethics or to provide us with a copy, we
are told it is still being printed.
I challenge you. If you had a code of ethics in your private
company, you would be proud to show it to me, to boast about it, to
praise it, or better yet, to improve it if at all possible.
(1650)
When the Prime Minister is in hot water, as was the case this
afternoon during question period, when his industry minister was
questioned about the space agency, is his code of ethics any good?
We know how Mr. Evans was appointed chairman of the space
agency in St. Hubert.
This code must be developed in conjunction with the union or
unions of the future agency and the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food. The objective is to get rid once and for all of the
patronage that might easily take roots within the food inspection
agency. This is serious.
In the several months since we started examining Bill C-60 and I
started raising these cases of patronage, I have received several
calls from people supporting me. Unfortunately, when I ask them to
testify before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food, they are very reluctant because they fear retaliation
from that party.
The Mulroney government did not go as far with patronage.
Brian Mulroney, whom I consider to be among one of the greatest
givers of patronage jobs, would never have created a new agency
just to reward his friends. This is serious because there will be
more than 4,500 jobs.
If the government votes against this amendment that we are
proposing in clause 93, we will have to understand that it wants to
control the agency, thus hurting the interests of the people it
represents.
I doubt Canadians will have full confidence in this food
inspection system that will be entrusted to an agency whose
executives will not be appointed because of their capabilities, but
because of their political allegiance and their past services to the
Liberal Party.
I thank the Liberal members for giving me five more minutes.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise a second time this afternoon in the debate
on Bill C-60 to establish the food inspection agency to point out not
an anomaly, in my opinion, but rather a precedent.
At least it will represent a precedent in the federal public service.
When I rose earlier, I said that, like my colleagues, I was against
the minister having sole responsibility for appointing the members
of the advisory board, because of an extremely high risk of
patronage, which could discredit the advisory board and,
consequently, any study submitted to this board and any opinion
provided by the board to the minister.
Clause 12 of the bill, regarding human resources, states that:
The agency is a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
It says ``separate'', and each word is important because,
normally, the legislator is not supposed to use a word or phrase that
does not mean anything. When Parliament speaks, it is supposed to
mean something.
(1655)
If clause 12 states that the agency is a separate employer, that
means that the agency will not be subject to the Public Service of
Canada Act.
It states further, at clause 13, that ``the president has the
authority to appoint the employees of the agency''. It is there in
black and white. So, it is obvious that the president, as several
members said-and the hon. member for Frontenac just did-who
is appointed by the governor in Council, in other words by cabinet,
7489
with all the risks attached to such appointments, such as appointing
partisan individuals whose only qualifications would be their
membership in the Liberal Party, once this president has been
appointed, carefully chosen because he is one of their own-so he
will do exactly as told-, this president will be totally free to
appoint whomever he wants as an employee of the agency. They
are civil servants. We are talking about civil servants who will go
everywhere, in restaurants, in businesses, to inspect the food
quality, the cleanliness of the premises.
Those are the people referred to. The bill provides:
12. The Agency is a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations
Act.
13. (1) The President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.
(2) The President may set the terms and conditions of employment for employees
of the Agency and assign duties to them.
This is really a first. I would like a member of the government to
stand in the House and explain who, when a minister gets such
legislation adopted, gives such extravagant powers to an individual
who can be appointed on account of his political views.
This means that not only is the advisory committee mentioned
previously-which could be essentially partisan-thus discredited,
but that the agency as a whole can lose its credibility. This is very
serious. This means that any individual, any business owner or
institution could question the quality of these inspectors' work.
I am convinced that no union, no shop steward representing
public servants was consulted about this clause, which exempts the
food inspection agency from the application of the Public Service
Staff Relations Act. In other words, these people will not be public
servants. They will be employees of the agency and they will
always be governed by its terms and conditions of employment.
This is what clause 13, which reads as follows, provides:
13.(1) The President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.
(2) The President may set the terms and conditions of employment
This is unprecedented. Such a clause must be condemned. This
cannot be tolerated. We must have absolute confidence in the
inspectors' work, given the importance of their role in our society,
which is to ensure that the food consumed at home or in public
places is of good quality, and that it is prepared in a clean and
healthy environment.
The agency must not become a haven for patronage. We not let
this happen, otherwise the work of all these people, the work of the
whole agency will come into question. This would prove that
Quebecers are right to demand-not merely ask-that this
inspection work be done by inspectors accountable to the
Government of Quebec. We experienced a similar situation of
distrust in the seventies.
(1700)
Some will remember the tainted meat scandal in Quebec. At the
time, food inspections were not conducted properly, and hardly
anything was checked. The situation was brought to light and it was
found that organized crime had infiltrated the food inspection
sector.
Following a commission of inquiry, the Quebec government
took a number of measures to correct the situation, including the
grouping of all inspectors under a single organization, and the
implementation of strict measures to give credibility to this
activity.
The most serious harm that has been done at the time is that,
because of some laxness in food inspection, for many years and
even still today, some people have doubts when they see the seal
``Quebec approved''.
After 10 or 15, I do not know how many years, people in some
circles still hesitate to put their faith in inspections by the Quebec
government. That is exactly what will happen once we have an
agency run by the government's buddies, those who contribute to
its slush fund. Moreover, inspectors will be selected by these
people.
I do not have to tell you what will happen when the time comes
to hire inspectors. The first card one will have to show is not the
qualification card granted by some college, but a small red card
with a maple leaf on. That is the one to be shown. That is the way
things will work.
