CONTENTS
Friday, September 27, 1996
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4789
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 4793
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4796
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 4797
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4804
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4804
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4805
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4805
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 4806
Motion for concurrence in 31st report 4807
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of motion 4808
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4810
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4811
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of third reading. 4811
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4812
4787
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, September 27, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
On the Order:
September 27, 1996-The Minister of Transport-Second reading and reference
to the Standing Committee on Transport of Bill C-44, an act for making the system
of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for
the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports,
for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ferry services and other
matters related to maritime trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and
amending and repealing other Acts as a consequence.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-44, an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive,
efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port
authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for the commercialization
of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime
trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending and repealing other
Acts as a consequence, be referred now to the Standing Committee on Transport.
[
English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as always, I consider it a great
privilege to rise in the House. Today I am speaking in support of the
proposed Canada marine act which was introduced on June 10,
1996.
The new Canada marine act will enable ports to respond more
effectively to the needs of their customers and will eliminate
needless bureaucratic interference in the marine sector.
Modernization of the marine sector has a direct link to jobs and
growth. A stronger and more efficient marine transportation system
will improve Canada's international trade performance. That
means jobs right here in Canada.
The legislation will make it easier for ports to operate according
to business principles. It will enable the Government of Canada to
commercialize the operations of the seaway and to improve the
way pilotage authorities and ferry services operate in Canada. It
will serve to enhance the competitiveness of our marine sector,
preparing it for the 21st century.
At this point I wish to acknowledge the contribution already
made to this bill by the Standing Committee on Transport, which
undertook a comprehensive study of the national marine sector
early in May of 1995. The SCOT report contained a number of
recommendations to improve the marine system, many of which
have been addressed in the legislation.
I would like to address the main elements of Bill C-44. I want to
begin with ports. The major ports in Canada will be managed by
Canada port authorities. These CPAs will operate under the
following guiding principles. Any port can apply to become a CPA,
and there is a process in place to evaluate criteria proposed in this
legislation. I expect anywhere from 10 to 15 ports will meet the
criteria and be eligible for CPA status in the very near future.
(1010)
Port authorities will be established by letters patent as non-share
capital corporations and will pay an annual amount to the crown
based on gross revenues.
The board of directors will consist of a federal, provincial and
municipal appointment and then a majority of directors nominated
by the port users. Boards of directors will have a defined code of
conduct and conflict of interest provisions as set out in their letters
patent and regulations.
For the port users, local communities and financial community
there is a new public accountability regime with new disclosure
requirements that will ensure access to more detailed information.
This accountability is achieved by an unprecedented transparency
of operations and through rigorous disclosure requirements.
The following documents and procedures will be made public on
a mandatory basis. There will be an annual report. There will be an
annual audit, a public land use plan requiring public input in the
development process and amendment process. There will be annual
meetings throughout, open to the pubic. Directors' and officers'
compensation and benefits will be reported in the annual report.
4788
There are further aspects of the accountability regime which will be
put in place by the proposed Canada marine act.
The port authority will be required by law to have financial
audits conducted annually in accordance with generally accepted
auditing practices. Furthermore, a special examination of the
management, operations and financial performance will be
conducted no less than every five years and the results reported to
the Minister of Transport.
Perhaps the most important accountability mechanism stems
from the fact that ports will have to raise their financing in the
private sector.
Financing will depend on what the market sees as the realistic
future cash flows of the ports. Their development aspirations will
be subjected to ordinary measures of commercial risk. The
government will no longer be responsible for their debt. In fact,
this means they have to be more efficient than they are today. The
government will not be on the hook for their liabilities.
The end result is a system where port authorities will be
accountable to their customers, their local communities, their
financial community, federal, provincial and municipal
governments.
We are moving the decision making and accountability out of
Ottawa and into the boards of directors of the new port authorities.
We are ensuring financial responsibility by having the financial
community decide on new port investment.
We are keeping title to the federal lands that are entrusted to the
new boards and we remain accountable for important framework
issues such as safety. We think these are reforms that will energize
our ports and contribute to Canada's growth of jobs and prosperity.
For regional and local ports, the changes to the port system offer
an opportunity for local interests in all provinces to manage ports
in a manner more responsive to local needs with lower costs and
better service.
This act enables these ports to be transferred as operating ports
to local interests and, in some cases, other federal departments.
I am pleased to report that since January Transport Canada has
already 47 port sites in the Arctic that were transferred to the coast
guard April 1, 1996. Twelve fishing recreational port sites were
transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans April 1,
1996.
Order in council approval for 199 harbours was proclaimed in
June 1996. Fifty-four letters of intent have been already signed as
of this month. Five port sites will be transferred to local interests
by the end of this month.
I move on to the challenges facing the seaway. Quite frankly,
they are formidable. We have a $7 billion asset supported by a
declining traffic base and $70 million in revenue.
If we do not take steps now to put the seaway on a stronger
footing, we will have a big problem on our hands in a few years.
The key to the future viability of the seaway lies in achieving
efficiencies, reducing costs and making the system more
competitive. Part III of the Canada Marine Act enables the Minister
of Transport to enter into agreements with a non-profit corporation
or any other private sector interests to operate and maintain all or
part of the seaway.
(1015)
We now have an agreement in principle for a new operator to be
put in place, perhaps as early as January and the existing seaway
authority would be dissolved at an appropriate date.
Another section of the bill deals with marine pilotage.
Maintaining an effective pilotage regime to ensure safety and
environmental protection is the primary concern of the
government, users, the pilotage authorities and pilots alike.
The Canada Marine Act includes amendments to the Pilotage
Act which will allow for faster setting of tariffs to prohibit
appropriations from the government and to provide for a
ministerial review in consultation with the authorities and users in
1998.
These changes will serve the users better and ensure that the
authorities operate in a more cost efficient and cost effective
manner. Safety and environmental protection will continue to be
the government's highest priority when making decisions with
respect to marine pilotage. The changes in the delivery of pilotage
services will ensure that the safety of marine transportation is
maintained.
Finally, with respect to ferry services, the Canada Marine Act
will permit the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with
the private sector or other levels of government to provide the
constitutional or other services that are currently provided by
Marine Atlantic. These provisions are included in the act to
facilitate the increased commercialization of ferry operations as
outlined in the national marine policy.
Again, the government will maintain its regulatory role for
safety and it will continue to support constitutionally required
services.
This has just been a quick overview of the proposed Canada
Marine Act. The goals of the marine policy are reflected in this
legislation. We want our marine sector to be more competitive,
more commercially driven, free from Ottawa bureaucracy and
more responsive to the users.
We believe this legislation will help us to achieve these goals
and prepare the marine sector and transportation system for the
competitive demands of the 21st century.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just so everyone
understands the rules of debate on this motion, members are
entitled to 10-minute interventions without questions or comments.
The
4789
maximum, of course, is three hours of debate on this motion before
it is referred to the committee.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
make a few comments with regard to the Canada Marine Act.
The parliamentary secretary has outlined the objectives of the
act. The objectives are very noble and I certainly congratulate the
parliamentary secretary for setting them out in legislation. It is
time that our ports were more self-sufficient, self-determining in
their goals and objectives and in financial accountability. I want to
place on the record my support for the parliamentary secretary's
outline of the objectives of the bill.
I have received representation with regard to this issue a number
of times since I arrived in Ottawa. As a person who represents a
rural constituency in Lethbridge, Alberta, we usually do not talk
about the seaway too much, or oceans, travel or marine life at all
because we always are worried about having enough rain for the
crops, never mind worrying about oceans, lakes and seaways.
Pilotage on the Great Lakes has been brought to my attention.
There are certain shipping lines that travel the lakes day after day,
week after week, month after month. The captains of those boats
are very aware of the travel patterns. They know how to be safe on
the lakes and they know how to move from one port to another and
avoid any kind of disaster or cause any difficulty in making their
way and taking their cargoes of grain, coal or other materials from
one port to another.
(1020 )
As I understand it, in the past it was compulsory that they take on
pilots at some of the ports. These pilots, either one or two or three,
board the boat, find themselves a comfortable seat but the captain
is still in charge. He knows where the boat is going. The pilots
really do not contribute at all to that passage.
The concern is the major cost that is incurred by that pilot
entering the boat, taking a nice comfortable chair, riding from one
port to another and supposedly fulfilling his or her commitment in
determining what is a safe route and the best way to go.
I can see that this may be necessary when foreign boats comes
into the seaway, perhaps from the European continent or some
other country. When they enter the seaway it is new territory or it is
territory they may only travel a few times each year. Under those
circumstances the regulations should require that those vessels
should take on pilots as it ensures safety on the Great Lakes. It
ensures that the correct route is taken and that the necessary
requirements are met. I do not understand all of those
requirements.
I do see the case for a shipping company-the hon. minister and
the parliamentary secretary certainly know the companies to which
I am referring-that is consistently on the lakes and has been for
years. They have experienced captains. Perhaps that is another
requirement. Perhaps the captains have to travel the lakes so many
years. After they have been travelling the lakes and navigating the
ship on the seaway for some many years, they have the right to be
their own pilot. Maybe some regulations could be put in place to
deal with that issue.
Why should the shipping company incur the extra cost of pilots
when they are not needed on the boat at that time? It is a major cost
to the industry. Certainly it employs somebody and creates a job. I
understand that some of these pilot jobs are passed on from one
family member to another. There are three or four families in their
third or fourth generation of pilots so it is an industry for them.
Under the regulations the shippers on the Great Lakes have to
use them. They have a guaranteed income, a wonderful thing, and I
know they would not want to upset that. In practical terms it just
does not seem right.
I recommend to the parliamentary secretary, the minister and the
government that they look at this and maybe set up categories of
where the requirements of a pilot are necessary and where they are
not necessary. That makes some common sense as I see it.
I am making a judgment, maybe as a prairie gopher. I do not
understand all of the things that happen in terms of navigation on
the Great Lakes. But after standing back and looking at it in a
common sense way, in terms of efficiency and the shipping
companies not incurring costs that are not necessary, I think that
would be very right.
As a farmer in western Canada, some of the grain I grow travels
on the Great Lakes. It is moving on those boats. The Upper Lake
Shipping Company, for example, moved some of my grain on the
Great Lakes. I guess I am paying something extra because of the
pilotage cost that is built into the system.
I certainly appreciate the new objectives that have been set out
for the port authorities. It is good that is being done. They sound
excellent. The accountability that is built into it is certainly
supportable and of merit.
I ask the minister to have a second look at pilotage when
regulations are designed to look at what is right and what is not
right.
(1025 )
The third objective that the minister set out in his remarks is that
the new act will be more responsive to the users. That is a good
objective. It is the consumer, the user that really needs it, not the
government. It should not be a bill for government. It should not be
a bill to protect the bureaucrats of the system and enhance their
jobs. It should not be a bill to protect the pilots. It should be a bill
that enhances the opportunity of the users, that allows them to be
4790
efficient, to keep the costs down and to have safety as their utmost
responsibility. I believe that is built into the bill.
I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to speak to
this bill. On that basis I am prepared to support it as an individual
member from western Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, first I will give a brief description of the bill and then I
will outline the Bloc's position.
Bill C-44 implements the federal government's new national
marine policy. Three hundred and twenty-four Transport Canada
ports are equipped for commercial traffic. Ninety per cent of
marine traffic goes through 45 ports. This bill mainly affects three
major marine issues, namely ports, pilotage and the seaway.
As far as ports are concerned, 324 of them come under the
jurisdiction of Transport Canada, which shows the scope of this
bill. The bill calls for the creation of Canada port authorities or
CPAs, which will be private not for profit organizations operating
in accordance with market discipline. The Canada Ports
Corporation is being dismantled but the federal government still
owns the federal lands on which CPAs are located.
As for the seaway, the government intends to continue to
commercialize operations, as the bill allows the federal
government to reach an agreement on management and operations
with the private sector.
Finally, pilotage authorities will no longer have access to public
funds.
Here is our party's position on these provisions. First of all, we
must emphasize that we have always supported the port divestment
and commercialization policy, as we pointed out in our May 1995
report on Canada's marine strategy. Therefore we support the bill
in principle; however, we have four reservations about it.
First, some neglected ports must be rehabilitated. The new
managers and owners should not be penalized by the federal
government's failure to properly maintain many federally-owned
harbours and ports in recent years. They must have access to
facilities that are in reasonable shape. In this regard, officials tried
to reassure us by saying that $125 million has been set aside for this
purpose, but this amount seems woefully inadequate.
Second, during the divestment process, the federal government
will have to take into account the differences between the various
port facilities. Some profitable ports will sell easily, but other will
need more assistance from public officials and the local
community. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, want to emphasize this
important point and we will be watching the federal government to
ensure it takes regional disparities into account.
Third, even though the federal government wants to withdraw
financially from the area of shipping, paradoxically, it wants to
impose government representation on the boards of directors. This
is just one more of many areas in which the federal government has
tried to retain full power while withdrawing financially since the
Liberals have been back in power. The government is
decentralizing its deficit but trying to maintain control over
shipping.
(1030)
Our fourth and last reservation is with the federal government
wanting to divest itself within six years of ports that do not meet
the requirements to become part of the ports system: traffic
diversity, connections with other transport modes, and financial
autonomy. At the end of these six years, it will decide what should
happen to those ports that did not sell. This deadline may well
cause insecurity in many communities, in Canada and Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois is for the commercialization of the St.
Lawrence Seaway. We are also for government support for the
building of ships suited for seaway navigation, which we feel is
essential to the continued operation of the seaway and to shipyards
in Quebec and Canada. Because of the reservations I have just
listed, however, the Bloc cannot support Bill C-44 as it stands.
Following the consultations scheduled to start on Monday, my
party will propose amendments and, depending on how well these
amendments are received, will vote accordingly.
To conclude, Bill C-44 clearly shows how miserably the federal
marine policy has failed these past twenty years. The federal
government just realized, although a bit late, that its involvement
over the years has resulted in costly and cumbersome
bureaucratization as well as ineffective management. The St.
Lawrence Seaway is a good example of this.
More than $7 billion, in 1996 dollars, has been spent by the
federal government on the seaway. But the seaway only generates
$70 million per year in revenue, a 1 per cent return on the
investment. Add to this the fact that shipping has declined by half
since 1970. These figures show how effective federal policies are
in shipping as in many other areas.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to start by saying that this intercession is being
delivered on behalf of my colleague, the Reform transportation
critic, the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke. Reform
supports the intent of Bill C-44. However, there are several areas
with which we have concerns and I would like to expose those in
the next few minutes.
4791
The motion before us is to refer the bill to committee before
second reading. We will support that motion but I believe it is in
order to state the reasons for that support and the reservations we
have.
The first time this procedure was used on a transport bill was the
legislation dealing with the privatization of CN Rail. We supported
the Liberal argument that this process would allow the bill to be
dealt with better in committee and that it would make it more
amenable to amendments. Those assurances were false.
The bill was debated at length and our transport critic brought
forward several amendments designed to improve the bill that we
had already generally agreed with. Although several Liberal
members of the committee expressed words of agreement with
some of those amendments, when it came time for the vote every
amendment was defeated by the same Liberal Party that asked for
our support for the new streamlined procedure.
Interestingly, after the bill was passed in the House and
implemented it became very clear that the Liberals would have
been wise to have accepted some of those Reform amendments.
The next transport bill to come before the House with a motion
to send it to committee before second reading was the Canada
Transport Act. This time, based on the false promises issued by the
Liberals on the previous transport bill, the Reform Party did not
support the motion. When the bill ended up in committee our critic
once again went to work exposing numerous flaws with a bill that
we generally supported. Once again he brought forward numerous
motions designed to improve a bill that we did want to support.
Unlike with the previous bill, the Liberals listened and then
supported the majority of those amendments. Although there were
a couple of rejected amendments which we felt were deal killers,
we do acknowledge the Liberals' improved attitude in dealing with
our amendments. Because of this improved attitude we are willing
to give them another chance to act as they promised when they first
introduced this procedure.
(1035)
Having given our reasons for supporting the motion to refer the
bill to committee before second reading so as to make it more
amenable to amendments, I will now place the government on
notice as to some of the aspects of the bill we have difficulty with.
However, before I do that there is one other item that needs to be
brought out. This bill was introduced in the House last spring. The
intent of doing so was supposedly to allow the appropriate people
to have the summer to study the bill in order to be prepared to study
it again upon the reconvening of Parliament in September.
One of the instruments utilized by members of Parliament is a
briefing book on the bill supplied by the appropriate department,
in this case transport. Our transport critic, the member for
Kootenay West-Revelstoke, did not receive the briefing book
until the afternoon of September 25. That is not acceptable. I hope
this disregard for proper and timely action is not an indication of
how this bill will be dealt with.
During summer our transportation critic studied this bill and
made notes of his concerns. He then went on the road to discuss the
bill with various port operators and users. He began his meetings
by asking for their reaction to Bill C-44. He found in virtually
every case that many of the concerns of those he visited were
identical to his own concerns.
Those areas of common concern include the size and the
make-up of the board of directors. Section 6(2)(f) stipulates that
the number of directors be between nine and eleven. Most port
operators do not need nor do they want that large a board. Of those
operators our critic visited, the desired number indicated ranged
from three to five. One operator who did support five stated that he
could live with seven but would prefer the lower number.
The Reform Party had previously expressed its opinion of board
of director make-up in its minority report in the marine study
completed by the Standing Committee on Transport last year. We
believe in government participation but not government control.
Section 6(2)(f)(v)) of the bill states that one director is to be
appointed by concerned municipalities and one by the province,
two specifically in the case of the Port of Vancouver, and all other
directors are to be appointed by the Minister of Transport. In the
case of some of those appointments, the minister is to consult with
the users. But no obligation is placed on the minister to appoint
those who are chosen by the users.
The government may argue it is its intention to appoint directors
selected by the users but if it does not say that, it is not likely to
happen. If the minister does indeed plan to appoint those elected by
the users, why not just let the users appoint their own directors, but
not in the numbers stipulated in the bill? No one group, be it the
government, the municipalities or the users, should have in itself a
majority on the board.
Section 9 and others within the bill set out a provision that
cancels any right that current office holders might have to
compensation, damages or indemnity.
Section 11(2) goes further by clearing stating that neither the
port authority nor Her Majesty in Right in Canada is bound by any
severance agreement entered into between a predecessor of the port
authority and any of its officers after December 1, 1995. Given that
transport is the same department that gave us the Pearson
cancellation bill, we should not be surprised that it would do
something like this.
Section 24 restricts the right of a port authority to operate any
form of business which may provide needed cash flow revenues
for the port. For example, Fraser port does partial assembly of
vehicles upon their arrival. That is good business and aids in the
4792
financial viability of the port. The government should not be
restricting this activity, it should be encouraging it. Fraser Port is
an example of how we should set up the new port authorities. I am
glad to see the nod across the way from the parliamentary secretary
to go in that direction.
(1040)
Section 27(3) states that a port authority may not mortgage any
property that it holds in any manner. Does this restriction apply
only to the crown land turned over to the port to operate or does it
include other properties which have or may in the future be bought
by the port authority? This we think is overly restrictive and creates
serious financial problems for the ports.
Another problem section is 36(5). This either stops a port
authority from acquiring a new property or at a minimum requires
an amendment to the letters patent each time there is a purchase.
The idea of the bill is to get rid of bureaucratic red tape, as stated by
the parliamentary secretary, not create more.
Section 45 states that the Official Languages Act applies to a
port authority as if it were a federal institution. That is absolutely
without merit. Why would the Port of Prince Rupert on B.C.'s
north coast need to be bilingual? Why would small ports at other
west coast locations need to have this unnecessary expense and
hiring restriction placed on them? It is not a matter of not wanting
to provide a bilingual service, it is simply that no one would ever
use it. Let us be practical.
Section 56 sets it up for the minister to gouge money for little or
no service out of certain ports like Kitimat. Considering that the
Minister of Transport is also supposed to be the Liberal cabinet
representative for B.C., he should be ashamed of allowing such an
unfair provision to remain in the bill.
Section 63 is little better and is also likely to cause undue
hardship on Kitimat.
While there are some other areas of concern, these are the most
contentious. We are giving the government fair notice as to where
our concerns lie. I hope it will remain open minded and work with
us to make Bill C-44 one which all parties can support and one
which will benefit all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in this debate because, when we deal with the marine
sector, the MIL Davie workers, in my riding of Lévis, immediately
come to mind. My goal is to see if this bill includes measures that
will be beneficial for these workers.
Why do I think in these terms? Because Bill C-44 is pompously
called the Canada Marine Act. However, there is nothing in it about
marine construction or the merchant navy. Yet, I saw Liberals,
including the Prime Minister, come to meet MIL Davie workers
and tell them that a summit would be held and a policy would be
developed.
In the end, this bill deals primarily with ports. What is it all
about? The member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, who spoke
before me, stated the Bloc's position. In principle, we cannot
oppose this bill, because it theoretically seeks to take politics out of
port authorities. However, we are not so sure that this will actually
be the case.
For example, in most cases, the federal government will
continue to appoint the directors of a port authority. As mentioned
in clause 12(1), there will be an official representing the federal
government, but, with the exception of those individuals appointed
by the municipalities and the provinces, the others, including those
representing the users, will be appointed by the federal
government.
I happen to come from the region of Lévis, across from Quebec
City, which has a major port.
(1045)
Over the years, I watched what was going on in the port of
Quebec, because there are port facilities on both sides of the river.
What happened is that, over the ten previous years, the port of
Quebec had accumulated profits of $36 million. This prompted the
federal Conservative government, and then the Liberals, to grab
$33 million out of the $36 million.
Under the circumstances, you will understand why the port
authorities had no real incentive to make profits. The member for
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes talked about siphoning off profits
and he is absolutely right. This best describes what took place. The
federal government was siphoning off the profits and, then it says,
in the bill, that the previous policy has failed. This is indeed the
case, because, wherever it was cost-effective, the federal
government moved in and took amounts for its own administration.
The Bloc Quebecois has certain concerns, one being that,
although the port of Quebec City was cost-effective, smaller ports,
and there are many of them, are not in the same situation. We are
still worried about them. Often, ports are in pitiful shape. The
federal government has neglected the maintenance of several small
ports and now it would like to turn these small ports over to local
entrepreneurs, rely on the spirit of economic development and
initiative that local people may have.
It is not much of a gift in some cases, unless the necessary
money is invested. We will see, during the consultation, because
there will be hearings at which the various stakeholders throughout
Canada who are interested in the matter may express their views.
4793
The members of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, will
be present at each of these hearings to listen to people's concerns.
At first sight, $125 million to refurbish all the ports concerned
seems insufficient to us. Sometimes, what is needed is an analogy
with what is happening in other areas. This morning, I read in the
newspaper about a group of five small regional airports in Quebec
that have decided to make representations to the federal
government. The representatives say that they would be interested
in taking over management of these airports, but that they are in
unsatisfactory shape at the moment. For a year, or 18 months now, I
believe, we have been seeing, if we look at specific cases, that
people are realizing that if an adjustment is not made, it is not as
interesting for local authorities to take over the administration of
what the federal government leaves behind.
I will give another small example. I personally wonder. Take the
Toronto airport, You will tell me it is not the same thing, but it still
has a bearing on the ports. The Conservative government had
decided to privatize Pearson, but the Liberal government wanted to
prevent privatization. Why? Because there was more in it for them
that way. It makes me wonder. When something brings in money,
the government wants to hang on to it to fill its own coffers, but
when it is a losing proposition, and when the government itself has
contributed to the deterioration of the infrastructures, it wants to
hand it over to the local authorities.
At first sight, this strikes me as a real contradiction. So during
these hearings on the ports, people will have a chance to express
their concerns. I think that these hearings will provide an
opportunity for them to do so.
(1050)
The only thing I see is that the time limit seems very short. In the
human resources development committee I have seen that people
have not had enough time to prepare a brief because of the time
limits. The democratic process, though generally very good, is not
always followed as it should be, because people have not been
given the necessary time to prepare. At any rate, we shall see what
happens.
This the reason for the Bloc Quebecois' serious reservations,
despite our support of the principle.
There is also the matter of pilotage. I have had a lot of
representations from people about the St. Lawrence, where I
understand it will be implemented in 1998. The St. Lawrence pilots
have expressed their concerns to me. They are not sure it is a good
thing to move the St. Lawrence pilot administration to Ottawa. In
this instance, centralization does not seem attractive at first glance.
Finally, as for privatization and increased commercialization of
the St. Lawrence Seaway, I would be in agreement with that. Yet I
would point out that, as the member for Lévis, I would certainly
like to see this new legislation take into consideration the fact that
vessels plying the St. Lawrence Seaway in future will have to be
built with a narrower seaway in mind. We are well aware that it is
not all that easy to navigate through all kinds of submerged
barriers. As well, environmental protection regulations would be
necessary.
If all of this were done, the situation of the workers at MIL
Davie, whom I represent here, would also be improved.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-44 which concerns
shipping.
First of all, I would like to digress somewhat. Speaking of
transport, two weeks ago in my riding we opened the Véloroute des
bleuets, a bicycle path around the Lac-Saint-Jean that will give all
visitors as well as residents a chance to tour this lovely region. It is
probably one of the few bicycle paths that forms a loop, in other
words, you never cover the same ground twice.
I say this just in passing. Now, from cycling to boating.
Shipping is probably one of the most important economic sectors
in Quebec and Canada. Need I add that it helped create our two
countries. That is why it is essential to consider every aspect of a
bill that concerns this sector before taking action.
Mr. Pettigrew: Two countries?
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Yes, two countries.
The proposed legislation implements the federal government's
national marine policy announced in December 1995. This is new
legislation that will regulate the entire shipping sector, both in
Quebec and Canada.
The government dares to refer to this legislation as the Canada
Marine Act. In fact, we are really talking about legislation to
regulate shipping in Quebec and in Canada. So why is there no
reference to shipbuilding, an important industry in Quebec? Why is
there no reference to shipyards? Why is there no reference to the
merchant navy? I intend to answer those questions.
First of all, because the federal government's marine policy has
been a complete flop. A good example is the St. Lawrence Seaway.
In 20 years, the federal government has invested $7 billion-quite
a bundle-while annual revenues amount to about $70 million
annually. The situation is pretty clear.
The government is definitely in the red, and furthermore, today's
shipping is half what it was in the seventies, in the good old days.
This is why the government wants to get rid of the embarrassing
economic situation of its ports, while maintaining a final say on the
membership of the boards of directors that will have the
responsibility for managing the ports.
4794
(1055)
In this regard, clauses 12(1)(a) amd (e) of the bill provide that
the federal government will have a representative on each of these
boards in addition to appointing the other members in consultation
with the users. But the bill does not specify whether or not the
minister is required to respect the users' choice. I think that this, in
a way, shows the irony of this bill. The government should not try
to sell us a bill of goods: it cannot get rid of the infrastructure, and
still have a say in this.
The government may well consult with users and then appoint
whoever they want, as this seems to be a hallmark of the party
across the way. Again, the government talks about decentralization
but the facts show a totally different situation. In government
language, it simply means getting rid of the federal deficit at the
expense of the other levels of government while maintaining
control through a federally-appointed board of directors and
especially saving the work for its own officials. This is reminiscent
of what is happening here in Ottawa, where everyone is working to
keep his or her job. Effectiveness does not matter.
Given the state of Canada's deficit, the government should
perhaps sell off the whole country, keeping only the Parliament
buildings. That would be one way to get rid of its debts.
An hon. member: First they must find a buyer.
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Right, the problem is finding
a buyer. That would be one way for the government to get rid of its
debts without losing its decision making power, which is very
important.
In the end, I seriously wonder about two problems that might
arise from this bill. First, I am very concerned by the wide variation
in the commercial viability of the various ports. The government
should take into account the differences between the various port
facilities. As we know, some ports are more profitable than others
and will sell off quickly, while others will need more help from
both the public and the private sectors and from local communities.
Making them commercially viable will increase our already heavy
financial burden.
The second problem that bothers me is this. In what kind of
shape will the ports the federal government will hand over to the
private sector be? Finaly, as my colleague for Lévis said
essentially, earlier, when something is profitable, you retain control
over it and pocket the profits, otherwise, you divest ourselves of it.
It is a well known fact that several harbours and ports were left to
look after their own maintenance and modernization. Officials did
try to reassure us by saying that $125 millions will be earmarked
for repairs to ports that have not been properly maintained. Given
the condition of certain ports, it seems clear to me that $125
million is very definitely not enough. Again, this goes to show that
the
government's sole aim is to get out of debt by shifting the costs of
repair onto other levels of government and the private sector.
The Bloc Quebecois is very much in favour of the
commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway. At the same time,
we are for government support for the building of ships suited for
seaway navigation. We will be looking at the bill with a view to
making suggestions on how to improve it, so that it better meets the
expectations of all Quebecers and Canadians.
As I said and I repeat, shipping, particularly on the St. Lawrence
Seaway, represents an important industry, an economy, which must
not be taken lightly. The government must consider the merits of
my line of argument.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Rather than give the floor to
a member for one minute, we will proceed to members' statements
and then we will resume this debate after question period.
_____________________________________________
4794
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
(1100)
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to extend my congratulations and praise to a constituent
of my riding of Scarborough Centre for his outstanding
performance in the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.
My constituent John Child competed in one of the new medal
sports introduced this year, beach volleyball. Mr. Child along with
his partner Mark Heese competed against the best players in the
world and went on to win a bronze medal in the finals, proving
once again that Canada is indeed a force to be reckoned with in this
new and increasingly popular sport.
To follow up on their bronze medal, Mr. Child and Mr. Heese
went on to win the Canadian National Beach Volleyball
Championships which were held right here in Ottawa over the
Labour Day weekend.
It is with great pride that I again congratulate John Child on his
pursuit of excellence in his chosen sport. Well done, John.
4795
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday,
September 29, Joliette's oldest educational institution will
celebrate its 150th anniversary.
In 1846, Barthélemy Joliette, the founder of the city, established
the Collège Joliette, which later became the Séminaire de Joliette,
then the Académie Antoine-Manseau, and now the Cégep
Joliette-de-Lanaudière. Headed by the Clercs de Saint-Viateur,
with the support of secular priests and lay persons, this institution
has always offered top quality education and training, and boasts
among its former students the current Prime Minister of Canada
and member for Shawinigan, and the deputy premier of Quebec,
Jean-Bernard Landry.
Today, I have the great privilege of paying tribute to my former
alma mater. The dedication, perseverance and generosity of its
builders contributed significantly to the enrichment of our country
and to the development of Quebecers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has done it yet again with the appointment of Wilfred
Moore to the Senate yesterday. He has extended his unbroken
streak of blatantly and cynically putting his Liberal Party interests
ahead of democracy in Canada.
I do not need to talk about Mr. Moore's impeccable Liberal
pedigree because the Prime Minister wants only people who would
do his bidding.
Canadians should realize how the Prime Minister is perverting
the Canadian democratic process. For example, Canadians assume
because their elected representatives overcame strong lobbying by
the heritage minister and her department that there be a ban on
cable company negative option billing that the ban would come
into effect but this is not so. Even as we speak the Liberal senators
are being told how to vote on behalf of the heritage department, on
behalf of the cable companies and against consumers. This Prime
Minister wants to have his own way.
Perverting the Canadian democratic process with endless Senate
appointments works against Canadians who are demanding
accountability instead of Liberal manipulation.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Drayton Festival.
Located in my riding, the Drayton Festival will conclude its sixth
season on Sunday, October 6.
A true success story, the festival has quickly grown from 16,000
tickets sold in 1991 to 60,000 this year. Running from May to
October, the 21-week season is the third longest running summer
theatre in Ontario.
This season the most popular show was a Canadian musical play
about the second world war as seen through the eyes of six
Canadian soldiers. Extremely popular with all audiences and
heavily supported by the Royal Canadian Legion, the show was 98
per cent sold out.
The theatre, which receives no government money, recently
launched a $1.5 million capital campaign to renovate its historic
building. To date over $500,000 has been raised.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the success of the theatre is
phenomenal, especially when you consider it is located in a village
with a population of 1,300.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to inform the House that September has been designated Arthritis
Month by the Arthritis Society.
Arthritis is a significant health issue that has disabled 600,000
Canadians and has become the most common cause of long term
disability in Canada. It costs our economy more than $5 billion
annually.
There is still no cure. Arthritis research is a critical component
of the strategy to address this disorder.
During Arthritis Month this year, a new Internet site is being
launched by the Arthritis Society in conjunction with the society's
corporate partner and the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
The web site is being developed, maintained and supported on a
voluntary basis by a dynamic team of Canadian rheumatologists,
orthopedic surgeons, physical and occupational therapists and
family physicians.
I congratulate the Arthritis Society and its 100,000 dedicated
volunteers whose efforts continue to bring hope to many Canadians
suffering from arthritis.
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this summer I was invited to speak at the founding of the Vaughan
4796
Interact Club. At a time in our country's history when youth
unemployment is a challenge, organizations such as the Interact
Club are essential.
Sponsored by our local Rotary Club and the Vaughan Chamber
of Commerce, Interact gives area youths the opportunity to learn
valuable leadership and teamwork skills while gaining experience
that will serve them well down the road. By focusing on
community service and understanding, Interact prepares our youth
for the challenges they face entering the world of work.
To the youths who have taken the initiative to join Interact and
the business leaders who will volunteer their time, I say to them,
congratulations. They have made a wise decision and one which
will benefit themselves and the community in which they live.
This type of effective partnership between youth, community
associations and area businesses is exactly the kind of alliance that
is needed to help our youth take on their future and realize their full
potential.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
August 29, novelist and poet Anne Hébert gave to the University of
Sherbrooke several manuscripts and audio material representing
the greater part of her literary work in Quebec before 1960.
These documents are an invaluable part of our heritage. When
the agreement was signed between Ms Hébert and the University of
Sherbrooke, university Rector Pierre Reid said to the author: ``Ms
Hébert, the gift you are making today to the University of
Sherbrooke will form the basis of research for generations of
students.''
In order to promote research, the University of Sherbrooke
pledged to create a centre, scheduled to open in May of 1997.
Michel Gosselin, a professor of literature at the Collège de
Sherbrooke, a writer and a friend of the author, will chair the
steering committee of this research centre.
My colleagues and I wish to extend our warm appreciation to Ms
Hébert for this gift to the Province of Quebec, and particularly to
the Eastern Townships.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
years of half measures dealing with youth crime have left
Canadians with laws that allow criminals to go unpunished because
they are between the ages of 12 and 17.
Victims rights groups and Canadians in general have been shut
out of the process to reform the Young Offenders Act. However, in
my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan, constituents are being heard on
this issue.
Using the direct democracy initiative of televoting, residents are
voting on the following questions:
1. Do you feel that youths charged with violent crimes should
automatically be dealt with in adult court?
2. Should the names of youths convicted of a serious crime be
released to the public?
3. Should the Young Offenders Act be amended to lower the age
at which a youth can be charged from 12 years to 10?
To date, 698 people have responded and in time their views will
be reflected in legislation which I will bring before this House.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, although
the Liberals promised to keep marketing boards, the Crow benefit
and branch lines, they have already gotten rid of two of those three
pillars of their policy. When confronted with their duplicity they
say that the international agreements made them do it. However,
during the election they said they would not sign those agreements.
Now the Liberal government has offered up marketing boards on
the sacrificial altar of free trade for the 1999 round. Canadian
officials did not have to call them state trading entities but they did.
The government did not have to sign onto the agenda but it did.
Unfortunately for Canadian farmers who want to keep single
desk selling, our officials have willingly taken the poison to kill the
boards and now we find there is no antidote. What is worse, no one
inside the government seems to be looking for one.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw the House's attention to the problem of impaired
driving, a serious social problem which unfortunately still
manifests itself in our society with all the negative consequences it
entails.