And then, they want the agency to have some credibility. They
want inspectors to go do their inspections anywhere they please and
would have us believe that, after the officer from the Liberal Party
has visited their business, people will feel really secure. That is
sheer nonsense.
I cannot think for a single moment that such provisions will be
maintained. My colleague from the agriculture committee is right
to criticize the way Liberal government is proceeding in that
regard. The government seems intent not on dealing with problems
but on creating a lot more. They think the solution lies in leaving
any future decision making to people they alone have confidence
in, that is Liberal hacks. That seems to be the solution.
They could change the title of the bill and call it the Liberal Food
Inspection Agency instead of calling it the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency. Then at least it would reflect a de facto
situation and people dealing with those inspectors would know
what is what. With the provisions as they are, there will be some
doubts. People will wonder if the inspector is qualified, competent,
if he took courses and was trained for the job, who hired him, and
so forth.
7490
We cannot accept such a situation. That is why, unless the
amendments put forward by my colleague are accepted, we will
not be able to support such a decision.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many things have
been said today that need to be clarified and corrected to a great
degree.
When the hon. member concluded his speech he suggested that
the government would not ensure that qualified, well respected
people will get the jobs. In fact, that is exactly what will happen.
We will make certain that qualified well respected people are doing
the inspection jobs for food.
(1705 )
It has not been by error or by mistake, or any other way but good,
strategic planning that Canada is recognized around the world as
one of the countries with the safest food supply in the world. The
federal inspection agency has been and shall continue to be the best
inspection agency that the country can possibly put forward.
We know that when problems have occurred in other countries,
Canada has been on the side of extra caution. We shall remain on
the side of extra caution.
We are not talking here about political, partisan appointments.
We are talking about a lack of arguments by the opposition to bring
forward criticism that is valid for this bill.
A very partisan approach has been taken in the House today. I am
certain not one person from the government, not one person in the
House, and I do not care on which side of the House they sit, would
jeopardize the safety of the food supply, food source for Canadians
or internationally. That is paramount. That must be stated now.
Amendments have been put forward. Those amendments are in
some degree to Americanize our system. The suggestion that an
agriculture committee start holding hearings on people who will be
coming to certain boards, going into the detail of how our system
operates is somewhat different from a parliamentary system.
The responsible person in all the inspection systems in Canada is
the Prime Minister, going down to his cabinet and to the ministers
who are appointed to carry out that responsibility.
This agency is not being formed on a whim. A tremendous
amount of consultation has taken place across the country. Well
over a year has been spent looking at different aspects of
agriculture, health, fishing as well as the inspection agencies that
exist at the present time.
I know very well that some of our officials have been on this case
over two years, trying to make certain that all the steps that are
being put forward are done in consultation with the industry, in
consultation with all the inspection services in the country, in
consultation with all the departments in government to make sure a
good, positive, protective system that will make certain our food
supply is the best in the world is established.
The agency will make certain consistency is there and one source
can be responsible for the inspection systems in the country. There
is no question that there is overlap when you have three separate
departments functioning with one agency to do the inspections.
Certainly, if there are laboratories that are doing the same work,
if there are facilities that we have in an area that could do both the
agriculture, the fishing and the health inspections at one time that is
the most efficient way to do.
By forming an agency under the minister of agriculture, we have
formed a single inspection agency reporting to one minister and
one group of people who can look at the system and come up with
solutions that would better the delivery of inspections across the
country.
That is what has happened. We feel it is extremely important to
have the proper steps in place, the proper people doing the job.
Quite frankly, it is not an area where we are looking at partisanship.
We are looking at placing the best qualified people in those
positions that we can get. I believe that is most important for all
Canadians.
I would like to address a few of the motions put forward that I
have not addressed to this point. One has to do with common
service providers.
(1710)
A series of motions were brought forward. The purpose of the
government's proposal was to give the agency the opportunity to
find a cost effective way to deliver services in the program.
However, before proceeding, the agency must seek Treasury Board
and council approval to pay for those costs as the business
proceeds. This is an area with a cross-governmental implication
and therefore the minister should require and seek concurrence of
his colleagues.
It is important that we look very carefully at the human resources
issue with regard to this bill. The intention of clause 12 is to
provide the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with separate
employer status and not to make changes to collective agreements
which are a framework for the public service. With the addition of
subsection 12(a), this proposed amendment would open all matters
to the bargaining process that are now within the employer's
responsibility in the public service. In other words, some of the
7491
amendments are opening up doors to employee-employer
problems which may come in the future.
Certainly the department has looked very carefully at how the
bill should be structured in order to make certain that there is a
harmonious, fair way flowing from the present inspection system
to the new agency so that all employees will have a reasonable
understanding of what is happening and will be able to move from
their present jobs into the inspection agency if they so desire.
I was a bit astounded when the member for Richelieu stood
today. I recall the member for Richelieu being a very staunch
member of the Conservative Party when Mr. Mulroney was here. It
is not proper for him to stand and criticize the present government
for partisan appointments. It seems that no one was more partisan,
more prone to be dictatorial and oppressive than the former prime
minister. It is very unfair for a person who sat in his caucus to go
after the government for the policies and the issues we have
brought forward.
Clearly the direction of this bill is to have the best possible
inspection agency in the most cost effective and efficient way we
can. We are looking at cost controls when we put an inspection
agency in place. I have heard from the agriculture community, the
fishing community and from all others that it will be a very positive
move if we can save money.
One of the greatest considerations the industry has had in the
past several months is the PMRA. The question of the PMRA is a
matter of the industry being very concerned about cost and cost
effectiveness. If this agency is put in place with a savings of $44
million, that will address cost savings and effectiveness not only
for all Canadians but for the industry itself.