[Translation]
Many have proposed solutions to this serious problem, without
giving proper thought to their degree of success. Impaired driving
is a complex issue that cannot be resolved by adopting
ill-considered half-measures.
4797
[English]
The problem of impaired driving requires comprehensive, not
piecemeal solutions. Dealing with impaired drivers requires efforts
in the social as well as the legislative arenas. Only then will we
succeed in our goal to eradicate this criminal and socially
unacceptable behaviour.
* * *
(1110 )
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to commend a constituent of mine from Greely in
Osgoode township who has found a novel way to promote
Canadian unity.
Mr. Kent Hamilton has created a train whistle out of Canadian
pine and cedar which provides a sound reminiscent of early steam
engines that brought our country together from the Atlantic to the
Pacific in 1885.
[Translation]
Mr. Hamilton calls his instrument in both official languages:
l'Unisifflet and The Great Canadian Whistle. I am proud to join
him, and many others, to show our national pride by blowing in the
Great Canadian Whistle.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
premier of Alberta visited financiers on Wall Street in New York
City this week extolling the virtues of the Alberta advantage.
However people on the main streets in Edmonton East know the
premier is ignoring one essential element of the Alberta advantage,
one that is of paramount importance to Albertans: quality health
care services and an accessible health care system.
The premier believes that responsible health care restructuring
simply means taking dollars out of the system without any
consideration for the impact on people, on services or on budgets.
The results of cutting too deep too fast with no planning were
illustrated this week when Alberta's regional health authorities
reported a combined deficit of $100.6 million for the 1995-96
fiscal year.
Albertans clearly see health care in that province as an Alberta
disadvantage. Their confidence rests with our Prime Minister who
understands their overwhelming desire for an effective, efficient
health care system and who is committed to upholding the
principles of the Canada Health Act.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
the Minister of National Defence to explain to this House what he
means when he says that the generals in the Canadian Armed
Forces carry no more weight than a plumber.
To my knowledge, when something is wrong with the plumbing,
you call a good plumber. And when a government has problems
with its armed forces, it makes just as much sense for it to attach a
minimum of importance to the opinions of its generals.
When the defence minister says that his generals carry no more
weight than a plumber in the decisions concerning the armed
forces, what use then are these generals?
In my opinion, the minister is no longer seeing straight in this
affair. His lack of judgment and inappropriate remarks point to one
thing: he is no longer able to hold such a position.
The Prime Minister has no choice but to call for the resignation
of the defence minister.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to inform the House of the passing of a former member of
Parliament from Medicine Hat constituency, Mr. Bert Hargrave.
Mr. Hargrave devoted his lifetime to the promotion of
agriculture and public service, and often the twain did meet.
A graduate of the University of Saskatchewan, he served as a
tank engineer in World War II. A strong supporter of agriculture, he
took over the family farm at Walsh, Alberta in 1945. In 1972 he
took office as a Conservative member until retiring in 1984,
serving for a time as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture. His tireless devotion to his life work was recognized
when he was inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame.
Over the years I met him on several occasions. I was honoured
when in his later years he became a member and supporter of my
party.
Mr. Hargrave was a typical western gentleman: tough,
straightforward and generous. He passed away Tuesday at age 79
and will be laid to rest on Monday beside his wife Amy.
4798
I know the House will join me in extending sympathies to his
family. He will be sorely missed. May he rest in peace.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Bloc Quebecois showed us once again
that its talents lie more in the politics of showmanship than in
dialogue. The reference of the question of a unilateral declaration
of independence to the Supreme Court surely does not merit such a
frenzied spectacle from the Bloc Quebecois.
The sole purpose of our government's decision is to demystify
the concept put forward by the separatists that Quebec has the right
to unilaterally declare its independence.
We are in no way denying the right of the government of Quebec
to organize a consultative referendum on the future of Quebec. We
merely wish to avoid having any future unilateral declaration of
independence by the government of Quebec take place in confusion
and chaos.
We believe that the interest of the people of Quebec must come
before the separatists' partisan interests. We urge the Bloc
Quebecois to co-operate in this important process of clarification.
* * *
(1115)
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government of Quebec will not comment on the reference to the
Supreme Court by the Minister of Justice.
Yet, last May 29, in connection with the Bertrand case, Lucien
Bouchard took quite a different position from that just adopted by
his government, and I quote: ``I obviously cannot just allow the
court to go ahead without saying anything. The lawyers are
attacking Quebec's rights''.
As for the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, he said on June 5, and I
am again quoting: ``I have always told Mr. Bouchard, and I told
him again recently, that the policy of the empty chair is not
appropriate at this time''.
Quebecers are entitled to know the separatists' arguments
concerning the unilateral declaration of independence. To refuse to
take part in the deliberations of the Supreme Court is to deny them
this right.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last April 5 a terrible tragedy occurred in my riding of
Okanagan-Shuswap which resulted in the shooting deaths of nine
people. My deep sympathy goes out to all their family and friends
who have suffered again through the coroner's inquest which has
revealed a lot of heartbreaking information.
The police will now routinely contact the spouse when a person
applies for a restricted weapon. This sounds good in theory, but in
practice the RCMP already have their hands too full dealing with a
20-year crime wave and laws which impose so much red tape that it
can take longer for the officer to complete the paperwork than a
judge imposes as the sentence.
Nevertheless, our present government continues to cut funding
for the administration of justice. My office has received complaints
that the public does not believe there are enough police to protect
law-abiding citizens and their property.
The investigation into the so-called Vernon massacre clearly
indicates the continuing lack of justice in our criminal justice
system.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
again to encourage the government in its efforts to develop
sustainable domestic and international fish stocks management
policies. We need to put our own house in order in the inland and
marine fisheries so that we can ratify the United Nations
convention on the law of the sea in the near future.
In the meantime, we should surpass the standards set by the FAO
code of conduct for responsible fisheries.
We should also use all our influence to gain full international
recognition for the agreement on straddling stocks and highly
migratory fish.
The policies and achievements of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans last year gave us a position of moral leadership in global
fish stocks management. We should work to retain that position.
_____________________________________________
4798
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Justice referred to conditions
mutually acceptable to Canadians and Quebecers based on the
4799
Canadian Constitution. Need I remind everyone that this
Constitution has been judged unacceptable by all of the
governments of Quebec? The present federal Minister of
Immigration, who is present in the House, moreover, held that
opinion when she was a member of the Quebec National Assembly.
I do not know whether she has changed her mind since then.
The Minister of Justice also stated yesterday, and I quote: ``We
shall take whatever steps are necessary in the months ahead to
comply with the commitment we gave in the speech from the
throne''.
Does the Minister of Justice confirm that referral to the Supreme
Court is only the first step of plan B, and that the federal
government is preparing to impose impossible conditions on
Quebec, by setting the rules for the referendum itself?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, and might I add a note of
reality to this?
It was Mr. Bouchard himself who sent his Minister of Justice
into a Montreal court room, a few months ago, in the spring of this
year, in order to convince it to close the Bertrand case because,
under the Constitution, the courts have nothing to do with
sovereignty. He was not successful. We responded to that in court
and were successful in convincing the judge to continue because
the court does indeed have a role to play by deciding these matters
of law.
After that, the Quebec Minister of Justice left the case, yet the
basic questions remain, those raised by Mr. Bouchard and his
Minister of Justice themselves.
(1120)
We have raised those fundamental questions in the highest court
of the land, and Mr. Bouchard and the Government of Quebec have
refused to participate. In my opinion, the only conclusion we can
reach is that Mr. Bouchard and the Government of Quebec are well
aware that what we maintain is true: unilateral action is illegal.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the unilateral action by the Government of Quebec is
illegal, yet the unilateral action by the federal government is legal.
That is this boils down to. That is what they mean by democracy.
Their ``democracy'' is a game with loaded dice. Their
``democracy'' denies the existence of the people of Quebec.
Will the Minister of Justice admit that any desire for change
expressed by the people of Quebec is subject to a veto by any one
of the provinces, from Newfoundland to Prince Edward Island,
since unanimity is required under the Constitution, a constitution
no Quebec government, whether Liberal or PQ, has accepted or
signed?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it suits the purpose of the hon.
member to confuse one issue with another. What he fails to address
is that the one rule that binds us all in this country is the rule of law.
What is at issue here is whether that rule of law is to govern all
that we do, including resolving the great national question of
separation.
We made clear yesterday that we must respect a decisive
majority on a clear question on that issue as expressed by the
population of Quebec. The question will be separation or not,
nothing in between, not partnership or any such thing. Separation
or not is the clear and honest question that must be asked.
We have every confidence that when that question is asked, the
population of Quebec will vote, as it has done on two earlier
occasions, for a united Canada.
The issue we confront in the case that we have now referred to
the Supreme Court of Canada is this. My hon. friend and the
government of the province of Quebec pretend that if they get the
result they want the very next day they can walk away unilaterally
from the nation that is Canada. That is not so.
They would have to follow negotiations to resolve the tough
issues involved in separation, not partnership. Those negotiations
have to be in accordance with an orderly process consistent with
the rule of law.
That is our point in taking his questions to the Supreme Court of
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we are getting closer and closer to the real bottom line.
What this minister is telling us is that Quebecers and their
government lack the maturity and democracy to be capable of
making a decision on their own concerning their development,
their future. That we need the other provinces, the anglophone
majority in Canada, to tells us how to go about it. That is the
bottom line.
With the exception of his better approach, this minister is acting
exactly like his Prime Minister, who has always found a way to
stick it to Quebec-
An hon. member: What is the question?
Mr. Duceppe: What is the question? Hold on, it is coming up.
As I was saying, like the Prime Minister, who has always fiddled
with principles in order to stick it to Quebec.
To quote the Minister of Justice again, because it is noteworthy:
``Mr. Speaker, I very much hope that our federalist allies in Quebec
will see the value of clearly determining these questions that have
now been put at issue''. You see, the Quebec federalists are not in
agreement with the federal government. They can smell a trap that
4800
reeks of Meech Lake, but the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration does not seem to be unable to do so.
Some hon. members: Question. Question.
Mr. Duceppe: My question is on the way, if only the wolves will
stop their howling.
(1125)
Is the Minister of Justice aware that this government is in the
process of cutting all ties with Quebec, even with its federalist
allies like the Quebec Liberal Party?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have addressed the question, we
have made a speech.
But the speech mentioned the word ``democracy'', a pertinent
word here, because of course we must respect the decision of the
population of Quebec on the question of separation. Of course, if a
decisive majority voices its opinion on a clear question after a legal
process, and decides to leave Canada, to separate, that decision
must be respected. That is true.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Rock: Yes, it is true. It is obvious that we do not intend to
hold someone within Canada by force, against their will. We are,
however, confident that decision will not be taken.
But the reason for our referral to the Supreme Court this week is
that action after such a vote cannot be unilateral. We need answers
to the difficult questions which arise under such circumstances.
That is to say, all Canadians are involved in this process, a process
which must respect the rule of law. That is the purpose of our action
this week.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I may be allowed to
comment, the first round of questions took us 10 minutes. I would
therefore appreciate the co-operation of both sides of the House in
making both questions and answers more concise.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice said yesterday that he would
recognize the will of Quebec if certain conditions were met.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us in no uncertain terms
whether the federal government intends to determine the wording
of the question and the percentage required to recognize a
referendum?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we intend to act on the
commitment we made in February in the speech from the throne,
that if there was a third referendum in Quebec, there would be a
clear question, full discussion of all the consequences, a fair and
equitable process and an opportunity for all Canadians to have
some say on the future of their country.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice also said that all Canadians would
have their say. However, he would not tell us whether he was
considering holding a pan-Canadian referendum to determine
Quebec's future.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us today whether the
government has dismissed the possibility of holding a
pan-Canadian referendum on the future of Quebec? Yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Quebec
insists on a third referendum after twice the population of Quebec
voted for a united Canada, the first issue will be to determine the
will and wish of Quebecers. We have said time and again that we
are confident they will choose a united Canada.
The hon. member pretends that in such an event the population
of Quebec would choose a different course. We are saying that in
any such unlikely eventuality, all Canadians have a stake in what
would then happen, which is the settlement of the issues that would
be outstanding on separation, not partnership. All Canadians must
have a voice in determining those issues.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the defence minister have
demonstrated to Canadians their lack of leadership, and by their
lack of leadership they have allowed morale in the Canadian
Armed Forces to plummet.
Instead of restoring morale, they have been lining the pockets of
their Liberal campaign workers. The defence department budget
was meant to protect Canada's interests, not as a personal slush
fund for friends of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
(1130)
To the acting Prime Minister, why is the Liberal government
spending more money rewarding its friends than it is restoring
morale in the Canadian Armed Forces?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are rules for these contracts which are clear. Each department
has delegated authority to assign some contracts according to rules
which are provided by the Treasury Board. These rules have been
followed by the minister of defence.
I am assured that all the rules that were in place have been
followed. In this case, the rules that apply are similar to the rules
4801
that apply to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the
third party. These contracts have to meet certain criteria. I am
informed they have all been met.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, again Canadians will not be happy with the fox
writing his own rules when it comes to guarding the chicken house.
The Prime Minister and the defence minister clearly are putting
their self-interests ahead of leading the Canadian military by
failing to uphold ethical standards. By rewarding Joe Thornley and
Stephanos Karabecos with lucrative contracts they have shown that
they put their personal self-interests and financial betterment of
friends above rank and file troops in our Canadian Armed Forces.
To demonstrate to members of the Canadian Armed Forces that
their interests and their morale are paramount, will the government
conduct an official review of the tendering process for the Thornley
contract?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
allegations of the member opposite are simply incorrect.
Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated the number of contracts
that have been allocated to people who were ex-candidates for the
Reform Party. The criteria have to do with efficiency, ability to
meet the requirements of the contract within the moneys allocated.
This is what has been done.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that he is clearly trying to confuse
Canadians. He is comparing apples and oranges. We are talking
about the executive branch of government issuing untendered
contracts; leadership and responsibility with accountability, not
interest at all costs.
While the defence minister was stuffing the pockets of his
Liberal buddies, the family of Corporal Neil MacKinnon was
trying in vain to find out exactly how its son was killed.
First, Mr. and Mrs. MacKinnon were lied to and then the lie was
covered up for over a year. The command inspector will not be
investigating this shameful incident. People have been charged in
Corporal MacKinnon's death but no one is being held accountable
for the lies his parents had to endure for over a year.
Why does the defence minister's leadership stop at the bank for
his Liberal friends when it never made it to the home of Corporal
Neil MacKinnon?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member opposite has imputed a lot of motives.
The facts do not flow directly or logically. He is trying to evolve a
web here that is so convoluted it is very difficult to answer his
question.
Simply put, the accident that took place with Corporal
McKinnon was a tragic accident. Upon its discovery, immediately
the armed forces took forthwith a board of inquiry to get to the
bottom of it. They have followed through to the very end with
charges. People have been charged with negligence of duty. One
cannot be more responsible than that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The opening of the tunnel in Jerusalem sparked a wave of
violence which so far has claimed nearly 100 casualties. In a
situation where Jewish colonization has started again and
negotiations on the definitive status of the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip are threatened, the opening of this tunnel constitutes a
genuine provocation that further compromises the peace process in
the Middle East.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether, as other
governments have done, the Canadian government intends to ask
Israel to close the tunnel in order to restore calm and thus
contribute towards resumption of the peace process?
(1135)
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International
Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is very concerned about the surge of
violence in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank. I very much
appreciate the concern shown by the hon. member of the
opposition.
We are dismayed by the increasing number of casualties over the
past few days. Canada is asking for an immediate ceasefire.
I can also inform you that today, the Canadian Minister of
Foreign Affairs is attending a special session of the UN Security
Council on this important question. My colleague, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, will present Canada's position, which is to ask
Israeli and Palestinian representatives to resume direct negotiations
and take immediate steps to restore calm.
[English]
The minister also met with senior Israeli representatives
yesterday in New York to press them to refrain from any pressures
that may be unhelpful to the Middle East peace process. I can also
inform the member that some senior officials from the Department
of Foreign Affairs met yesterday in Ottawa and gave the same
message.
4802
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister for International Co-operation just told us that the
Canadian government, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
intends to ask for a ceasefire. I asked a very specific question,
namely whether he intends to ask for the tunnel to be closed.
Furthermore, does the minister also intend to support the request
by Yasser Arafat for immediate intervention by the Security
Council on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International
Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the presence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
before the UN Security Council today is very important, and at this
time I would not wish to commit Canadian diplomacy as
specifically as the hon. member for the opposition would have us
do, since these discussions are now taking place in New York.
Consultations are proceeding at extremely important levels, and
I believe we would not be acting very responsibly by making a
commitment at the very moment the Security Council is discussing
this question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice is sending out some fairly confusing signals.
Yesterday and today he suggested that Canadians would have a full
voice on any developments surrounding the future of their country
in the event of Quebec's secession. However, today he stopped
short of saying that Canadians would be involved and have a voice
in a referendum campaign in the event of Quebec's secession.
Is it the government's position that a full and meaningful voice
would mean that they would have a vote in a referendum
campaign?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have said time and again, even
in the speech from the throne, that our commitment is quite clear. It
is that if a third referendum is to be held in Quebec we will ensure
that the choice is very clear: remaining in Canada or separating.
There is no middle ground and no suggestion of partenariat or some
association which is in someone's imagination. That is the first
item.
Second, the consequences would be clear. Those voting in
Quebec would know that they are choosing between Canada and
something very different, which is separation.
Third, the process would be fair. Canadians would have a right to
express themselves in seeking to persuade the population of
Quebec to remain.
Fourth, no matter what the decision, Canadians everywhere
would have a say in the future. This would mean that unilateral
action, no matter what the result of the referendum, is illegal and
unacceptable and following a referendum in Quebec when the
population of Quebec expresses its view, all Canadians must then
participate in determining where we go from there.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what I
am trying to get to is how would they have a say in where we go
from there? I am going to push on to another question.