Although many criticisms have been brought forward, I believe
unfairly, about some of the today's issues, the central focus of the
government is on the efficient delivery of service and top quality
service inspection. Food inspection is our number one priority. The
people receiving that food inspection are the people who must be
protected. It is important for this country to have the safest food
inspection service in the world. We are here to deliver it.
(1715)
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to take part in this debate on motions in Group No. 6,
according to the groupings made by the Chair with the co-operation
of House leaders.
The more we move along in the point by point study of the
amendments to this bill, the more we realize this is the greatest
exercise in improvisation we have seen these last few weeks. If
improvisation, carelessness and arrogance have always been the
trademark of this government over the last two years-almost three
years, actually-instead of the openness all citizens are calling for,
this bill really takes the cake.
It is unbelievable that they should simply brush off all our
amendments. None of them is deemed acceptable, even though
they could easily be accepted by anybody except this arrogant
government.
We are simply looking for a better management of this food
inspection agency. We are suggesting appointments should be
made in consultation. But the government has done it again today:
It has named a new lieutenant-governor without consulting in any
way the government of Quebec, even if it could do it. This is a
federal prerogative. I do not hold a grudge against the person who
has be named, but against the office of lieutenant-governor and the
way the government went about this nomination.
What we are seeing here, as discussed under other groups of
motions, is that the government would like to appoint a dozen
persons as administrators of this agency at the sole discretion of the
minister. I can understand the shame members opposite feel when
they see a minister grabbing the power to appoint. They know what
kind of appointments will be made, patronage appointments, as
always. The appointee will have to be a known Liberal. It could be
profitable for the slush fund. After all, Liberals have always been at
the service of the friends of their own party and never at the service
of the people.
With its customary arrogance, the government wants the
minister to appoint the 12 members of the board and rejects the
very simple, concrete and sensible suggestion made by the hon.
member for Frontenac, who said: ``We would like the agency to be
managed by people who have some experience in the agri-food
area, so we would like the committee responsible for considering
agricultural matters here, in the House of Commons, to invite
people to send in their résumés. Then, with the assistance of the
subcommittees and all the parties, we could screen candidates.
Finally, we would make our recommendations to the minister, who,
in turn, would be able to use his discretionary power to choose 12
members among a list of 20 candidates''.
The minister could at least approve this solution. We think the
committee should appoint the 12 members, but if the minister were
to say: ``Give me a list with 20 names on it and I will choose 12
members'', that would be some type of compromise to the
suggestion made by the hon. member for Frontenac, who is very
efficiently overseeing this whole matter for the Bloc Quebecois.
In the proposal he brought forward, the hon. member for
Frontenac is, in fact, saying: Our amendment has three objectives.
First, that the 12 members of the advisory board be appointed by
the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, after due
consideration. Second, that beforehand the provinces and the
7492
representatives of the agriculture industry be allowed to submit to
the committee the names of candidates for appointment to the
advisory board. That is not too much to ask of the minister.
(1720)
Third, that the membership of the advisory board take into
account the weight of each province within the federation.
The government brags about being a national party and
providing equal representation for all citizens. The hon. member
for Frontenac is giving the government the opportunity to prove it.
He said: ``If a province has 25 per cent of the Canadian population,
then it should have three seats out of 12 on the advisory board''.
That does not mean that the board would be controlled by a region
or another. We will have achieved the balance all Canadians are
striving for.
When we consulted our people on this, they asked why we were
consulting them about it, because it was obvious to them that the
minister should receive suggestions from the provinces, the
agri-food sector, political parties in general and people who could
sit on the advisory board. But the minister was so arrogant enough
that he turned down this suggestion, which seems absolutely
fundamental to me.
I understand why there is not a single Liberal member today who
wants to speak in favour of such a thing. They say nothing and hide.
There they are, their heads bowed down. There are so many that
they cannot be missed. What do they say? I can see an assistant to
the minister who is nudging a member to get him to speak on this,
but I do not blame the member for heading behind the curtain.
There is no justification for speaking against such logical and
simple amendments, which would just facilitate the workings of
any agency that we want to be effective and relevant and to do the
work that all the members of this House want it to do.
So, to be sure, we say that we must consult the people involved
in the agri-food sector and the provinces, which also have a very
important role to play. But no, the minister has told his members
say nothing or else they will be expelled, as was the member from
Ontario who now sits as an independent member because he dared
to say to the Prime Minister: ``Mr. Prime Minister, you promised to
scrap the GST, do you not remember?'' He was thrown out of his
party because he dared to talk to the Prime Minister. This is
democracy in the Liberal Party.
This is an arrogant party, the party most given to pork-barrelling
and the most corrupt party in Canadian history. It thinks of nothing
but helping its political friends instead of serving the interests of
Canadians and Quebecers. And the person who best personifies this
corruption and pork-barrelling style of government is the Prime
Minister himself. I am convinced that even the Minister of
Agriculture received instructions to use such a dictatorial approach
in appointing people.
The Prime Minister's list of party backers is a long one. The
Liberals appointed 400 people last year to well paid positions. They
will now appoint 500 or 600 more before the election and,
particularly, before the holiday season. Since people will be busy
partying, nobody will notice all these appointments, and there will
be many of them.
The Prime Minister instructed the minister to set up the agency
right away, to use his discretionary power to do so; he will be given
the names of appointees later. There are still a few Liberal
candidates who did not get a reward or a contract, and let us not
forget that it is the wife of the former defense minister, Mrs.
Collenette, who makes suggestions. Members will recall that the
defence minister himself granted contracts worth $75,000 to one of
his fund raisers to thank him and to ask him to organize his next
election campaign.
This is what we are making a stand against today. I wonder why
even Liberal members are hiding and refusing to acknowledge that
what we are proposing is logical and that we should put an end to
the arrogance they have been showing lately on every issue,
especially on political appointments.
(1725)
This is worse than the Mulroney years, because Mr. Mulroney
took the time to consult the provinces even for the choice of
senators, but the present Prime Minister's arrogance is obvious.
Moreover, he admitted it publicly when he said: ``I am the one who
makes the appointments''. He also told his minister of agriculture:
``I will name them and I will give you the list''.
The kind of patronage, so typical of the Trudeau years,is being
reinstated and strengthened. But that is not what was said in the red
book. The red book said that a Liberal government would give a
greater role to members of Parliament to improve the democratic
process in the House of Commons. Instead of that, we are going
back to a dictatorship.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have another opportunity to speak to this bill because the purpose
of this group of motions is to protect the interests of those who will
manage this system. The government wants to deny public service
employees their vested rights. The other aspect is the one that the
member for Richelieu, with his extensive experience, just
mentioned so eloquently. He has seen it all, so the government
must really have gone too far for him to make this kind of
comment.
7493
As the member said, the government, at the end of the
session-and that is what Canadians must pay attention to-just
before Christmas or just before Saint-Jean-Baptiste day, tries to
ram some bills through the House so they will not come up again
after the holidays.
The member for Frontenac, with his initiative, and his
colleagues in the agriculture committee did wonderful work, and I
want to pay tribute to them. Even though they sometimes seem a
little too insistent in caucus or in their personal contacts with us,
they do make us aware of the reality. They tell us how important
agriculture is. But that is of no interest to the members opposite,
who are uncharacteristically silent on the subject of agriculture, not
only today, but most of the time. This issue concerns not only
thousands of Quebecers, but other Canadians as well. Coming from
a rural area, even though I now live in a semi-urban area, I know
how important agriculture is, as do most Quebecers.
The member for Richelieu is right. Why is it that members
opposite do not rise more often to speak to agricultural issues?
Would it be because the Liberal government wants to ram his bills
through the House? Would it be that it does not want its members to
put forward too many arguments because it is afraid of our
reaction, so it is trying to avoid debate? But is this democracy? Are
we setting a good example? Is that the kind of behaviour we want
our young people to see, a government that is acting as if there
were no opposition, as if things had to go its way while it is in
office? That is almost like a monarchy.
I am surprised that the member for Gander-Grand Falls has not
said a word. He usually speaks up when he sees such a flagrant lack
of respect for democracy. Without breaking the party line, he
usually rises in this House to point out such inappropriate
behaviour. He did not do so today, which is rather unfortunate.
However, since we do not have much time left, Mr. Speaker, all
members of the Bloc Quebecois who are here today and myself
wish to congratulate the member for Frontenac and his two
colleagues, the members for Lotbinière and Champlain, for the
wonderful work they do to support agriculture in Quebec. My
thanks to the member for Frontenac.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order, but I
can do it later on, when the government whip and the whip of the
Reform Party are in the House.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred recorded division on the motion for second reading
of Bill C-236, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive
waste into Canada.
7493
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from December 11 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-236, an act to prevent the importation of
radioactive waste into Canada, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1750)
Before the taking of the vote:
The Deputy Speaker: As is the practice, we will be doing it row
by row. Starting with the mover, all those on my left in favour of
the motion will please rise.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 203)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Bélisle
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bridgman
Brien
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Nunziata
Paré
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-53
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Cohen
Collins
7494
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Duhamel
Easter
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Grose
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-115
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Barnes
Bélair
Bellehumeur
Bonin
Boudria
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Dromisky
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Graham
Kirkby
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Venne
(1800)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
7494
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of
Mr. Ramsay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 204)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Bélisle
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bridgman
Brien
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Nunziata
Paré
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)-58
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Duhamel
Easter
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
7495
Hickey
Hopkins
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Lastewka
Lee
Lincoln
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-107
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bachand
Barnes
Bélair
Bellehumeur
Bonin
Boudria
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Dromisky
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Graham
Kirkby
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Marchand
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Venne
(1805)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
(Motion negatived.)
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, we received this afternoon the
Senate's amendments to Bill C-347, an act to change the names of
certain electoral districts. I believe that, if you sought it, you would
find unanimous consent to move immediately to consideration of
these amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7495
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved that the
Senate amendments to Bill C-347, an act to change the names of
certain electoral districts, be read the second time and concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a simple explanation. When we
passed Bill C-347 at third reading in the House, 19 ridings were
concerned. The Senate kept these 19 and made three amendments
to add ridings whose names will be changed.
Thus, in the province of Ontario, the riding of Vaughan-Aurora
will see its name changed to Vaughan-King-Aurora. In the
province of Saskatchewan, the riding of Regina-Arm River will
see its name changed to Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, and in
the province of New Brunswick, the riding of Beauséjour will see
its name changed to Beauséjour-Petitcodiac.
It is on a non-partisan basis that I move that the Senate's
amendments be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and
concurred in.)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.10 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-202, an act
respecting a national organ donor day in Canada, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are three motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill 202.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1 and 3 will be grouped together for debate. The
vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
I shall now put Motions No. 1, 2 and 3 to the House.