(1140 )
Reformers maintain that Quebecers have the right to decide
whether to secede from Canada, but this does not imply the right of
the Government of Quebec to unilaterally establish the terms and
conditions of secession.
The only way to ensure that Canada's interests will be well
represented in the event of secession is to pass contingency
legislation laying out the terms and conditions of secession. Is the
government willing to consider such legislation or is the Supreme
Court reference the sum total of its plan B?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court reference is a
response to issues raised by the Government of Quebec. It was Mr.
Bouchard and his minister of justice who said that the courts have
no role to play. When they raised that issue in the Bertrand
litigation we went to that courtroom, persuaded the hon. Mr. Justice
Pidgeon that, indeed, the courts do have a role to play. He said as
much in his judgment of August 30. After that issue was
determined, Mr. Bouchard and his minister of justice left the
courtroom and abandoned the process.
We have now taken the very issues he has raised and put them
before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is what this reference is
about.
In a more direct response to the hon. member's question, the
issue of contingency legislation was raised yesterday by his
colleague, the hon. member for Calgary West. As I said then, a
number of suggestions have been made in the public discussion
about how we might approach this issue. They are all useful
suggestions. That public discussion should continue. It is very
valuable and we encourage it.
I am sure that through that discussion in which all Canadians are
participating a number of valuable suggestions will arise and they
shall all be considered.
4803
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This government is collecting scandals the way some people
collect stamps. After the family trust scandal, yesterday the auditor
general condemned Revenue Canada for allowing several major
corporations to avoid paying duties and excise taxes to the tune of
some $630 million a year.
Given that the time limit for a tax audit is four years, can the
Deputy Prime Minister explain why Revenue Canada has
conducted only one audit of all the major oil and tobacco
companies, thus preventing the government from recovering
several million of dollars with each audit?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
[English]
I also want to thank the auditor general for bringing these issues to
our attention.
I would first point out that in the year after the government took
office, lost revenues due to smuggling decreased by two-thirds.
That is a result of government initiatives. It is a big $1 billion
decrease.
During the time that the audit resources were reallocated into the
anti-smuggling situation, all of the large industries were
monitored. The department has recently completed several large oil
company audits and the results confirm our risk assessments. The
rate of compliance was excellent. It was in excess of 95 per cent.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have noticed
that the government acts only when it has its back against the wall,
as was the case with smuggling. Every day, the revenue minister is
allowing hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions in tax
revenue to be lost. By not going after the $630 million owed her
department, the minister is making a royal gift to major
corporations on the back of taxpayers.
What are the government and its minister waiting to take action?
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue
these smuggling initiatives. In fact, it will be done
department-wide. The assistant deputies are monitoring the
situation and working together. Not only that, it involves other
jurisdictions. It involves the police forces and the RCMP.
(1145)
We are doing very well. This is a criminal element in our society
and we are going after that money. It is important work in our
department and we will continue to do it well, so that instead of a
$1 billion decrease we look forward to getting rid of the extra $500
million. We are working on that and we have the plan of action to
complete.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have in
my hand a document which appeared on a Liberal member's desk
last Monday when the House was voting on the negative option
bill. It appears to be on the letterhead of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. It says: ``Government position on Bill C-216. Third
reading. Government position: No''.
It may be a forgery because the minister said outside the House
that she had not tried in any way to influence the members of her
caucus to vote the way that her department wanted to vote, which
was against the consumer and in favour of the cable companies.
My question is very simple. Is this document a forgery or was
her statement a forgery?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered that question
yesterday, the day before and the day before.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is the
problem. Her answers have been devoid of even the smallest
particle of fact.
The issue is that on one side of the coin she is trying to imply to
the Canadian people that the government is opposed to negative
option billing; therefore, making the connection to this bill which
is opposed to negative option billing as though she was supporting
the bill, whereas, in fact, I have evidence that the government
position was opposed to that bill. She is trying to have it both ways.
I ask her again, was her government in any way, shape or form
trying to influence the members to vote against the negative option
bill which was before the House, namely, Bill C-216?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that
for the last several days the member has raised the issue of negative
option billing, implying that somehow the government supports it.
I have said from the beginning of this process, as was repeated in
the House by every single member who spoke on the legislation,
that the Government of Canada opposes negative option billing.
4804
We opposed negative option billing last year. We will oppose
negative option billing next year. As long as we are the
government there will be no negative option billing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Canada Pension Plan legislation places considerable limits
on the exchange of information between the various private and
public benefit schemes for the disabled. The auditor general is of
the opinion that increased circulation of information between
private and public schemes would result in improved service to
clients and reduced program costs.
Does the minister intend to amend the Canada Pension Plan in
order to rectify the shortcomings in the present system and thus
ensure that only those truly entitled to disability benefits actually
receive them?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the auditor
general's comments. I had an opportunity to meet with Mr.
Desautels and to discuss his report.
Obviously, I and my departmental officials have a great deal of
respect for the work that has been done on this issue. It is very
complex. We undertook, in our response to the comments of the
auditor general, to take the necessary action in order to try to be as
effective as possible.
With all due respect to the auditor general, I wish to assure my
hon. colleague that, when all is said and done, we are still very
interested in ensuring that, where an error has been made, and
errors are still made, we come down in favour of those applying for
disability benefits, rather than taking a more stringent approach.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general has noted that the government's
reassessment activities are still falling short of the mark, despite
the very firm recommendations he made in 1993.
When does the minister finally intend to take the necessary
action so that only those who are eligible benefit from the public
disability pension scheme?
(1150)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the meeting of social services
ministers in Victoria almost two weeks ago, we all agreed that one
of the major problems facing the systems that manage the workers'
compensation boards, the private insurance companies, as well as
the government of Canada, through the Canada Pension Plan, had
to do with disability.
It is extremely difficult to define this whole question in absolute
terms. There are many situations that are extremely complex from
a medical point of view. But we undertook to try to work together,
the private sector, the provincial governments-because they too
have major problems with this-and the Government of Canada.
I hope that we will find solutions, but in the meantime we will
continue to be effective and to protect the rights of the disabled.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Saint-Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
[English]
Yesterday the premier of Manitoba made some serious
allegations concerning the federal government's response to the
disastrous flooding of last spring.
Has there been a response to date and, if not, when will one be
given?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
payments under the disaster financial assistance arrangements are
made according to the same criteria and all the provinces are
treated fairly and equitably.
The Manitoba government has already been paid advance
payments of $7 million for the 1993 floods. In July of this year we
received a request from the Government of Manitoba telling us the
amount of damages for the 1995 and 1996 floods but there was no
request for an advance payment to be made and therefore no
advance payment was made.
In this case, all the rules have been followed and Manitoba has
been treated in a totally fair and equitable manner.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice on more than one occasion told
members of the House he had consulted extensively with
Canadians, including his provincial counterparts, regarding his gun
registration bill, Bill C-68.
In view of the fact Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
and the Yukon have notified the minister they will be opting out of
administering the new federal firearms' regulations and are
launching a court challenge, does the minister still stand by those
statements?
4805
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Of course I consulted, Mr. Speaker, closely and
continuously. The fact that the attorneys general of some of those
provinces did not like what was done does not mean they were not
asked for their views and their views were listened to carefully.
The hon. member is factually wrong in saying that Ontario is
opting out. As I understand its position, it is challenging the regime
in court but it has not decided to opt out.
The fact is that there are some provincial governments who do
not support gun control. That is the sad fact: some provincial
governments do not support gun control. It is a good thing there is
at least one level of government in this country that is prepared to
represent the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians who stand
up for gun control.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact of the matter is all provinces support crime
control.
As a result of these court challenges the federal government will
end up fighting these challenges using taxpayers' dollars, the same
taxpayers' dollars which will be used by the provinces and the
same taxpayers' dollars the federal government will need in its out
of court settlements for the Pearson airport deal and the Airbus
fiasco.
I ask the minister this. Have the court bills been tallied?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to save
us some money perhaps he can speak to his friends in the Alberta
government and have them drop the lawsuit.
I read in this morning's newspaper that the attorney general of
Alberta gives himself a 50:50 chance. It is for the courts to decide.
We have to respect the role of the courts.
I will say this. I am very confident. From the federal perspective
it looks a lot better than 50:50. Let me say that this is on the part of
my hon. friend just another shot in the dark.
* * *
(1155)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning, six Quebec associations of
artists-composers-performers and record producers joined their
Canadian colleagues to ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage to
withdraw the licences granted by the CRTC to DMX Canada and
Power Music Choice.
As the minister admitted herself that the terms of those licences
did not comply with Canadian standards on Canadian and
francophone content, will she have the courage to cancel these
licences?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the
member shows some interest in Canadian content because that
issue concerns us all. The question he raises is now being studied
by Cabinet, and therefore I cannot comment any further.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
you know quite well the Canadian content includes 25 per cent
French channels. That is very important. In the case we are
concerned with, Mrs. Barshefsky, the U.S. Secretary of State for
Trade, has asked her Canadian counterpart to take steps so that
DMX can operate in Canada under the conditions agreed to by the
CRTC and thus to ensure, without saying it in so many words, that
this issue does not become an irritant between the two
governments.
Concerning the intervention from the U.S. Secretary of State for
Trade, what weight does the minister intend to give this request?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ensure the
House that the Government of Canada is very concerned with
protecting Canadian culture. That is why we are making
representations to the World Trade Organization to protect
Canadian publications.
As for the issue raised by the hon. member, he knows very well
the matter is before cabinet and the deadline for a decision is
October 22.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform believes that government operations should not compete
directly with the private sector and supports the privatization of
services offered in the private sector at an equal and competitive
rate.
We now understand that the new buyers of the Canada
Communication Group will get special access to lucrative federal
contracts that bypass the bidding process. Privatization should save
money, not cost taxpayers more.
My question is for the minister of public works. How can the
minister guarantee to Canadians that the government will get the
best deal on printing contracts if contracts are not awarded through
an open, competitive bidding process?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the minister, I can point out to the hon.
4806
member that there are times when the standard procedure of open
competitive bidding, which is the general policy of the
government, has to be varied by reason, for example, of some trade
mark or copyright.
They require standardization of equipment that can only be
obtained from one supplier. In addition, there may be other reasons
of a similar nature. I can only assure him that our general policy is,
of course, open and competitive bidding.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are talking about integrity of government. That is one of the lamest
answers we have come across in quite a while.
I have been part of the government operations committee
looking into the open bidding system. This has nothing to do with
open bidding. This has to do with giving a lucrative contract to one
special segment. The government has sold the corporation to the
employees and are now giving the employees special access. This
is not open government.
My question, again, is for the minister of public works. Will the
minister guarantee that the private sector will not be put at an
unfair disadvantage and allow all companies a fair chance to bid on
all government contracts above $30,000, as required by Treasury
Board guidelines?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a little difficulty with the hon. member's
supplementary. The first question was about open bidding. In the
supplementary he is not talking about it.
What I would like to point out to him is that it is simply not
possible in a complex system such as the federal government to
make such totally sweeping guarantees.
(1200 )
For example, if we have computer software of a particular type,
it is not possible to open it up to open bidding to companies that
could not supply that product because of copyright infringement
problems. There has to be some give and take.
In addition, there have to be some elements, which are successor
contracts, where we already have developed a system in place. To
throw out existing work and start completely afresh every time a
new contract may come down on a program would simply be bad
business management and exactly the opposite of what the private
sector would want this government to do when it protects taxpayer
dollars.
* * *
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific.
A large number of my constituents are of Hong Kong origin and
are deeply concerned that they must return to Hong Kong before
July 1, 1997 to maintain their permanent resident status. Many of
them use that status to build trade links with Canada.
What is the Government of Canada doing to address this concern
of these constituents about Hong Kong permanent resident status?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
There is a lot of concern among Canadians of Hong Kong origin
that in order to maintain their permanent resident status in Hong
Kong they were asked to return to Hong Kong by July 1. But their
concern is with how long they have to stay after that and how long
before they have to be in Hong Kong. Does it mean that all Hong
Kong residents who have foreign visas or who have foreign
citizenship status have to remain stagnant in Hong Kong after July
1, before they register?
I expressed that concern to the foreign affairs minister of China
when he visited Canada last week. He agreed to look into the matter
and give us a decision in the near future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This summer in my riding, the government appointed Noël
Girard, the defeated Liberal candidate in the 1993 general election,
to the position of returning officer.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think that the time has come
to modernize the rules for selecting returning officers and to put in
place, as Quebec did, a system in which returning officers are
chosen by competition based on their qualifications rather than
their political affiliation?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that all
appointments are made by the governor in council and that this has
been the practice for years. All appointments are made based on
qualifications and not on political affiliation.
Now if the hon. member wants to recommend certain people, he
should submit his recommendations to the governor in council.
4807
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister for International Cooperation.
When Markham Electric bid on a Caribbean development
contract in Belize it underbid its two main competitors by a very
large amount. Markham has been arbitrarily excluded by this
minister from bidding on a contract in Mali and guess what? Those
two high priced competitors are on the minister's list.
Since the minister's policy is clearly to favour Quebec
companies, my question is how much does his preferential
treatment for his few hand picked buddy-buddy firms cost the
Canadian taxpayer?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International
Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the persistence of this Reform
member to always come back to one single issue.
He knows very well that I have toured Canada. I went from coast
to coast last July. I organized seminars and did business with CIDA
as it had never been done before in such a professional, clear way.
We want to provide the Canadian International Development
Agency with the best expertise that exists in Canada. There are
members in the west who are extremely pleased. If I could cite a
small but important quote, the president of Agriteam Canada
Consulting Ltd., Bob Francis, said: ``As a western firm, we find
CIDA is like any other client. If you do your homework, submit
first rate proposals and have people on the ground to sell your
product where the decisions are being made, you get fair
consideration. We at Agriteam Canada are definitely westerners,
yet we have won a number of CIDA contracts. We do not do it by
crapping on Quebec. We do it by showing that we have more to
offer than firms from Quebec or Ontario''. That is the way it works.
_____________________________________________
4807
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1205)
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 30th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
If the House gives gives its consent, later this day I will move
concurrence in the report.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present the 31st report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the membership of certain committees.
With the consent of the House, I will move concurrence in this
report later today.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 31st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the
House earlier this day, be concurred.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order the House shall not sit on Friday,
October 25, 1996.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to the House
two petitions signed by residents of York North.
The subject matter of the two petitions is closely related, as they
deal with deficit reduction and job creation, the top two priorities
of the government.
The first petition draws the attention of the House to the
government's red book commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per
cent of the GDP and the fact that we have surpassed that goal.
The petitioners call on Parliament to continue to keep its
commitment to Canadians and pursue its deficit action so that the
government will reach its deficit target of 2 per cent of GDP by
1997-98.
(1210 )
Mr. Speaker, the second petition draws to the attention of the
House that in the past year alone short term interest rates have
declined three percentage points and that for the last two and a half
years inflation has averaged less than 2 per cent and that by
1997-98 the federal deficit will have been reduced by $25 billion.
The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that
since this Liberal government took office over 600,000 jobs have
been created. The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to work
diligently to create a healthy environment for jobs and economic
growth.
4808
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition from a group of residents from Manitoba stating
their disapproval of a constitutional amendment to term 17 of the
Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada.
These petitioners are concerned that this action might set a
precedent for permitting any provincial government to suppress the
rights of minorities.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed
to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4808
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-44, the Canada Marine Act.
I will take a moment, of course, to state the purpose of Bill C-44
and discuss some concerns the Bloc Quebecois has regarding this
bill as well as amendments that will need to be made at a later
stage, when the bill comes up for further consideration at
committee.
Bill C-44 implements the national marine policy the federal
government had announced back in December 1995. Naturally, it
will apply to the whole marine industry in Canada and Quebec. The
four main areas affected are ports operated by Transport Canada,
law enforcement in Canadian ports, pilotage and, finally, the Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system.
Let us now look at each of these areas individually. As far as the
ports are concerned, this bill provides for the establishment of the
Canada Port Authority to replace the Canada Ports Corporation.
There are questions and concerns about law enforcement in
Canadian ports, as we remain in the dark about the government's
true intentions as to what is to happen to the police force which is
currently comprised of about 100 constables and 30 civilians.
Maintaining this force cost approximately $9.6 million in 1995.
Further explanations are required concerning the future of law
enforcement in these ports.
As for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, the
government intends, of course, to pursue the commercialization of
operations, and the bill provides the authority to do so.
The fourth element concerns the issue of pilotage. From now on,
operations will be much more efficient, since public funding will
no longer be available. The bill provides that Transport Canada will
have to report to Parliament before December 31, 1998, regarding
the review of the following issues: compulsory pilotage area
designations, cost reduction measures, pilot certification process
for masters and officers, and licensing requirements for pilots.
This is, in short, what is to be found in the bill. As for us, Bloc
Quebecois members, we feel that the title of the bill somewhat
exceeds its content. The bill is called the Canada Marine Act, but it
is silent on shipbuilding, shipyards, and the merchant navy. It is not
as complete as it could be.
(1215)
It would have been interesting to find out about the
government's intentions regarding these issues and to see them
included in the Canada Marine Act, so as to have a global picture.
This is only wishful thinking, but who knows, perhaps the
government will provide more details in the subsequent stages of
the review of the bill.
We also have to conclude that the government failed, when we
look at the shipping policy of the past 20 years. Over the years,
some $7 billion, in current dollars, were invested in the St.
Lawrence Seaway, while annual revenues generated by the seaway
are of the order of $70 million. Since that was not a huge success,
they are now dismantling the whole thing, privatizing it, etc.
This is due mainly to the financial situation of the government
who now realizes that, these last few years, it did not play such an
efficient role as a promoter in this field, as in, might I add, many
other transportation areas. Just consider the trend in the
Department of Transportation these last few years. It was the same
thing with the deregulation of air transportation, the dismantling of
the rail industry and now, it is the shipping industry.