7496
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 1
That the long title of Bill C-202 be replaced with the following:
``An Act respecting a National Organ Donor Month in Canada''
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-202, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 1 with the
following:
``Organ Donor Month Act.''
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-202, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 13 on page 1
with the following:
``2. Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the month of April shall be
known under the name of ``National Organ Donor Month''.''
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak today
to Bill C-202, and therefore on the amendments I tabled with a
view to instituting a national organ donor month.
When I spoke in April, I told you a story from real life. I feel it
would be extremely appropriate to repeat it here, for I believe it
offers an exceptional illustration of how reality has changed in the
past 30 years.
We are back in 1959, when you were far younger, Mr. Speaker,
and I was younger too, but a little older than you. I was about to
graduate from nursing school. Pierrette was a patient of mine. She
was 15 years old and had been sick since about the age of three or
four. She was suffering from kidney failure.
In those days, there was no question of hemodialysis and kidney
transplants. They were not even considered yet. Pierrette, at 15,
was dying. All she wanted was to sleep but, one night, she went to
sleep, never to wake up again.
In those days, medical science threw up its hands in cases like
Pierrette's. All of us felt this was terribly unfair. Science has made
giant strides since.
Over the course of almost 30 years of professional life entirely
dedicated to paediatric care, I finally saw hope rekindled in the
hearts and minds-
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to call the House to
order. Those who are not interested in the debate can withdraw. I
am having difficulty hearing my colleague, and I am close by.
The Deputy Speaker: I fully agree with my hon. colleague.
Would the hon. member in the corner, without naming him, either
step outside or listen to the hon. member.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that
you are a miracle worker.
Over the course of almost 30 years of professional life entirely
dedicated to paediatric care, I finally saw hope rekindled in the
hearts and minds of parents and children. Organ and tissue
transplants now make it possible to save lives.
Today, increasingly sophisticated technologies make heart, liver,
lung and pancreas transplants possible. What was a virtually
impossible feat in 1960 has become, today more than ever, an
everyday reality.
In 1995, in Quebec alone, 375 people received the invaluable gift
of life because 117 healthy people like you and me agreed to donate
their organs after death. Yet, there are still over 500 people in
Quebec waiting for organ transplants; in Canada, only 40 percent of
people with the same need receive the gift of life.
Despite the progress of science, the main obstacle remains the
insufficient number of donors. So, the more donors there are, the
more people will benefit from long awaited organ transplants that
will improve their quality of life.
(1815)
Last April, I was able to speak at the second reading stage of this
bill introduced by the hon. member for Ontario. I was also at that
time joint chairman of an organ donation awareness campaign.
Incidently-and this is something I am extremely proud of-for
the last four years in Laval, the second most populous city in
Quebec and a thriving community in many areas, April has been
declared organ donation month. So I know such a campaign can
motivate people to sign organ donation cards.
It is in this spirit that I introduced these amendments proposing
that the bill provides for a full month of awareness instead of only
one day. At the request of agencies that are very concerned about
all aspects of organ donations, I wish to present a number of
amendments today, and I earnestly hope that my colleagues on the
government benches and those in the third party in this House will
give their unanimous support to this request.
It is important to inform the public and raise public awareness of
the importance of organ donations. We never know when we or one
of our loved ones might need this gift of life.
According to a working paper on donation and distribution of
organs and tissues in Canada, produced by the
federal-provincial-territorial advisory committee on health
services in 1996, there is a critical shortage of organs in Canada.
In a society like ours that takes pride in having the best health
care system there is, because it is available to every one, can we
tolerate not having enough organs to give to the people that need
7497
them? The only way to change this is to make the entire population
aware of the problem.
As we near the year 2000, we have truly exceptional means of
communication at our disposal. What we can do in a month is
incredible. What is needed is political will, and I believe the
Parliament of Canada, of which I am a member, is prepared to
make this decision.
In Canada, and I think this will surprise you, the number of organ
donations per million people is one of the lowest among
industrialized countries. In 1993, for instance, it was 13.9 per
million; in Austria, it was 25.2; in Spain, not a very rich country,
21.7; in Belgium, 19; in the United States, 17.7; in France, 17 and
in the United Kingdom, 15.5.
In addition to having one of the lowest organ donation rates, we
are seeing an increase in the number of people in Canada who are
waiting for organ donations. It is clear that progress in medicine is
widely reported and that people know what they are entitled to and
what they can benefit from. A way must be found, therefore, to
meet their needs.
In 1995 in Canada, 2,500 people were awaiting a transplant, an
increase of 15.5 per cent over 1994. Everyone will agree that it is a
significant increase and that it clearly signals a need for public
information.
Obviously, a Canada wide public information campaign is called
for. A month long information campaign, in April, when nature
revives and life breathes anew, is needed, I think, to let people
know the importance of the situation and our responsibility as
individuals, because too many things still stand in the way of organ
donations.
According to a 1994 survey undertaken by Mutual Life, whose
excellent efforts toward public awareness I am proud to honour, 77
per cent of Canadians said they were prepared to donate their
organs, although only 58 per cent of them said they had signed a
donor card.
(1820)
There is many a slip from the cup to the lip and I think we can
change that if Parliament unanimously supports these amendments.
The gap between attitudes and behaviour can probably be
explained by the fact that we do not know how other family
members feel about this. There are also the fears, the bias and the
lack of trust in the operations.
Therefore, I believe that the great shortage of organs and the
importance of this cause are worth a month of effort to inform the
public. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Ontario, for
this extraordinary idea he had to ask that one day, April 21, be
devoted to that cause and I am sure he will agree with me that this
day should be the culminating point of a whole month dedicated to
raising awareness of organ donations.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to speak on this bill today, at the report stage.