It is somewhat amazing that a country-made out of two
countries-such as Canada, which covers a huge territory has not
been able to better define all of its transportation policies. It is also
disappointing to see that a such a vast country, where there is road,
rail, sea and air transportation, could not become a leader or a role
model in efficiency.
I want to point out that the Bloc Quebecois has always supported
a disposition policy and the commercialization of harbours and
ports. We did mention it in the minority report of the Bloc
Quebecois concerning the maritime strategy tabled in May 1995.
4809
The commercialization of harbours and ports raised some
concerns in every region, but maybe more so in areas like mine,
where there are recreation harbours. The same question always
comes back: ``In what shape will they be handed over to the local
authorities? In what shape are they now? In what condition will
they be handed over?'' We are told of a $125 million fund, which
should be used to refurbish the ports and, in some cases, the cost
could be negotiated differently depending on the port's condition.
This is not a very clear policy. We know that when criteria are
rather fuzzy funds are often allocated to the ones who press harder.
Often decisions are political and not necessarily based on
considerations of efficiency when there are no clear, definite and
well understood criteria.
Thus, there are concerns because many sites have not been
properly maintained throughout the years. All regional and local
disparities must also be taken into account. We must show respect
and make sure that we have a system of ports that is adequate as a
whole. When the amounts will be affected or negotiated for the
management transfer to local organizations or companies, we must
ensure that the system remains adequate as a whole.
I find it rather disturbing that at the beginning this process will
be somewhat haphazard as was the case for the commercialization
of airports. There will be a problem because obviously things will
not proceed as fast in one place at it will in another. This is not the
model to apply to sea transportation. We have reasons to worry,
since the same department is involved.
There is a factor which is surprising from the logical point of
view but not from the political one. In the last few years, as
everybody knows, the federal government has come to realize that
it can no longer afford to provide the same level of service, but it
nevertheless tries to keep the same level of control.
This is why paragraphs a) and e) of clause 12(1) provide that the
federal government has one representative on each of the boards.
Pursuant to this clause, the federal government can also appoint
other individuals in consultation with the users.
(1220)
But the government, in consulting, does not have to follow up on
the recommendations of the stakeholders. Obviously, an exception
is made for directors representing the municipalities or the
provinces, but we can see that the federal government will have one
direct representative and will appoint other representatives. As is
usually the case, these people will certainly have views that are
compatible with the government's. Thus, the government is
keeping a high level of control.
It is always somewhat surprising and somewhat irritating to see a
government investing less and less money but keeping the same
level of control.
If the government wants to decentralize and to have local
management because it is more efficient, etc., why does it impose,
on a board of directors, people that are appointed through a
political process? Often these people are local friends of the
government who are there to ensure that the government's views
will prevail on these boards of directors.
We have seen this in several other cases, and it is very disturbing
and disappointing for the people in the regions who realize that this
decentralization is sort of artificial. The government is
decentralizing the financial problems but is keeping control over
the decision-making process.
There is a last point I want to mention. The members of the Bloc
Quebecois have suggestions and recommendations to make with
regard to the Pilotage Act. I cannot elaborate on that at this moment
since my time is running out, but I am sure the members who
represent us on the transport committee will do it adequately.
In general, this bill contains some interesting elements, but it
needs a lot of improvements. We need to have complete and
effective decentralization, which means, among other things, that
situations as the one described in section 12 must be avoided.
Corrections will have to be made to this bill and, once this is
done, we will be able to judge if it is a good or a bad piece of
legislation.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a few comments regarding Bill C-44 as it
pertains to Port Alberni, which is in my riding. It is one of the six
recognized ports on the west coast.
I met with the harbour commission about a month ago. It had
some major concerns regarding the legislation. The difficulty, it
would appear, is that this legislation will treat Vancouver, which is
a huge port, similar to a smaller port such as Port Alberni.
Alberni has an operating budget of $3 million to $4 million. It
has operated with a very small profit for the last eight years. In
other words, it is not a burden. It is on a user pay system. It is
working. The Port Alberni Harbour Commission is working well. It
serves the community. It does not cost the taxpayers any money.
However, this legislation will change all that.
I have to return to the analogy of treating a huge port like
Vancouver similarly to a smaller port such as Alberni. It is the the
pantyhose solution, one size fits all. In this case it will not work.
It would appear that the problem goes back to when the
legislation was drawn up. It was drawn up by bureaucrats before
there was consultation. Yes, a committee will do a cross Canada
tour, but the bureaucrats have now got themselves into a position
where they are backed up against a wall, defending legislation
4810
which will not fly. Why do we have to have this kind of situation
where the bureaucrats draw up the legislation before there is
nationwide consultation to get the information which is required to
write good legislation?
I hope when the committee travels across Canada that the
representations from the different ports and boards will be listened
to.
That brings up another point. It is really odd in the Canadian
system that a committee is not tied to a minister. A committee can
come up with some wonderful recommendations, good legislation,
which the minister can then totally ignore if he or she chooses to do
so. That is wrong.
(1225)
I hope that the committee listens well, makes good
recommendations and furthermore that the minister and the
bureaucracy also listen and come up with legislation that fits all the
ports across this country and does the job that we require.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the short
title of which is Canada Marine Act. This bill is crucially important
for the future of shipping and the survival of ports and harbours in
Canada and Quebec.
First, allow me to point out that in all matters concerning
transportation in general, the way the government works is to harm
regions, legislate in a piecemeal manner, without measuring the
impact its legislations will have once in force.
During last spring's debate on Bill C-20, many members
wondered about the impact of the privatization of air navigation
services on remote regions. We were not against the principle of
privatizing these services, but we thought that it should not be done
in the sole perspective of deficit reduction and by dumping the
problems and costs in the local stakeholders' backyard.
In the same vein, Coast Guard fees for services, such as ice
breaking and dredging, are likely to hinder the competitiveness of
Quebec's ports. Again, the federal government's main thrust is the
fight against the deficit and this, at all cost, at the expense of the
true interests of Canadians and Quebecers. That jobs could be
jeopardized does not seem to carry much weight in this
government's political choices.
The same can be said today about Bill C-44. First, in spite of its
title, the bill does not propose any kind of shipbuilding or merchant
marine development strategy. Instead of development, it seems
that, once again, under the pretence of streamlining operations and
improving services, the government has only one thing in mind: to
dump its deficit onto the provinces, municipalities and local
stakeholders.
The bill's main objective is to commercialize port services by
getting rid of the present Canada Ports Corporation and replacing it
by Canadian port authorities.
The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to a policy to divest itself of
ports and harbours by commercializing them. In fact, local
stakeholders would probably be able to manage those facilities
much more efficiently than the federal government did until now.
Indeed if we look at the last 20 years of federal management of
ports and harbours, we can only come to the conclusion that there
have been an excessive bureaucratization which resulted in
unreasonable costs and inefficient management of facilities.
The St. Lawrence Seaway, for example, received $7 billion in
investments over the years but generates only $70 million in
revenues annually for a traffic of only half that of 1970. There are
324 commercial ports and harbours in Canada.
Right now, 90 percent of the commercial maritime traffic
transits through 45 of these ports. Obviously the federal
government must withdraw from the management of that sector,
but not any which way.
In the bill before us today, we see that the Canada Ports
Corporation will be replaced by Canadian ports authorities or
CPAs. These CPAs will manage the port facilities, but the federal
government will keep ownership of the lands and facilities. That is
to say that the government will withdraw from the fiscal aspect
while keeping its control since it will have a representative on all
CPA boards.
(1230)
We can understand that this government is trying once more to
avoid its financial responsibilities while keeping all its powers.
When this government talks about decentralisation, we must
understand that in reality it wants to decentralise its debt. When it
talks about involving local stakeholders, we must understand that
their main role will be to pay the bills while being forced to abide
by federal standards.
Criteria are also being established for ports do be designated
CPAs. Applications made by ports will thus be evaluated under the
following criteria provided in clause 6: first, the port is, and is
likely to remain, financially self-sufficient; second, the port is of
strategic significance to Canada's trade; third, it is linked to major
rail lines or a major highway infrastructure; and fourth, it has
diversified traffic.
4811
Only ports respecting those criteria will be designated as CPAs.
As I said earlier, the federal government is withdrawing from the
financial area but it wants to hang on to control of CPA
administration.
Of greatest concern is the fate of ports which cannot become
CPAs. The government is taking its time: it allows itself six years
to dispose of those ports. This delay will therefore create some
insecurity in Canada as well as in Quebec. Actually, the federal
government has neglected the maintenance of the ports and most of
them are in poor condition. They will need substantial repairs.
Therefore, several ports probably will be left out of the running and
will not have the status of port authorities, unless municipalities
and provinces invest significant funds for their rehabilitation.
Again, under the cover of decentralization, the federal
government is passing the bill on to other levels of government. It
would be more honest on the part of the federal government to
rehabilitate those port facilities before their transfer given the fact
that their deterioration is the result of lack of maintenance by the
government.
Although the Bloc Quebecois is not against the principle of
privatizing port facilities, we will vote against this bill just because
the government is not proceeding in the right way. This bill needs
major amendments in order to meet the different needs of port
localities and regions.
To this government, decentralization of powers seems to mean
only decentralization of the debt, a debt which results from a poor
management on its part. The impact of this bill in its present form,
combined with the new fee structure for Coast Guard services, will
come down hard on a number of municipalities, in both Canada and
Quebec, which rely on commercial shipping. The government does
not seem to be taking this into consideration.
We will therefore try to see that the Liberal government assesses
the real consequences of its policies-policies which may be costly
to the people of Canada and of Quebec.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1235)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the division stands deferred until Monday, September 30, 1996
at the regular time of adjournment.
I have a problem, but it is my problem, not yours. It is true that
the assistant whip of the government rose to request the floor. I
understand that the representative of the official opposition was
already at the table. I will respect the tradition of the House and
give the floor to the hon. member who was already standing.
I hope this will not complicate matters, and maybe they were
both seeking the same solution. The assistant whip of the
Government has the floor.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to solve your problem.
[English]
I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent
of the House to present a motion to further defer the vote until
Tuesday at the end of Government Orders. If there is consent I will
gladly defer to the whip of the opposition party to present the
motion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): How co-operative!
[English]
I think possibly this will resolve the matter.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, here is proof that common sense will always lead to some
agreement. Of course we would be delighted if the division were
held on Tuesday, if the House agrees.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the House agree that
the vote will be deferred until Tuesday?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from Wednesday, September 25, 1996,
consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, an Act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial pur-
4812
poses of certain manganese-based substances, be read the third
time and passed and of the amendment.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think today is my lucky day. I am very pleased to speak
on third reading of Bill C-29, formerly Bill C-94, an Act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial
purposes of certain manganese-based substances. The immediate
purpose of Bill C-29 is to ban the addition of MMT to unleaded
gasoline in Canada by prohibiting the importation of that
substance.
Over the last few years, environmental concerns have become
more present in our daily lives and are important for the citizens we
represent, particularly those living in big cities, who call for for an
ever healthier environment. They want standards to be established
not only to further reduce pollution, but also to improve the overall
quality of the environment.
Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to act in order to
protect people's health and to legislate on the issue of dangerous
substances contributing to the deterioration of the global
environment.
(1240)
However, the bill before us today does not stem from a desire to
protect the environment or public health. Instead, it seems
motivated more by a desire to meet the expectations of the
automotive industry and those of Ontario corn growers who hope to
see a whole new market develop for them, that of ethanol, an
additive made from corn, which could eventually replace MMT.
This bill came about in 1994, it must be remembered, thanks to a
powerful lobby of automobile manufacturers. According to them,
MMT, a substance that has been added to unleaded gasoline since
1977, causes damage to the pollution control equipment in
automobiles and is detrimental to public health.
It goes without saying that car manufacturers are quite opposed
to the addition of additives to gasoline, be it MMT or any other
substance.
Faced with a threat by car manufacturers to raise the price of cars
in Canada and limit their warranty if the practice of adding MMT
to gasoline continued, the environment minister of the day, the
current Deputy Prime Minister, caved in and introduced Bill C-94,
which eventually became Bill C-29.
For us, at second reading, this bill is still raising the same
questions. We voted in favour of this legislation so that the two
major stakeholders in this debate on banning MMT could present
their respective point of view. These stakeholders are the car
manufacturers and the oil industry, especially the Ethyl
Corporation, the only company to produce and export MMT to
Canada.
We hoped that the Standing Committee on the Environment
would conduct an in-depth review based on studies by both parties
concerned.
Already then, it was obvious that the former environment
minister was not taking into account studies showing that MMT
was not a threat to public health. Indeed, in a study dated December
6, 1994, Health Canada concluded that MMT was not a health
hazard. Obviously, any substance added to gasoline is, to a certain
extent, a pollutant as is gasoline. But for Health Canada, MMT in
itself is clearly not a health hazard.
In the United States, the automobile industry has had to
reconsider its position on MMT as a result of a decision by an
American court to the effect that the ban on MMT had to be lifted
for lack of conclusive evidence of any harmful effect on
antipollution devices.
Indeed, in its decision, the United States court of appeal for the
District of Columbia pointed out the lack of evidence in the
arguments made by supporters of a ban on MMT, and I quote:
``Concerning the arguments presented by the American
Automobile Manufacturer's Association to challenge the finding of
the Environmental Protection Agency that MMT does not affect
either partially or totally the functioning of the emission system of
vehicles, the American court has deemed these arguments
unfounded. First of all, the court pointed out that the agency had
established the Ethyl additive had easily passed the tests required
for all the most severe investigations ever conducted''.
It must be kept in mind that, in April 1995, this same court made
a decision rejecting the claims of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to the effect MMT was harmful to health, even
though the Agency recognized MMT was not playing any role in
the deterioration of pollution control equipment.
Therefore, it is more than likely MMT will be reintroduced in
the United States, and very rapidly so.
The oil companies favour the use of additives in gasoline.
According to some data, MMT added to gasoline would help
reduce nitric oxide emissions, which are harmful to the
environment and one of the causes of urban smog.
(1245)
From the hearings of the Standing Committee on Environment,
it has not been shown, on the basis of scientific studies, that MMT
is a toxic substance and a risk to public health. It has not been
demonstrated either that MMT is harmful to pollution control
equipment in automobiles. Furthermore, the objective of
harmonizing our gasoline policies with those of the United States
does not hold any more since the ban on MMT was been lifted by
our neighbours to the South, which makes possible the addition of
MMT in gasoline in the United States.
4813
In fact, what this bill is proposing us, is to comply with the
requests of the automobile industry. As I said earlier, at the present
time, nothing argues for the banning of MMT. If MMT has such
a detrimental effect on public health in general, it should have
been banned by Health Canada or under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. What this bill proposes is not to
ban MMT as a product but to ban the importation and
interprovincial trade of this substance.
What are the consequences of this trade ban? First of all, it must
be pointed out that Ethyl, an American corporation, is the only
company that manufactures this product and exports it to Canada.
The plant importing it, which is located in Ontario, mixes MMT
with other fuel additives. These products are then shipped to
refineries. Under this bill, which bans interprovincial trade in and
the importation of MMT without banning its use or production, if
the Ethyl corporation ever built an MMT manufacturing plant and
set up the distribution of this substance in every province and
territory, unleaded gasoline produced across Canada could still
contain MMT. I am not an expert in this area, but I think we would
be deluding ourselves if we believed that the real purpose of this
bill is to protect public health and the environment.
Nothing in this bill would prevent the scenario I just described
from becoming reality, because MMT has not been banned. This is
a rather extraordinary way to deal with a substance which, in the
opinion of the Minister of the Environment and the Deputy Prime
Minister, is deleterious to the health of Canadians and Quebecers.
At a time when businesses are looking to rationalize their
operations, it would be rather surprising for Ethyl to decide to open
plants in every province and territory of Canada. This means that,
under Bill C-29, it will be forced to shut down its operations in
Canada.
Some 40 jobs would be lost if the plant in Ontario closed. Also,
MMT no longer being available, oil companies would have to
change their refining and production methods.
The oil industry estimates that it would cost close to $100
million to produce gasoline that is equally performant without
MMT, as a result of this bill. This extra cost will inevitably make
the price of gas at the pump go up. As usual, consumers will pay for
this initiative, not to mention the potential job losses resulting from
this price increase.
We have come across another possible effect a few weeks ago.
On September 10, feeling aggrieved by this ban on MMT exports to
Canada, Ethyl gave notice of its intention to file a complaint under
the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The company argues that Bill C-29 is in conflict with certain
provisions of NAFTA, as the subject-matter of the ban is not the
product itself but its import. As was pointed out, the production,
sale and use of MMT are not prohibited. As a result of such
contraventions of NAFTA, Ethyl will sustain damages, actually
more than $200 million American, or nearly $275 million
Canadian, in loss of revenue.
Questioned on this in the House last Wednesday, the Minister of
the Environment insisted this bill was essential to protect both the
environment and the health of Canadians. In light of the
consequences this bill will have, we can only doubt his sincerity
and, consequently, vote against the bill.
(1250)
Again, not only did the federal government encroach on
provincial jurisdictions by legislating in interprovincial trade, but it
also ignored the opposition to Bill C-29 expressed by the
provinces.
Last May 1, Quebec's legislature unanimously passed a
resolution requesting the postponement of federal Bill C-29
concerning gasoline additive, MMT, as long as environmental
studies had not been conducted in a properly scientific manner.
As always, the Liberal government turns a deaf ear to the
requests from Quebec and the other provinces that the minister
withdraw the bill in order to examine its real impact and what is
really at stake.
When this government decided to interfere in interprovincial
trade and ignore the pleas of the provinces, it demonstrated once
again how it really sees co-operation between the federal
government and the provinces. Its idea of co-operative federalism
is to wax eloquent on federal-provincial agreements, and then keep
moving in on provincial jurisdiction constantly breaking its
promises.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is once again asking the
minister to postpone passage of this bill. The environment and the
health of our fellow Canadians are too important to simply be used
to further the expectations of the strong lobby of Ontario's motor
vehicle manufacturers and corn producers.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
disappointed in the Bloc member's argument. To use provincial
versus federal technical arguments about jurisdiction with respect
to an issue which involves the health of all Canadians strikes me as
a very dangerous approach.
We are getting close to the end of the debate on this legislation
which will effectively ban manganese in gasoline in Canada. I
would remind the member opposite that manganese is a heavy
metal. It gets into the environment. Once it is in the environment,
in the ecosystem, it stays there.
The hon. member says that there are doubts. Very often in
scientific studies it is difficult to prove something absolutely
conclusively. If there are doubts about something that might be
poisoning our children in the same way as years ago there were
4814
doubts about lead, which was in gasoline, and how it affected us
and our children, then we should err on the side of safety.
Eventually it was proven that lead affects us and our children and
legislation was passed, but that was after generations of young
people had grown up and their brains had been affected by the lead.
Use the precautionary principle and vote for this legislation.
I have spoken twice at some length in parts of this debate and I
do not want to repeat all of those arguments. However, I rise now to
point out to the member that in my riding of Peterborough we have
many workers who work at the General Motors plants in Oshawa.
They have come to me and explained very carefully the proven
impact of manganese on the on-board emission control systems
which are going into the modern vehicles they are producing and
which they have to sell abroad competitively.
These automobiles are being produced with $2,000 or $3,000
worth of emission controls and we are filling them up with gasoline
which has manganese in it. First of all, we damage these expensive
items in our cars and then, because these systems control all the
pollutants and not just manganese going into the environment, we
damage the control systems. As a result we allow pollutants of all
sorts which are in gasoline to get into the environment. This is not
the case in the United States.
(1255)
To the auto workers in my riding I would say this: The Canadian
Automobile Association in my riding and nationally, which
represents all the motorists in Canada, wants Bill C-29 to go
through. The auto parts manufacturers, the people who make the
computer-like emission control devices, want it to go through. That
is in addition to all the people who are interested in the health of
Canadians and to all of the people who are interested in the
environment.
I would be most grateful if the member would search her heart
and not use these technical, legal matters because of her position
with respect to the separation of Quebec in an area which affects
the health and environment of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my
colleague had to say with great interest. However, I totally disagree
with him when he compares lead to manganese.
I began to study nursing forty years ago, in a pediatric hospital.
Forty years, that is quite a long time ago. There were no
anti-pollution systems at that time. Forty years ago,children were
being admitted to hospitals with lead induced encephalitis.
Therefore, lead toxicity was already a recognized phenomenon.
As far as manganese is concerned, at present there is no evidence
to show that it poses any threat to public health. Granted, all of the
heavy metals are dangerous. Copper is dangerous, but we have
some in our system. If we had to remove everything that is
dangerous, there would be nobody left on the planet.
The arguments made by my colleague to the effect that plant
workers are convinced that the anti-pollution systems are greatly
affected by manganese in fuel, are something that I can understand,
coming from these workers, but we must also look at rulings,
especially by U.S. courts, to the effect that this has nothing to do
with deterioration of anti-pollution systems.
Everybody looks to his own interests. In itself, that is not
surprising. But I do not think that we should use the excuse of
public health to support the interests of powerful lobbyists. I
believe that the role of a government whether federal or provincial,
is to look after the well-being of its citizens, all of them, and not to
privilege one group in particular.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, plus ça change, plus c'est
la même chose. Just as in the case of Bill S-9, the alternative fuels
act, we have 295 members of Parliament, most of whom are
technological illiterates, attempting to referee between two
powerful corporate lobbies. The cabinet is divided, but the
government, for whatever reason, is going to persist in ploughing
ahead with this legislation.
The red herring of health effects keeps being mentioned. It was
brought up during questions and comments after the last speaker.
I would like to quote from the health protection branch of Health
and Welfare Canada, which in 1992 issued a paper on the health
impact of MMT. It concluded that based on current evidence,
experts at Health and Welfare Canada are confident that the risk to
human health from MMT derived manganese is extremely small.
There is clearly a wide margin of safety between the current intake
of manganese from MMT and the lowest concentrations of
airborne manganese known to cause any health effects.
(1300 )
Let us be clear. We are not here debating a health issue, we are
here debating a dispute between two industrial sectors, the
automotive manufacturers on one hand and the petroleum
producers on the other. It has absolutely nothing to do with health.
I understand that the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
came to the government requesting that legislation be introduced to
ban MMT. It claims it causes problems to its onboard diagnostic
systems, which I will hereafter refer to as OBDs.
4815
The government claims it has attempted to negotiate some sort
of a settlement between the automobile and petroleum industries.
However, the former environment minister, who happened to
represent an industrial area in southern Ontario, promised a ban
on MMT before any fruitful talks could even take place. Clearly
this has prejudiced any negotiations from the outset.
To encourage the government to move forward with legislation
the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association informed the
government that if MMT is not removed from gasoline its
members will void warranties for new model cars, thereby
inconveniencing thousands of Canadians who become car owners.
And to ensure its point is appreciated and to exert a little bit of
blackmail pressure, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
has threatened to charge Canadian consumers an additional $3,000
per car to offset the costs associated with OBD warranty claims.
The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association claims that it can
validate its allegation that MMT causes malfunctions of its OBD
systems. However, it will not make its research publicly available
for review. It is worth noting that a U.S. court of appeals has stated
that the automakers evidence, whatever it is, has not come close to
refuting the Environmental Protection Agency's claim that MMT
does not contribute to or cause the failure of OBD systems.
The claim that MMT negatively affects the functioning of OBDs
in Canada has to be questioned given that the automakers have long
been experiencing similar problems in the United States where
until last year MMT was banned. So in the absence of MMT the car
companies in the United States have fingered a very wide and
diverse range of culprits for their problems. And these include
sulphur in the fuel, which I suspect is probably the major one, cold
weather, high altitude and road conditions.
Are we going to have the government taking action on these
fronts as well? We could get our national highway system fixed up
a bit, and a lot of Canadians would really appreciate a federal ban
on cold winter weather.
The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association has also
succeeded in creating the impression with some of our hon.
colleagues that the failure of OBD systems contributes to increased
air pollution. That is false. OBDs are monitoring systems. They
have nothing to do with the actual emissions of the automobile. So
it has been necessary for the car makers, in order to cover their own
failings in the design of their OBDs, to link this problem to the
environment because otherwise they would not have got through
the doors of the various Liberal ministers responsible. We had
Liberal ministers of the environment introducing some very ill
conceived legislation.
In theory one would expect that a minister of the environment
would have very little in common with automobile manufacturers.
After all, what is the leading cause of smog? It is the automobile. If
we take MMT out of automobile fuels, we will have more smog.
That, at least, is beyond scientific dispute.
(1305)
On the other side of this issue there is the petroleum industry,
which uses MMT to boost octane to make a cleaner burning
gasoline, and there are the producers of MMT. They dispute the
claims of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association and point
to scientific research done in the United States as part of one of the
most extensive testing programs to date conducted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA test results
demonstrated conclusively that MMT in gasoline does not cause or
contribute to the failure of any emission control device or system.
The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which represents the
majority of petroleum refining and marketing entities in Canada,
has stated that it is strongly opposed to the proposed ban and has
made efforts to have the Minister of the Environment see its
perspective on this issue.
Here it is, two of the most powerful corporate lobbies in Canada
both fighting for the attention of the minister on this issue, both
presenting scientific data. We do not know really how much of the
scientific data are valid because we have not properly addressed the
issue.
The committee is where this should be dealt with. There should
be a lot of witnesses coming in. We should not be jumping into this
with both feet and playing favourites between these two groups of
corporate giants.
The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute wants the Minister of
the Environment to allow industry, both parties, to examine the
effects of MMT through a facts based joint assessment conducted
by impartial scientific observers. The minister has ignored calls for
an independent testing program and is still forging ahead with this
legislation.
I fail to understand how the Minister of the Environment and his
colleagues can justify taking our time to review a situation when
what obviously needs to happen is that the Canadian Petroleum
Products Institute and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association should solve their own problems between them. We do
not need government intervention on this.
Why does the government, specifically the Minister of the
Environment, feel so compelled to get involved in an industry
dispute? If the government decided that it did have to intervene,
one would at least have expected that it would do so based on
scientific facts and not pander to either one political lobby or the
other.
If we are going to restrict interprovincial trade, which is very
deeply embedded in this legislation, one would have thought that
the provinces would have been consulted. Seven provinces,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Newfoundland, are all resoundingly opposed to this
bill. Rather than creating green grass, the environment minister
4816
seems to be expanding his turf war with the provinces by pushing
ahead with Bill C-29.
I would like to quote briefly from examples of some of the
provincial opposition. A letter dated May 14 from Premier Klein of
Alberta said: ``I am deeply troubled about the unilateral manner in
which this issue was decided and implemented. There is a need for
strong federal-provincial agreement and co-operation on national
environmental issues such as air quality''.
On May 1, 1996 the Quebec National Assembly unanimously
approved the following resolution: ``That the national assembly
request the postponement of federal Bill C-29 concerning the
gasoline additive MMT as long as environmental studies have not
been conducted in a conclusive manner''. I might add, not
conducted in a properly scientific manner.
(1310 )
About 10 days ago Manitoba and Newfoundland joined with the
other provinces in requesting that this very ill thought out
legislation be slowed down. It is the provinces that will bear the
direct deleterious result of the removal of MMT from gasoline
which is the significant increase in emissions of nitrogen oxide. It
seems reasonable to think that they should therefore have a voice in
this decision.
In fact, the ban of MMT will mean that the provinces will be
required to forfeit the most cost effective method of reducing smog
causing agents in gasoline, and they will be required to
accommodate anywhere from a 16 per cent to a 20 per cent increase
in nitrous oxide emissions.
Calls to the government to identify what will replace MMT are
still unanswered. No scientific testing is planned and it is difficult
to predict what is going to happen next. Surely the government has
something in mind to replace MMT.
Clearly all Canadians hope the members opposite will not
support this bill without putting forward a credible plan to deal
with increased urban smog.
We have made good progress toward reducing our nitrous oxide
content of emissions in this country, but with this legislation we run
the risk of wiping out those gains and saddling ourselves with
increased problems. We are clearly moving in the wrong direction.
Therefore rather than construct environmental policy on
speculation and half baked voodoo science, what is needed is some
leadership from the government. If we are to address the problem
of worsening air quality in Canada the auto companies and the oil
companies must work together. It is equally clear that there is a
need to have the federal and provincial governments co-operate on
environmental issues of this nature.
The way to accomplish this is obvious. Withdraw this bill, do
some decent scientific work and come back to this House when you
know what you are doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there is something I would like to make clear right at the
outset, because viewers might have the impression that those who
care about environment are sitting on that side and those who do
not care are sitting on this side. This is an oversimplification.
I want to say right away to people joining us for the debate that it
has to do with the fact that the government is proposing a bill
seeking a ban on a gas additive, which would have as a major
impact substantial adjustment costs for whole segments of
industrial sectors, such as oil refineries, without any scientific
studies to back it up.
The official opposition, first through its critic, the hon. member
for Laurentides, and through successive members, wants to make it
clear that, when the environment minister or any other independent
third party will be able to table in this House rigorously scientific
and conclusive studies showing that this additive called MMT
harms the environment or damages antipollution systems in
vehicles, the Bloc, as well as the Reform Party surely, will
reconsider its position.
It is unthinkable that an environment minister, with a
carelessness that is out of keeping with the seriousness of this
issue, would ask Canadian members of Parliament to pass
legislation that will impose substantial adjustment costs on
industrial sectors that are already in difficulty, on the basis of
representations made by a auto makers lobby. That is not how
things should be done.
(1315)
I am particularly pleased to take part in this debate because, as
you know, I am one of the members from Montreal, more
specifically from East Montreal. When I was younger, East
Montreal had six refineries. Today there are only two left, because
of a number of problems which are international in nature but
sometimes have a more national resonance.
I cannot accept, and I fail to understand how the government can
do a good job when it asks us to pass a bill that, I repeat, involves
considerable adjustment costs for the oil refinery sector, without
thorough, scientific and conclusive studies to support its decision.
It does not make sense to have jobs, jobs, jobs as a political
mantra when you create problems for those who want to save jobs.
In the case of East Montreal, I would like to point out that the two
remaining refineries that continue to operate-when I was a kid
there were six-employ 4,000 people. I would like to include in my
speech a point of view that is typically Montreal and a flavour that
is East Montreal by sharing with you two letters I received from
4817
interest groups that represent their community and have a stake in
the local economy.
I am not referring to the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society which is our
ally on sovereignty. I am not talking about the Mouvement national
des Québécois, but about interest groups, the first of which is called
Pro-Est. These are businessmen, people who are concerned above
all about the economic recovery of East Montreal.
You will recall that in 1984, there was a wave of business
shutdowns which led the people of East Montreal to organize. The
result was a group called Pro-Est, an authorized pressure group that
tries in various ways to give East Montreal a prosperous economy
so that people will want to stay there.
Pro-Est is concerned about the subject matter of Bill C-29. I
would like to share this short letter with you, and I would like to
recommend its contents to the attention of the government side, so
they will understand that the reaction to Bill C-29 goes back to
what is at stake in the economy of a number of communities,
including East Montreal.
The letter says: ``Pro-Est wants to express its concerns about the
possible adoption of Bill C-29 regarding MMT as an additive in
gas''. It goes on to say: ``In fact, the passage of this bill would have
a negative impact on the competitive position of the industry''.
The words competitive position really mean something from the
economic point of view, and I hope the government side will
appreciate that. So the letter reads: ``The passage of this bill would
have a negative impact on the competitive position of the refineries
of East Montreal. The withdrawal of MMT would oblige refineries
to compensate in other ways, which would represent an additional
cost of seven or eight million dollars annually for the refineries in
East Montreal alone''.
So seven or eight million dollars annually for the refineries in
East Montreal alone, and earlier we heard a figure of about $40
million for the entire petrochemical sector in Quebec.
The letter goes on: ``We remind you that the petrochemical
industry is one of the cornerstones of economic development on the
east side of the island of Montreal. The takeover of Kemtec by
Coastal, the high placement rate of graduates of the Institut de
chimie et de pétrochimie and the viability of the Petro-Canada and
Shell refineries are a good indication of the consolidation of this
sector in our region. Because of these important economic
spin-offs and the considerable number of secondary jobs, the
petrochemical industry is a key sector in the economic recovery of
the greater Montreal area''.
As you probably know, the environment is an important issue for
Pro-Est, and I may point out that Pro-Est is a group that has
identified the environmental sector, the whole issue of plastics
recycling, as a sector to be developed in this region. So we cannot
accuse them of not being sensitive to this problem.
(1320)
I will continue reading the letter: ``Hence, we agree with several
other Quebecers who are suggesting to defer the passing of Bill
C-29 until independent experts can clearly show that MMT is
environmentally safe. We thank you for your interest-'', and so
on. That letter is signed by Pierre Bibeau, chairman of the Pro-Est
group.
I also heard the same thing from the chairman of the chamber of
commerce of eastern Montreal Island, Alain Riendeau. When the
businesspeople and all the stakeholders who are concerned about
economic growth and who want to ensure the communities remain
competitive join together to make representations, something they
can do within our system, I hope the majority in office is listening.
Earlier, my colleague, the hon. member for Peterborough, said
that a few years back no one would have imagined that lead could
become such a problem and a health hazard. Again, when studies
carried out by independent third parties show that there is cause for
concern, that will be the time to take concrete measures. But this
cannot be done on the basis of non-scientific allegations and on the
basis, finally, of representations by a local lobby, which naturally
has the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of
the Environment who are both Ontario members.
It takes some nerve to come here and tell us that our concern
today is for public health. In that case, let us remind ministers that
they gave this issue to the wrong minister. If it were a public health
issue, if the health of Canadians was really in jeopardy, I would
hope that the health minister, the hon. member for Cape
Breton-Richmond-East, would stand in this House and explain to
us, parliamentarians and, thus, to all Canadians, how this concerns
his department and what remedies he intends to take.
Let us go a little further. If this is a toxic substance, why is it that
the federal government has not taken any measure so far to ban it
and why are imports at issue here? If this substance is a toxic
substance, then it is so everywhere. Be it within a province or in
interprovincial trade, the toxic content remains the same.
You know, as the last speaker for the Reform Party also said, I
think, what we are talking about here are representations by
lobbyists, by people who are settled in Ontario and are concerned
with the automotive industry.
If auto makers have decisive studies on the operation of
anti-pollution systems, and the resulting impact on their
competitiveness, that should concern us as parliamentarians, let
them make these studies public. In a democracy, the best way to
oppose an idea
4818
is to suggest a better one. That is how things can be done
democratically.
How accurate was the auto makers' demonstration? What did
they contribute to the debate? Not much. They are unable to make a
clear and significant demonstration of the dangers that should bring
us, as members of Parliament, to ban MMT.
I really want to be very clear about the possible consequences of
such a ban in a community like Montreal, where the petrochemical
sector has already been under considerable strain for the last ten
years. Investments of $7 million to $14 million will be needed to
adjust to new production equipment. This is the first reality to keep
in mind.
(1325)
If the Minister is the sensible man I believe he is and anxious to
start a dialogue, there is a second reality that should at least be of
some concern to him. Right now, there are seven provinces in
different regions, with governments of different political stripes,
and with different economic bases-that is quite a number of
provinces-that have taken a united stand and ask the federal
government to review its position and delay the adoption of this
bill.
I think the government ought to be impressed by some of the
arguments that have been made. If the government cares about the
quality of our environment, it will see to it that we make decisions
based on accurate and scientifically recognized studies and that we
pass legislation based on documentation that is really useful to us
in our debates.
I cannot resist temptation. You know how disciplined I am, but
sometimes I like to let my imagination go, especially on a difficult
Friday such as this one, given the difficlut issue of the referral to
the Supreme Court. You know that nothing is simple in this
Parliament.