This bill has a story. It started about two years ago.
[English]
It is a bill which unites the House of Commons in a common
front that puts aside politics and the ideological differences which
we have. It is an issue which allows us to consider that perhaps the
greatest gift we can give to other people in passing away is the gift
of life.
The genesis, the origin of this bill was made possible by the
sacrifice which was made by one young individual, a very young
Canadian, a former constituent of mine, Stuart Herriot, better
known among those who knew him as Stu Buddy.
This bill has received the accolade of the Stu Buddy bill. That is
for good reason. Today in the gallery we welcome Tim Herriot, the
father of Stuart Herriot, and his aunt, Linda Rumble, who
spearheaded this bill. On behalf of the House I congratulate them
on their efforts.
As the hon. member for Laval Centre indicated, in Canada we
need to address the fact that nearly 1,100 people die every year
waiting for the gift of life. Fortunately, in 1994-95 four people,
who are alive and very healthy today, received the gift of life
compliments of the sacrifice that Stuart made when he was
tragically killed on April 21.
I do not know if it is divine intervention or just fate, but whatever
the case may be, it turns out that the week which has customarily
been named to honour organ donation has been the third week of
April. It is ironic and perhaps tragic, but also, in a very strange
sense, positive that April 21, the day on which Stuart died, is also
the week that would allow the House of Commons to consider not
only a national organ day, but perhaps, as the hon. member from
the Bloc has said, a national organ donor month.
I do not want to play politics with this bill. The intent is to make
sure that the bill, which received unanimous consent at second
reading and went through committee without
amendment-certainly there were no objections from the
government, the Bloc or Reform-perhaps by way of compromise,
provide a national organ donor week.
(1825 )
I want to speak on that for just a brief moment because we are
now dealing with lives and lives no know boundaries. They do not
know a jurisdiction between Canada and the United States or
between various regions or various cities of the country. It just so
happens that the U.S. congress has already recognized the third
week of April as being its national organ donor week. In a mood of
harmonization I think the ultimate goal, the higher goal which
transcends again the politics and political barriers, I would hope
7498
that we could perhaps as a Parliament at the very least consider this
week.
I understand the hon. member has suggested the month as she
said so very eloquently, but I think we have to try to do what we can
here today. I am pleased to have had an opportunity to work with
her on this bill. I know she has met many people, as so many of us
have, young people and older people who have given away that part
of themselves in dying with the understanding and the knowledge
that they may give life to other people.
The importance of this bill should not be forgotten in terms of
what it is trying to accomplish: awareness and education. Without
those two elements, despite having the means to provide more
transplants, we will still wind up in deficit situation of nearly 1,100
people dying every year because they do not or cannot wait to
receive the gift of live.
I hope we are not in a position where we forget the sacrifices
being made by those and other people who tonight at this very time
are either on dialysis machines or awaiting in the various hospitals
around this country for the gift of life.
It is my belief that this House from time to time may be
criticized for getting mired down in politics, of getting mired down
in the day to day distractions based on ideologies and what not.
This bill brings a common sense of purpose and a common sense of
unity to the posterity of our own species, of our own society and of
mankind.
In recognizing that the hon. member has made these motions and
in the interest of perhaps getting this bill passed as soon as
possible, and honouring the sacrifice made by young Stu Buddy I
ask if it might be possible that we make an amendment to the
motions that have been put forward, in the interest of getting this
done before Christmas in the context of giving.
I move:
That the amendment be amended by replacing the word ``month'' with the word
``week''.
I submit this now.
The Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member indicate by his
amendment if he is changing the word in each of the motions?
Mr. McTeague: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order.
[Translation]
Resuming debate.
An hon. member: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member has a question or
anything else, with the unanimous consent of the House and in the
spirit of Christmas, I think we should let the hon. member for Laval
Centre speak first.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as you know, we get what we can get. I would really like
the House to vote on the amendment that I tabled. I continue to
think that, maybe, a majority of members will vote in favour of a
national organ donor ``month''.
(1830)
If the amendment that I tabled on behalf of Quebecers is
rejected, I will, of course, vote for a national organ donor week,
since it is better than nothing.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I clearly asked that my
amendment be voted on. If the amendment is rejected-
Mr. Arseneault: It is impossible.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: It is impossible. I understand. I will
vote in favour of one week, but I want one month. Mr. Speaker,
does this mean my amendment will be dropped, or are we still
going to vote on it?
If the amendment to the amendment deals with the amendment,
the amendment per se has to be rejected first, right?
The Deputy Speaker: For better or worse, the House must vote
on the amendment tabled by the hon. member. If it is negatived, the
hon. member will be allowed to then submit her amendment. You
do not agree?
Mr. Volpe: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: I must follow the rules of this House. The
hon. member for Laval Centre has the floor.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, you will certainly
understand that I would never question your judgment, so I will
oblige with pleasure since it is almost Christmas.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the
amendment. All those in favour of the amendment to the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is carried on division.
(Amendment to the amendment agreed to.)
7499
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 1 as
amended.
[English]
All those in favour of Motion No. 1 will please say yea.
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is that the
amendment as just amended by the subamendment?
The Deputy Speaker: It is the motion, as amended. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1835 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. I declare
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 carried unanimously.
(Motions No. 1 to 3 inclusive, as amended, agreed to.)
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved that the bill, as
amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. McTeague moved that the bill, as amended, be read the
third time and passed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, may I make a comment?