Mr. Morrison: Things will change now.
Mr. Ménard: I see my colleague from the Reform Party shares
my opinion. I would like to share with you a letter that was sent to
the government by the natural resources minister in the Bouchard
government, François Gendron. Let me draw your attention to one
aspect of this correspondence. The minister writes: ``I am writing
again, on behalf of the minister of state for economy and finance,
Bernard Landry, and of the transport minister in charge of
Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Jacques Brassard, and on my
own behalf, to state the firm position of the Quebec government on
the bill being studied''.
He continues: ``That bill, the Manganese-based Fuel Additives
Act, will reach the third reading stage in the House of Commons in
just a few months. It seems your government is quite determined to
follow through with that bill. That bill concerns the importation
and selling of MMT in Canada. It seems the Canadian government
wants to pass this bill because the auto makers claim that gasoline
containing MMT will cause damage to the pollution control
equipment in new cars''.
This is getting interesting, it should shake up government
members a little. It goes on: ``With free trade between Canada, the
United States and Mexico, recent developments in the United
States and Mexico are pointing in another direction''.
What does it mean? You will remember that in the past few years
the Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to have the
use of MMT banned in the United States. The case was dismissed
by a district of Columbia appeal court which ruled that the
evidence presented was not conclusive enough.
Not only were the United States defeated, not only was the EPA
defeated, but now the regulation banning the use of MMT as a fuel
additive in the United States can no longer be enforced, and in
Mexico-as you might recall, the Mexican president sat in your
chair and made a speech to Canadian parliamentarians-they are
faced with the same situation.
So, when we are told that if the bill is not passed, we will no
longer be competitive, there is something not quite right with
government members' logic, since the production and use of MMT
as a fuel additive will now be allowed in the United States, our
major trading partner-and you know how strong our commercial
ties are with them, especially when it comes to the automobile
industry. And not only in the case of the United States, but also in
the case of Mexico.
So, this is a situation of ministerial stubbornness. The minister is
stomping his feet with a rather childish stubbornness saying we
must go in that direction, with some sort of determination that is
almost unreasonable, no, I correct my words, that is not reasonable
at all.
What must we do, as members of Parliament, to convince the
minister? What efforts must we make when seven provinces are
opposed, when the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute is
opposed, when entire industrial sectors are at risk, particularly in
regions that cannot afford to lose jobs if they want to maintain their
economic prosperity. Of course, I am talking about East Montreal.
So today, we must send the environment minister a cry from the
heart so that, for the sake of rationality, he can go beyond partisan
considerations and find a reasonable compromise. And this
reasonable compromise can only be the public tabling, for debate,
of much more substantiated studies commissioned by third parties
and focusing on the potential or not, on the beneficial or deleterious
nature, of using MMT in gasoline.
I do not think what we are asking today is unreasonable. I do not
think the consensus of the seven provinces, regardless of any
partisan leaning, is unreasonable. It seems to me if the Minister of
4819
Environment is concerned with the environmental issue, there are
other bills, other problems that should hold his attention.
We have been told about the pollution in the Great Lakes. There
would be something there that could be very interesting from a
legislation viewpoint.
So why take up the time of the House to deal with poorly defined
problems, with untested propositions, on an issue where almost
everyone is not convinced by or satisfied with the evidence tabled
by the minister.
I intend to take a very firm stand on this. Again, there used to be
six refineries in the east end of Montreal. The petrochemical sector
used to be prosperous, but with measures such as those proposed
today-I have a feeling my time is running out, so I make a last
appeal to the minister to use common sense and defer his bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 1.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4819
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from June 3, 1996, consideration of the
motion that, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider amending the Income Tax Act to provide a Care-Giver
Tax Credit for those who provide care in the home for pre-school
children, the disabled, the chronically-ill or the aged.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address Private Members' Motion No. 30.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the
Income Tax Act to provide a Care-Giver Tax Credit for those who provide care in the
home for pre-school children, the disabled, the chronically-ill or the aged.
The purpose of this motion is to help people who greatly need to
be helped. The disability tax credit is a tax measure that exists at
the provincial level, at least in Quebec, and at the federal level. It is
a non-refundable tax credit.
In 1994, this credit amounted to $4,233. It is to be noted that it
was originally established to help those who became disabled
during the war. In order to be eligible for the credit, the applicant
must submit, with his income tax return, a Revenue Canada form
duly completed by a doctor or an optometrist.
There are currently a number of tax measures designed to help
families that take care of elderly or disabled people. However, we
believe these measures are not enough.
The numerous flaws of the current taxation system make me
quite angry at times. How can this government turn a deaf ear to
such a motion, while seeking to smother the scandal of family trust
assets transferred tax free to the United States? Two billion dollars
left the country tax free, while ordinary taxpayers are being taxed
to the hilt.
(1335)
My colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and
official opposition finance critic, mentioned recently that Liberals
question the qualifications of the Auditor General and his team by
refusing to answer his questions, and suggesting that Mr. Desautels
has stepped outside his terms of reference.
Liberal members of the finance committee are trying to demean
an institution whose main goal is to make sure the government is
held accountable.
I am also quite sensitive to the treatment of older people, in my
capacity as the official opposition representative for seniors
organizations. I have taken the floor many times in the House to
uphold the rights of seniors. We should not forget the Canadian
population is growing older.
A 1991 survey on aging and self care has shown that nearly one
third of Canadians were 45 or older in 1991, with 19 per cent being
between 45 and 64 and 11 per cent 65 or older. As the baby
boomers grow older, we can expect a rapid increase in the number
of seniors.
Projections over the 1991-2001 period tell us that the population
growth in the 45 plus group will be almost three times faster than in
the general population, that is 32 and 13 per cent respectively.
The well-being of the aged, as measured by their health, their
revenue and their degree of integration in society, seems to be
strongly related to the quality of housing and the ability to move
around in their community. Seniors and the disabled very often
prefer to stay in their community with the assistance of a member
of their immediate family or another relative.
It appears quite reasonable to give a tax credit to a taxpayer who
can work full time and give appropriate care to a dependent person.
People who do not have to move into residences run by strangers
experience a better quality of life.
Seniors are often seen as a burden in our communities. They are
socially dead. But if they remain in their own community, these
people can be part of their community and feel more secure,
financially or otherwise.
4820
I also rose in this House to have a grandparents' day celebrated
every year and also have a grandparents' year designated, to
recognize the role these people play in the family unit, especially
in child rearing.
These people are often the link between the past, the present and
the future. Therefore, you will understand why Motion No. 30 is of
particular concern to me and why its implementation raises several
questions in my mind.
Today's edition of Le Devoir includes highlights of the report of
the Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels. It says that
Revenue Canada has laid itself open to fraud by not sufficiently
controlling or assessing the GST credit program and the child tax
benefits, which combined and replaced the old family allowance
and child tax credit. These programs cost $8 billion every year.
It adds that among the issues that were raised was the fact that
Revenue Canada does not require a birth certificate before granting
the tax benefit. The assessment of the applications for disability
benefits paid by the Canada Pension Plan is inadequate. The total
amount of these benefits has tripled in the last 10 years, increasing
from $841 million to $3 billion. In comparison, disability benefits
paid by the Régime des rentes du Québec have remained almost
stable during the same period.
The report also concluded that a general improvement of
government phone services was in order. Too often, the lines are
overloaded and the information given by the operators is incorrect.
Revenue Canada has a particularly poor performance, in this
regard.
(1340 )
How can we not worry about potential fraud, since there are
people who abuse the system, unfortunately.
Moreover, if the government gives the tax credit to people who
stay at home and take care of preschool children or handicapped,
chronically ill or senior members of the family, it could be tempted
to reduce benefits, in particular the old age security or the child tax
benefit.
To conclude, Motion M-30 brought forward by my colleague for
Mississauga-South is valid in principle, but it would require
increased vigilance to avoid potential fraud.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be here this afternoon to debate this motion tabled by the
member for Mississauga South.
[English]
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the
Income Tax Act to provide a Care-Giver Tax Credit for those who provide care in the
home for pre-school children, the disabled, the chronically-ill or the aged.
[
Translation]
It is, of course, a very valid proposal, a step in the right direction,
and we can all subscribe to its objective.
[English]
The motion proposes that the government augment its existing
tax credit system for caregivers. This motion, because it identifies
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged is
not unlike some of the proposals I have made in the past. I would be
hard pressed not to support my colleague and that is what I intend
to do philosophically in the direction in which he is going.
I want to review some of the things we have in place today.
There are a number of very laudable programs that not everyone is
aware of. These were reviewed by the hon. member for St. Paul's
but I want to share some of them briefly with my colleagues.
With respect to the disabled and the aged, the disability tax credit
is aimed at benefiting those with a severe and prolonged mental or
physical impairment. There is also medical expense tax credit
which provides assistance to those with exceedingly difficult
medical expenses. This credit benefits families helping to care for
elderly or disabled relatives. There is the infirm dependant credit
which helps to reduce the federal tax for supporting relatives.
With respect to preschool children the child care expense
deduction assists parents with modest incomes with child care
expenses. The supplement to the child tax benefit assists those who
remain at home to raise their children. It is a form of assistance to
families with modest incomes who have to stay at home to care for
their young children without utilizing child care. There is the
working income supplement, a non-taxable benefit which helps
low income working families with child care expenses and
transportation costs.
I believe we need to offer credits to assist caregivers. In fact as I
indicated previously I have suggested motions which deal with tax
credits in the past.
[Translation]
I think the purpose of this motion is very commendable and that
each of us agrees, at least in principle, on the necessity of providing
such assistance. On the other hand, there may be different ways of
dealing with this issue.
[English]
In the past I proposed a motion to change the child related tax
benefits and child care deductions. I felt that they should be based
on need irrespective of care. I also proposed a motion that was
aimed at assisting single income families. I thought this was
particularly important and I still do so today.
4821
Our tax system is continually evolving to meet the changing
needs of our population. Let us look at this motion specifically.
Some people have suggested that it may not be specific enough
and that the motion may not have sufficient details so that we can
deal with it appropriately.
I want to share with my colleagues a couple of observations with
respect to experiences I have had recently in dialoguing with fellow
Canadians and experts of different disciplines who have a great
deal of knowledge about our Canadian population.
(1345 )
I had the good fortune to meet with a number of individuals of
diverse backgrounds to discuss the future of government in
Canada. We wanted to see how government might operate and how
it might respond even more sensitively than it does now to
changing needs. Clearly that could be done if we had a better
picture of how the Canadian population is changing.
I must confess these discussions have been rather fascinating. A
number of themes emerged during this exchange, but one of the
common threads that came about was the flexibility of government.
[Translation]
Without this great flexibility, whether it be at the federal,
provincial or municipal level, we will have serious problems.
Why? Because it is obvious that the needs of the population vary
greatly from region to region. It is true that there are common
needs, but it is also true that, depending on the population, the
needs can vary considerably from province to province, from
region to region, from territory to territory.
[English]
Interestingly, the discussions have identified numerous support
mechanisms, some of which are very innovative. We have to stop
thinking that it is only the federal, provincial and municipal
governments that can assist citizens. There are a number of
organizations out that that do laudable work with very little
investment from Canadians, that is very little investment relatively
speaking. However, I am targeting that which we refer to as
community groups. We need to take a look at that and see what else
they might provide in services to improve the quality of life of all
Canadians who need special assistance.
When I talk about support I am using the term loosely. I do not
say that pejoratively, but in a very broad sense because it can mean
a lot of things. It can mean flexibility, which I have already
mentioned, in the workplace to allow time, for example, away
during difficult periods without the threat of a job loss. It can mean
the expansion of health care services to provide better, long term
care in the community and elsewhere. It can mean flexibility to the
CPP. It clearly could mean tax credits, but these are not the only
solutions.
I guess where I am at right now, I would argue that a study would
need to be carried out to examine exactly what the $1.4 billion in
existing assistance means to Canadians. Do they know that this is
happening? Are they sufficiently familiar with these programs?
Are individuals currently aware of what credits for which they are
all eligible? Is the current system being utilized appropriately? We
have talked about some people misusing the system but there are a
number of people, which I think has been documented, who are not
aware of the systems and programs that exist.
When we look at this holistically, we need to ask where the gaps
are. Clearly there must be some. There are weaknesses in the
system. What measures are required to fill these gaps and be more
responsive to Canadians and their needs? Maybe tax credits are
required. Perhaps there are other solutions that need to be explored.
[Translation]
Basically, the point I want to make this afternoon is that it is a
good idea as such, an idea we all support. However, before going
any further, we should look at all the programs I have mentioned
and others in order to determine how well they meet the needs for
which they were designed. Then we will be able to determine if the
system is deficient, if certain programs need to be strengthened,
changed, eliminated or replaced.
What my colleague is proposing is simple, but it is something
that we should do only after having reviewed all programs, after
having gained a better understanding of the needs of Canadians
across the country and after having made sure that future changes
in the Canadian population are taken into account in the measures
we propose.
You certainly know-if I am not mistaken, we are talking about
a population over 65 years of age representing 11 or 12 per cent of
the total population in Canada-that the senior population is
expected to double over the next thirty years or so. Women, who
already live longer than men, are expected to live even longer. And
even men will also live longer.
What does that means as it relates to health, entertainment,
work? What does it means when we look at this new Canadian
population which will be different from what it is today?
(1350)
Incidentally, I should point out that this solution is not so
different from what can be found in a number of European
countries.
I suggest that we keep in mind the idea put forward by my
colleague from Mississauga South until we have an opportunity to
thoroughly review all the programs. We can then look at the
shortcomings and determine if changes are required, if some of the
4822
programs should be altered or if the solution proposed by the hon.
member is the best alternative.
And this concludes my remarks.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
debate this important private member's motion. First, I would like
to support the idea of the private member's motion. I read a bit of
history not long ago and found that in times past Parliament was
taken up essentially with motions and bills brought forward by
private members.
Over time, this has eroded to mostly government initiated bills
and motions. If the government says go for it, then fine. If the
government is against it, it would not bring in the bills or motions.
Consequently, the legislative agenda is greatly limited.
I appreciate the concept of private members' motions. I
sincerely hope that we will not see in this private member's motion
the kind of interference from the government side that we did in the
previous one earlier this week. I hope, sincerely, that members of
Parliament will be able to assess the merits of this motion on its
own and to vote freely, without interference from the government
side.
Specifically the question is one of taxation. This topic comes up
over and over again in the House. It is a problem, I suppose it
would be proper to say, that has seized the attention of Canadians.
I was married 35 years ago. I would like to congratulate my wife
for having stayed with me for that long. It is a miracle in itself. A
friend of ours said recently: ``She deserves a medal'', and I would
concur with that.
When we were first married in 1961, my salary was a little over
$400 a month. My income tax deduction was $35 a month, about 8
per cent. On that salary, I was able to provide for my family. At
first we had a rented house. We went from that to purchase a house
on a single income.
I was able to provide enough groceries. People can see over the
years that I, as the representative sample of our family, have not
suffered in the starvation department. We have been able to manage
quite well.
We are one family who made the choice that, when our children
were young, mother would be a full time mother. She would be the
manager of the home. She would be there for the children in the
morning when they were off to school as they grew older. She
stayed with them, of course, full time before they went to school.
She was there when the children came home from school in order
to give a solid, loving home base to the children as they were
growing up. Consequently, we lived on my income only during
those years.
Unfortunately, times have changed during these 35 years. To my
view, they have changed to the detriment of the family. For most
Canadians over half their income is spent for them by politicians
and bureaucrats at the three levels of government. No longer do we
have an 8 per cent rate of taxation. We now have a 50 per cent rate
of taxation, plus GST. People cannot get away from that. No matter
where they turn to purchase anything, there is the GST.
I had to buy a part for my vehicle the other day. I ended up
paying $10 in GST. The part was quite expensive. I said to myself,
why should I pay a penalty of $10 to some federal program that is
wasting my money because I have to repair my vehicle so that it
will run.
(1355 )
The motion underlines the fact that we are taxed to death. In
particular, as families we are being taxed to death. It is no longer
true that families have a choice, as we had, to say that one member
will stay at home full time. They cannot live on one income. The
reason is very simple. So much of a family's earnings are now
taken away from it by the coercion of taxation that the amount that
it has left is insufficient to provide for shelter, clothing, food,
education and then some of those other things that are valued.
It is wonderful if children, as they are growing up, can learn
more than what is taught just in the home and in the school. I
benefited from piano lessons. My parents sacrificed so that I could
learn to play the piano. I love playing O Canada when we go out to
some of the meetings in my constituency. I always say: ``Make sure
there is a piano there so that I can play it''. My parents sacrificed
for that. More and more families cannot do that.
I spoke recently with parents who said they have no choice but
for both of them to work. Otherwise they could not afford to have
shelter, clothing and food. They are hard pressed to provide some
of those other things which are so valuable in the development and
the growth of children.
This motion says there should be a tax credit for those who
choose this particular lifestyle. In principle, I agree with it. The
principle is that we want to reduce the tax load on families so that
they can, with their own earnings, provide the care for their
families. That is a commendable goal. In principle, I am in favour
of what this bill says.
At the same time I seriously ask the question of whether this is
the best way to go. First, governments at all levels should sharply
reduce their demands for money to be shipped to Ottawa by the
truckload, trainload or however it is brought here. The federal
government over spends. There is no doubt about it. Too large a
proportion of government expenditures are going to interest.
4823
It is absolutely mandatory that the government reduce not only
its annual borrowing so that the debt goes up more slowly, it is
far beyond the time already when it should have reduced the
deficit to zero. Government should be living within its means,
including the payment of interest on the present debt. Members
should start looking at reducing the debt which would reduce the
amount of interest so that Canadians can be given a tax break.
Consequently those Canadians would have more of their own
money to spend as they see fit. If parents value the ability to
choose that one of them stays home, then they should be able to
afford that.
It is true that in the present system the greatest amount of future
planning, retirement planning and family budgeting has to do with
meeting the tax budget and the tax demands. I attended a seminar
some time ago on retirement planning. I was appalled when I
realized that about 10 or 15 per cent of the time was spent making
wise investment decisions and things like that and about 85 per
cent was used on how to either postpone or avoid paying taxes. It
points out the fact that taxes are too high.
This bill says let us give a tax credit to those families in which
there is only one wage earner. Let us make it easier for families to
make that choice. Not long ago there was a poll taken and it showed
that fully two-thirds of parents of young children said if they really
had the choice they would choose for one or the other of them to
stay home full time with the children. They feel they do not have
the choice and inasmuch as this motion is a step in the right
direction, it would be wise of us to support it.
(1400)
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motion No. M-30 which
would give a tax credit to home caregivers.
It is particularly a pleasure to speak to this motion because it
gives me an opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians who may be
interested that we who are members of political parties, be it the
Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or the Liberal Party, are not
necessarily ideologues, that we do not necessarily follow or hold
all the views of our respective parties.
In this case I am referring to the position taken by my own
Liberal Party on day care during the last federal election. The
Liberals came out very strongly in support of government
subsidized day care. The NDP came out even more strongly. If I
remember correctly, the NDP promised to spend $1 billion on
subsidized day care which the NDP said would create some 70,000
jobs. The Liberals promised much less than that; their program was
a couple of hundred million dollars which would create about
10,000 jobs if I recall correctly.
From the outset I was opposed to both concepts in principle. I
made it very clear when I ran for election that I did not support
everything in the red book, and I certainly did not support the
Liberal position on day care. The fundamental reason was that in
my mind the promise of 70,000 jobs for $1 billion was a promise of
70,000 marginal jobs basically for women to look after children
other than their own. I did not see the practicality of that.
The desire for subsidized daycare has its origins in the socialistic
movement of the previous decades, of the 1960s and the 1970s. It
was based on two premises. One premise was that parents,
particularly women, should not have to sacrifice for their children,
for raising families. The premise was that they should be able to
have children and also have a worthy job. The other premise, an
important one, was that the state could provide some fundamental
social caregiving like the family in looking after children.
It has become very clear in the course of the 1980s when we see
what has happened to the great totalitarian socialist states like the
former Soviet Union and even communist China, that
institutionalized family services do not work. In the end they create
problems. They create young people who become adults who are
not effective citizens.
The services become unmanageable in their actual
implementation. Look anywhere in the experiences of the Soviet
Union and communist China and lesser so in some of the Nordic
states and we will find there have been many problems in trying to
successfully implement state run family care. It is not a concept
that we recognize as being very successful any more.
The proof of the pudding is in my own riding. When I
campaigned from door to door particularly on Hamilton Mountain,
a great number of the lower income families obviously had both
parents employed. As I went along the streets, I saw that block after
block the streets were empty, the houses were empty. The
driveways usually had spaces for two automobiles. Most of these
parents probably had their children in day care if they were not in
school.
As the member for Mississauga South pointed out, the
emancipation of the other spouse, be they male or female, basically
puts two people in a position of marginal income at the sacrifice of
the children. The statistic is basically that a person earning $25,000
with two children in day care makes a net profit of $100 a week. I
submit that is not worth the trial, tribulation and even the damage
which it inflicts on young children.
(1405)
In my area there are some subsidized day care facilities. I have
visited them as a member of Parliament. What do we do when we
enter a subsidized day care facility and see the children playing not
on real grass but on plastic grass? Money has been raised to support
these day care centres and in someone's incredible wisdom the
things which children relate to have been removed; simple things
4824
like real grass and real dirt. In other words, the paid caregivers do
not want the children to get dirty. I would say that has the potential
of being a traumatic experience for children. I cannot accept it.
I have three children. I have also been the parent who has stayed
at home while my wife worked. I have been the primary caregiver.
My children were preschoolers. I worked at the Toronto Star. I
would come home very late at night. I made a point every night
before the children were in school to go directly home to read fairy
tales to them. Actually, I can imitate just about every voice in every
fairy tale. I can do Pinocchio, I can do the good fairy and all of
those voices. Also Long John Silver. The pay off was that my
children were capable of reading by the time they were in grade 3.
They were reading fluently all the books which they had before
them. I submit that was because I was the caregiver who read them
those stories.
I have had occasion to go to schools to read to children after
school was out. They could not go home because their parents were
working. They did not have their own mom and dad to read to
them, so they had to rely on a stranger. In this case the stranger was
a member of Parliament. It is not the same thing. It is not as good.
What the motion directs us toward is looking once more at where
we stand as a country with respect to traditional family values and
the importance of the family. The motion is a direction to
Parliament to set aside the socialist ideologies of the past and to
look to the future, remembering that there are genuine values in the
traditional family. As we go into the next century these values are
going to be even more accentuated.
We have now entered the computer age. I live in a little village
far from Toronto, a remote village in southern Ontario. It does not
have a lot of amenities. There is a mother who lives across the
street who has developed a tremendous business as a computer
troubleshooter. She has one room set aside in her home and she is
on the phone with businesses all over the world. She makes a good
wage.
That mother is also the primary caregiver. She has three small
children. She is able to look after those children. She has a career
and a sense of worthiness, a sense of participating in society, and
she also has the opportunity to give her children the natural care
which they deserve. I do not see any reason for the government not
to recognize the value which she is contributing to society by being
at home and looking after her children.
(1410 )
The present situation is that when one member of a couple, be
they male or female, elect to stay at home, the government gives
them nothing. The present tax situation is such that the government
encourages both parents to work and as we have seen, it is only to
marginal advantage.
Finally, tomorrow I face an audience of about 300 people in one
of the largest halls in my riding to discuss the Young Offenders Act.
There was a terrible shooting in my riding about two months ago in
which a young man was seriously wounded by teenagers with a
handgun which fired a hollow nosed bullet. The young man is now
paralyzed. This has raised an enormous concern in my riding with
respect to possible amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
We will discuss the act. But behind our discussion about
changing the Young Offenders Act and increasing the penalties and
the opportunities for rehabilitation for young people is the
fundamental problem that in the past 20 years we have left the
family unit behind and we have failed our young people. I think
that shows up in the increased incidents of youth crime.
I support the motion 100 per cent. It is a fine motion and I
congratulate the member for Mississauga South for bringing it
before the House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I share the
concerns of the hon. member for Mississauga South, which have
prompted his Motion No. 30. This motion proposes an amendment
to the Income Tax Act to provide a caregiver tax credit for those
who provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled,
the chronically ill or the aged.
You are, no doubt, aware that women generally invest more time
than men in the care and nurturing of children, and this, for many
of them, results in increased difficulty in entering the work force
and in reduced earnings. During their lifetimes as well, they
generally devote more time than men to the care of dependent
members of their extended families, the sick, the disabled, or the
elderly.
According to Nancy Guberman, in Actes du colloque, the
proceedings of a symposium held in Montreal on May 5, 1995,
women are responsible for 85 per cent of the assistance provided
within families. According to Canadian Social Trends, in 1992
virtually all of the 3.4 million people whose principal activity was
caring for the family home were women.
An examination of these statistics clearly shows that the
measures in Motion No. 30 would, for the most part, affect
Canadian and Quebec women. It is therefore important to compare
the demands being made by those most concerned by this with the
objectives of the motion we are addressing at this time. But serious
attention must also be given in particular to the means which will
be used to achieve those goals.
The aim of the motion proposed by the member for Mississauga
South is to recognize the child-rearing done by the parent at home.
We entirely agree with the member regarding the need for society
4825
to recognize the considerable value of unpaid work performed by
women at home, on the farm or elsewhere, whether it be
housework, the care and nurturing of children or providing care to
the aged.
People who work at home are extremely resentful of the lack of
understanding and social respect from which they still suffer today.
Changes are therefore necessary in order to attach more value to
unpaid work and to the social role that those people play. This is
what Motion No. 30 proposes. This why we support the motion of
the member for Mississauga South, which responds with good
intentions to the legitimate claims of those people.
But, in order to achieve these goals, the government must be
guided by two key principles: the search for equity or social justice
and the search for an efficient allocation of resources.
(1415)
We support this motion, although we still have some concerns
about its implementation and implications.
It would be unacceptable, for instance, if this motion were to
send women back to their kitchens, that is to say encourage them to
stay home and discourage those who are working outside the home.
It is important to support women's legitimate aspiration to full
participation to society, whatever their place of work.
Women are free to choose to stay home to take care of someone
in their immediate family, but they are also have a fundamental
right to work. We must recognize that being away from a paid job
has long-term consequences, because women who leave the
workforce not only have to do without the income but, upon
returning to work, they will never earn as much as they would have
if they had not left.
Motion M-30 would help make up for this loss of income. In
most cases, women work outside the home because they are single
mothers, have to supplement their partner's income or because they
want to contribute to society the knowledge and skills they have. It
is important to support those who work at home, but it is equally
important to support women who are in an occupational setting or
would like to be.
Our second concern has to do with the adverse effects the
changes proposed in Motion M-30 could have if they are not
implemented with care. Yes, we should help women working in the
home, but it is important to watch out for a tax system that would
introduce further inequality and exclusion. We must categorically
oppose a system that seeks to realize savings by eliminating jobs,
and reducing the demand for daycare places and services. Such a
system would be a disincentive to jobs and training, and would
limit women to the status of part-time workers or make them
dependent on their spouse or the government.
Today, and there are a number of reasons for this, the care and
raising of children no longer usually require the full-time presence
of the mother in the home for the greater part of her working life.
We tend to have fewer children, and our children leave home for
school at an early age. The phenomena of separation and divorce,
and the increase in single parenthood, have also meant that a
woman's ability to earn her living has become the best guarantee of
economic security for women and children. But let us never forget
that this ability is strongly dependent on academic training and
work experience and whether women have sufficiently
remunerative work.
Motion M-30 is rooted in a good intention, in wishing to provide
a tax credit for those looking after relatives at home. It is a way of
promoting the equality and autonomy of these women. But let us
take care that measures such as those proposed in M-30 do not lose
sight of the fact that women are people in their own right and not
dependents of a spouse, or people whose identity is lost in that of
the family.
My third reservation concerns the beneficiaries of the assistance
proposed in Motion M-30. Such measures must, of necessity, be
directed towards individuals working in the home. In the
demographic and economic context we are now facing, the tax
system and transfer payments must support the movement of
women towards economic autonomy, by encouraging them to take
training, to acquire relevant work experience and to develop their
knowledge and know-how on a life long basis. We must be wary of
fixating on measures that force individuals to maintain family
solidarity, and remember the importance of basing the tax system
on individuals first and foremost. The work of a person providing
care in the home for children, the chronically ill, the disabled or the
aged must be recognized independently of family income.
(1420)
Any measures likely to slow down women's participation in the
labour market and to increase their economic dependency on their
spouse or on the government risk having a high social cost over the
long term.
Motion No. 30, I repeat, should not be used as an excuse for
confining women to home nor as a justification for removing
government commitment, which could reduce the benefits already
enjoyed by certain categories of people such as seniors or
handicapped people.
It should not be used either to make savings on the backs of
workers who could lose their jobs because of a decrease in the
demand for services. This is no way to create jobs.
4826
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates its comments on how
important it is for Quebec to give itself a comprehensive family
policy, something it cannot do right now within the federal system.
Indeed, the existence of two levels of government in many areas
affecting women's life is cause for overlapping and duplication
of programs and structures and, as a result, a waste of taxpayer
money.
As for me, I think the interest of Quebec women would be best
served if there were only one decision maker and only one provider
of funds. For Quebec, it would mean that it would be possible to
give itself a consistent and comprehensive policy dealing with the
status of woman and the family.
We are convinced that only sovereignty for Quebec will allow us
to reach these goals.
[English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak today in favour of Motion No. 30 brought
forward by my colleague from Mississauga South.
At the outset I would like to say that I have not looked at all of
the financial implications of this motion and, from that perspective,
we must bear in mind that this is a motion and not a bill. What we
are really trying to do is encourage the government to look for ways
to fulfil the objectives the member for Mississauga has in mind. I
am very pleased to see that there is so much support on both sides
of the House for this motion.
I think it is fair to say that there is a growing sense among
Canadians that governments at all levels place less value today on
the role parents play in raising children. One may argue that it is a
personal decision to have children and that society already plays a
large role in the development of those children. We can look at
health care and education as two examples of general tax revenues
being used for the indiscriminate benefit of all of us.
The fact that all taxpayers contribute to the education system
demonstrates that society has historically recognized that well
educated children and, as a consequence, a well educated
workforce and citizenry are good for the well-being of the whole
community.
The decision to have children means years of financial sacrifice
for parents. There is a further loss of income if one parent stays
home to look after the children. I have long believed that income
splitting would be the preferred way for governments to recognize
the costs involved when a parent stays home to care for a child or
children. My colleague from Mississauga South has already
introduced a bill which proposes that to the government and I still
believe this approach should be looked at by the government when
it is looking for ways to help families.
In the past 50 years we have seen a dramatic change in the
Canadian family. In 1968 only 30 per cent of families had two
incomes. In a 1994 study by Statistics Canada 60.4 per cent of all
families were dual earners. Now more often than not both parents
work outside the home. One of the reasons for this change often is
that both parents have vital careers and want to continue their
professional lives.
However, as a recent Angus Reid survey showed, over 70 per
cent of parents where both were working and had preschool
children said that if they could they would choose to have one
parent stay at home to provide for their children. However, this
choice is not available to all families. The realities of today's
economy force many parents to both work just to make ends meet.
Being a dual earner family causes other problems, in particular
the extra expense of child care. This additional child care expense
is substantial. For example, when a second spouse is working and
earning $25,000 with two children in child care the net pay is less
than $100 per week. In many cases it does not justify the family
hardships and sacrifices made when both spouses are working.
(1425)
I would like to read a letter from one of my constituents whom I
have spoken with at some length. He has written to me recently
again, Mr. Don Bell from Kanata, Ontario. I will quote one
paragraph from his letter:
Existing income tax laws provide day care rebates to the lower income earner in a
family, rebates which increase as salary increases. This encourages the second wage
earner to work full time, even overtime, to maximize benefits. A custodial parent
with children finds it easy to obtain welfare benefits after divorce, making marriage
break-up financially attractive. What incentives are there for parents to stay home
and care for their own children, or to stay married and assume responsibility for each
other's care? Sadly, there are none. Dependent child deductions have disappeared
from the income tax form. The spousal deduction has been so eroded by inflation
that even a small part time income wipes it out, again leading both parents to work
and burn themselves out full time.
As the tax system stands now, there are no significant benefits
for stay at home parents. Motion No. 30 would help remedy this
oversight. By providing a caregiver tax credit, the federal
government would be making it possible for many parents to
decide whether to work or stay at home.
I would actually go beyond what is in the motion. I would not
limit this to preschool children. It is important that we have parents
available throughout a child's development through school and try
to avoid problems of latch key kids coming home from school
when there is nobody home.
I am not sure why this was limited to preschool children. Perhaps
this is looked on as the art of the possible, but if government is
looking at using the tax system to help families raising children, it
really has to look at supporting families right through to the end of
high school for children.
4827
One could also argue there would be immediate economic
benefits if the government is to adopt Motion No. 30, assuming that
it encourages people to stay at home. Those parents who choose to
stay at home to raise their children will immediately free many
jobs. This would lead to a lowering of the unemployment rate and,
in addition, will open more quality child care spaces. This will
ensure that the children of dual earner families have professional
care givers looking after them. Those child care workers are
individuals who have the education and training to make a child's
preschool years a rewarding experience.
More important, this motion will have a substantial positive
effect on the next generation. As we all know, children are the
future of our country and we, as today's parents, have an important
influence on the shaping of their character and beliefs.
Study after study shows that the early years of life are
instrumental in the development of a child's lifetime character. One
of the latest of such studies, published in April 1996 by Dr.
Steinhauser of the Caledon institute of Social Policy, concluded
with the statement that society needs to develop a system:
``designed to help all families better meet the critical
developmental needs of their children while increasing their sense
of mastery and control of their own and their children's lives. Then
and only then can we be confident that the next generation of
children will have the good early childhood experiences that will
enable them to achieve, for themselves and for society, their
potential for personal success and for both human and economic
productivity''.
This motion does not deal only with the raising of children. It
also recognizes the needs of people caring for the disabled, the
chronically ill and the aged.
We are each aware of people whose lives are affected totally by
the demands placed on them by caring for loved ones who are ill or
disabled.
In particular I think of an elderly woman who spoke at one of my
town hall meetings on health care whose husband has Alzheimer's
disease. Essentially this woman, who is not all that well herself,
finds herself up all hours of the day and night tending to her
husband's needs. She loves her husband and wants to keep him at
home as long as she can but she is burning herself out. She feels
there is absolutely no recognition of the fact that she is providing
this care.
There are many others out there as well. I am involved with the
Alzheimer's Society. This is a growing problem. We will continue
to see this grow in the future.
If there is any possibility of keeping someone out of a public
institution, we should look for ways to support those who are
willing to make all those sacrifices involved in looking after
somebody 24 hours a day in the home.
This is important for parents to know that society recognizes
their contribution. Those who provide care to the ill, the disabled or
aged also have this need.
The financial aspect is extremely important but also the fact that
society recognizes what people are going through. These are stories
we rarely hear about because they are behind closed doors in
people's homes. There are tremendous struggles going on out there.
We need to in some way let people know we appreciate what they
are doing. The demands on our chronic care system are only going
to continue to grow over time.
I wish to again congratulate my colleague from Mississauga
South on this motion. He is being consistent and persistent when it
comes to raising these problems with us. I hope with the goodwill
of the House we will have this motion passed when it comes time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will call for resumption of
debate. Seeing that there is a member ready to speak and also in
consideration of the time on the clock, I will not put the question
because the member for Lisgar-Marquette wishes to speak.
When this business comes back to the House it will be the
Reform Party which will have the next opportunity to speak to this
motion. With the agreement of the House I will call it 2.30 p.m.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)