There are quite a lot of members in the House on this Thursday
night, and I would like to ask all my colleagues if they have signed
their organ donor card.
If they have done so, I ask them to take the opportunity, during
the holiday season, to encourage their relatives, their friends and
their constituents to do so as well and, above all, to tell people that
it can be done.
[English]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not
very often that I am found without words. There is one person who
should be smiling here apart from every member of Parliament and
to whom I have to give so much thanks.
[Translation]
-especially members opposite and members on this side of the
House.
[English]
If Stu Buddy is somewhere in the sky, he has a big smile on his
face and he would want us to have champagne, so let's enjoy this.
Congratulations everybody. Congratulations, Linda and
congratulations, Tim.
7499
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 28 I asked the Minister of Human
Resources Development a question. I asked if in his discussions
with the provinces regarding the transfer of labour market training
from the federal to the provincial governments, he had taken steps
to ensure that the principles of the Official Languages Act will
continue to apply. In other words, will francophones outside
Quebec continue to get training in French and anglophones in
Quebec to get their training in English. There has been great
concern over this matter because there were too many cases in the
past when provincial governments denied services to their
language minorities.
Recently, the Quebec government had bilingual signs removed
from the Sherbrooke hospital and in the Ontario legislature, a
government member insulted an opposition member for speaking
French.
For matters coming under the federal government, services are
now given in English and French throughout the country where
there is significant demand. These rights should not be lost when
training programs are transferred to provincial governments.
When airports were transferred to local authorities and when Air
Canada was privatized, there were provisions in the legislation to
protect these language rights.
(1840 )
I asked my question on November 28 and the government
concluded the first formal transfer agreement with Alberta on
December 10. In this agreement the following is stated: ``In areas
of significant demand, Alberta will provide access to the benefits
and measures and national employment assistance service
functions in both official languages''.
These words are similar to section 22 of the Official Languages
Act which reads in part as follows: ``Every federal institution has
the duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate
with and obtain available services in either official language in
Canada or elsewhere where there is significant demand for
communications with and services from that office in that
language''.
It is essential that the term ``significant demand'' is defined and
interpreted in the same way as it is for the Official Languages Act.
In his answer on November 28 the minister said that the new
Employment Insurance Act provided for service in either official
language where there was significant demand. I looked through the
7500
act very thoroughly and I was not able to find that article. I would
ask the parliamentary secretary to identify the article in question.
I also want assurance from the government this evening that all
the other agreements, including the one from my province of
Quebec, have provisions similar to that of Alberta or even better,
that they contain provisions to guarantee training in both official
languages.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development, I am happy to give the government's
response.
[English]
The Government of Canada strongly believes that minority
official language communities are entitled to receive services in the
official language of their choice. That is why under the Official
Languages Act the Government of Canada as a whole is firmly
committed to ensuring that any member of the public can
communicate with the federal institutions and receive available
services from these institutions in either official language.
The Government of Canada is also committed to ensuring that
services provided on behalf of federal institutions are provided in
either official language.
[Translation]
Since the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of
this basic right, Part II of the Employment Insurance Act was
amended to ensure that access is provided to benefits and measures
in both official languages in areas of significant demand.
Since minority and community organizations are concerned
about how they will be affected by federal-provincial negotiations
on labour market agreements, I would like to reiterate that this
question is part of negotiations and that any agreement will contain
clauses guaranteeing that services will be provided in both official
languages.
[English]
I asked all Human Resources Development Canada officials to
translate this commitment toward respecting the rights of minority
groups with respect to official languages into their day to day
activities as well as to ensure that adequate and equitable resources
are made available to serve these communities.
I hope this information helps to convince the member of the
Government of Canada's commitment to ensuring the vitality of
anglophone and francophone minorities and of our support for their
economic, cultural and social development.
Our actions also reaffirm this government's desire to work
closely with communities to ensure that the rights of minorities are
respected throughout Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
November 27 1996 I asked the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration a question regarding the abuse by immigration
officers of Algerian nationals seeking refugee status, including
excessively long detentions, intimidation, harassment and other
arbitrary practices.
Just hours before I asked this question of the Minister, I had
attended a press conference with representatives of the coalition for
the respect of human rights to condemn this unacceptable situation
which is unworthy of a democratic country such as Canada.
(1845)
This coalition is made up of the Refugee Assistance Committee,
the Office des droits des détenus, the Ligue antifasciste mondiale,
the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Table de concertation de
Montréal pour les réfugiés and the Civil Liberties Union.
The minister said she was surprised to learn about this press
conference. She said she had never been informed of these ``very
serious allegations'', which is not true since I had told her myself,
in this House, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. Immediately after I
got her answer, I sent her a copy of the comments I made on last
May 27 in this regard, here in this House.
Moreover, according to the coalition, the minister had been told
about these abuses as early as last April and May, but she never
followed through with these complaints.
The Bloc Quebecois has asked the minister on many occasions to
stay the deportation of refugees to Algeria where violence is still
prevalent. If returned, they face huge dangers. These nationals have
every right to fear for their lives and safety.
I am heartened by the fact that as of yesterday the federal
government has decided to put off for a week carrying out orders
expelling people to Zaire. This country has now become a high risk
country. Hopefully it will postpone doing so indefinitely.
At the present time, only Burundi, Rwanda and Afghanistan are
considered high risk countries. I hope Algeria is included, for there
have been some damning reports on human rights abuses in that
country.
I am seriously concerned about the behaviour of the immigration
officers accused by the coalition. Among the actions listed are:
excessive use of detention, the use of false information, denial of
7501
the right to a lawyer during deportation procedures and rejection
out of hand of any claims relating to the risks of returning.
In response to my question, the minister promised to act on this
matter. I am asking her, once again, to immediately put an end to
these odious, discriminatory and arbitrary practices by her
immigration officers, and to order a thorough investigation into
this matter. The officials responsible for these acts ought to be dealt
with appropriately.
In closing, I would like to wish a Merry Christmas, and all the
best for 1997, to all immigrants and refugees in Canada and in
Quebec, and to all my colleagues in this House.
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for
Bourassa has spoken of allegations of illegal or improper behaviour
by immigration officials. These are grave accusations which the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration takes very seriously.
This government firmly believes that the immigration
enforcement program must be carried out with the highest level of
professionalism and respect for individuals. It must also operate
within the law. CIC is committed to maintaining and defending the
integrity of Canada's immigration and refugee determination
system.
Let me make it perfectly clear to the hon. member that any
substantiated allegation of improper behaviour is investigated and
acted upon by CIC, and I say substantiated. There is an effective
mechanism in place whereby instances of wrongdoing can be
reported and are addressed.
We have repeatedly invited anyone with documented knowledge
or substantiated allegations of incidents of abuse of authority by
our officials to come forward.
The minister has asked departmental officials to meet with
members of the coalition in order to obtain further details of their
allegations.
With regard to the hon. member's other assertions that we do not
offer adequate protection to refugees fleeing civil wars, I can only
say that we have a good refugee determination system in place
which is universally recognized as among the very best in the
world. We are the only country to be awarded the Nansen medal for
our commitment to helping people in need. Just a few weeks ago
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees sent a letter
congratulating Canadians on the 10th anniversary of the awarding
of the medal. Our proud tradition of humanitarianism continues
today.
Let me assure the hon. member that when we deal with difficult
refugee cases, we look at each file very closely before any
decisions are made.
(1850 )
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 28 I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage about the
raising of $200,000 in water lot licence fees along the Trent-Severn
waterway. There is a great concern that marinas will be liable to
millions of dollars in municipal taxes if these fees are levied. I
asked the minister what was going to be done to help the
Trent-Severn operators in this matter.
A group of marina operators, many of them from my riding of
Peterborough, worked all summer to find a fair way of raising these
moneys. Just when they were close to an agreement, they were
given a legal opinion that this method of levying the fees puts them
at risk in the future for additional municipal taxes. Before
commenting on this situation further, I would like to discuss the
merits of the Trent-Severn waterway.
This waterway is a series of natural and artificial water bodies
which links the upper and lower Great Lakes. It was completed
almost 100 years ago following a route used for thousands of years
by aboriginal peoples. It is part of our national heritage. That is one
of the reasons that Parks Canada manages the waterway on behalf
of all Canadians.
The waterway is also the centrepiece of a corridor of tourism,
recreation and other economic and social activities. The presence
of the system helps generate tens of millions of dollars in that
corridor. The Trent-Severn waterway is also an elaborate system of
water, including flood control.
The waterway is much more than a canal. Its worth cannot be
estimated simply in terms of its cost effectiveness as a route for
boats. Yet in a recent auditor general's report, that is how the
waterway was treated.
The auditor general said that it would save money if some locks
were closed. This would destroy the waterway as a system. It
would take away from its heritage role and it would have serious
economic impacts on all communities and for all residents in the
corridor around it.
I was delighted that in response to the auditor general's report
the Minister of Canadian Heritage publicly stated her support of the
Trent-Severn waterway as a complete system from Lake Ontario to
Georgian Bay.
In times when governments are all downsizing, there is a great
danger that the federal government will give up or neglect powers
and obligations that it has in policy areas which affect the lives of
all Canadians, Canadians alive today and Canadians yet to be born.
This is one of those areas.
Taking all this into consideration, is it any wonder that marina
operators as well as the entire Trent-Severn community are
concerned about the proposed water lot licences and their impact.
Most
7502
operators recognize that they have to help support this wonderful
waterway but the method of payment must be fair and equitable.
I trust that the parliamentary secretary will have some
encouraging and reassuring words this evening.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last March in response to commercial water lot operators'
concerns that insufficient consultation had occurred regarding the
new rates, the Rideau and Trent-Severn canals were instructed by
the Minister of Canadian Heritage to undertake further
consultations with commercial operators.
Over the summer, canal staff gathered input on the proposal from
operators by visiting all known commercial operations. The
minister stated at that time that revised rates would be made public
only after those consultations.
[Translation]
The minister shares the member's concerns. That is why
discussion groups were formed for each canal. Their mandate was
to determine fair rental rates that will allow canals to reach their
revenue objectives.
Staff gathered comments from all known operators over the
summer.
[English]
The groups proposed and recommended a rental structure that
would set new rental rates for primary water lots at twice the old
formula plus a base fee of $150 annually. The rental rate for
secondary water lots would remain at the old water lot rate. The
formula developed received general support throughout the
business community.
The application of municipal property taxes to water lots on
federal property became a very important issue, particularly on the
Trent-Severn waterway. To assist in resolving a municipal taxation
issue, canals staff have sought clarification from the appraisal
branch of Ontario for a provincial interpretation of the Assessment
Act with regard to commercial water lot licences on the canals.
Now that the consultations with the marine operators have been
completed, it is the intent of the government to announce new
commercial water lot rental rates effective April 1, 1997 in the very
near future.
The Deputy Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.55 p.m.)