CONTENTS
Friday, December 13, 1996
Bill C-60. Consideration resumed of report stage 7503
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7510
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7514
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7514
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7515
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7515
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7515
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7515
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7516
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7516
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7516
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7517
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7517
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7517
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7518
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7518
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 7520
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 7520
Bill C-365. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7523
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7523
Bill C-366. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 7523
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7523
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7526
Bill C-60. Consideration resumed of report stage 7526
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7526
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 7530
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7532
Bill C-214. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 7535
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 7538
7503
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, December 13, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from December 12, 1996, consideration of
Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
and to repeal and amend other Acts as a consequence, as reported
(with amendments) from the committee; and of motions in Group
No. 6.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the bill
before us seeks to establish an agency that will have a number of
powers and responsibilities regarding the food industry.
As you know, in Quebec, we already have a body, namely the
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that assumes all
the powers and responsibilities necessary in any state to ensure the
public has access to food that meets modern safety and quality
standards, and does so in a cost effective way.
This morning, I speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois primarily
to make sure the agency to be established will satisfy the probity
criteria that Canadians and Quebecers should expect.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed a series of
amendments and, this morning, we are debating the sixth group of
these amendments. I will now discuss them.
The first one deals with clause 12, lines 28 and 29, on page 4 of
the bill. The amendment that we propose provides that the agency
is exempt from the application of section 7 and subsection 69(3) of
the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It also states that, for the
purposes of paragraph 92(1)(b) of the Public Service Staff
Relations Act, the agency is deemed to be designated pursuant to
subsection 92(4) of that act.
Why do we propose this amendment? Because, in its current
form, the agency would be a ``separate employer'' under the Public
Service Staff Relations Act, which means that some employees
would lose vested rights.
The purpose of this act is not to take anything away from public
servants, but to ensure a better integration of functions currently
being fulfilled by three different bodies.
This amendment is also in response to a request from the
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Given the
parliamentary procedure, should the amendment we discussed in
previous days be adopted, it would obviate the need for this
particular amendment.
I should point out that PIPS agrees with the view expressed by
the Public Service Alliance of Canada, except that it is asking that
the bill be amended to allow it to negotiate a number of issues that
are important to its members.
Again, the purpose of the bill is not to wrong public servants, but
to better serve the public from coast to coast.
If the government does not vote in favour of the amendments
being proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the result will be that
bargaining agents for the agency's future unionized employees will
not be able to continue to bargain in a certain number of areas.
These areas are as follows: organization of the public service,
assignment of duties to positions within the agency, and
classification, appointment, evaluation, promotion, demotion,
transfer, lay-off, and release of employees for other than
disciplinary reasons.
You can see, the whole House can see, that important rights,
substantial protection that is there for the majority of employees
under the Public Service Employment Act will no longer apply to
agency employees when the initial two-year transition period
comes to an end.
This is a situation that must be drawn to the attention of this
House. It was incumbent on the Bloc Quebecois to condemn this
situation because, I repeat, the law must not be used, directly or
indirectly, to tamper with the rights of public servants.
(1010)
We also have another amendment. The agency is deemed to be
included in the definition of ``federal undertaking'' in section 2 of
the Canada Labour Code, and that that act applies, with such
modifications as the circumstances require, to the agency and its
employees.
7504
We are proposing this additional amendment because, in its
present form, the agency will be a separate employer as defined
in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
I would also remind members that we are introducing this
amendment at the request of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
With respect to the alliance, the government unfortunately did not
take into account the legislative positions put forward by the unions
during consultations held by the government to determine the
agency's status. Workers whose positions must be transferred to the
new agency would lose benefits negotiated or integrated with the
National Joint Council. They would thus lose any benefits they had
under the work force adjustment directive. They would also lose
their protection with respect to staffing and classification.
You will understand that, in order to resolve this situation, and at
the same time allow it to improve conditions for its members, the
alliance is therefore asking that the government designate the
agency as covered by the Canada Labour Code. The Bloc
Quebecois, through its amendment, is backing the alliance's
request because it is a reasonable one. It meets these criteria: that
bills passed should be for, not against, improving the well-being of
public servants.
I hope the House will also be receptive to this amendment, which
is so obviously justified, as you can see.
In the few minutes I have left, I will move on to another
amendment in the same block, this one affecting clause 13, lines 30
to 34. This amendment follows on, of course, from the previous
one by the Professional Institute of the Public Service, which also
recommended this one to us.
More specifically, the employees of the agency are to be
appointed pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act, and not,
under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, as the bill reads at
present.
We are bringing in this new amendment because, as it stands at
present-again we must remember that the agency will be a
separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and
employees must not lose vested rights.
What the Professional Institute of the Public Service is calling
for is along the same lines as the Alliance, except that the latter also
wants to amend the bill in a way that would allow it to negotiate a
number of important matters for its members.
Again, if our amendment were not supported by this House,
there are a number of important matters which could no longer be
negotiated by the agency on behalf of its future unionized staff.
In short, once again the situation is worthy of the attention of this
House, and we are pointing it out because we believe proper
protection is in the best interests of future employees.
I know my time is very nearly up, so I will conclude by bringing
to the attention of members that, generally speaking, this bill rather
freely opens the door to possible political appointments to the
board and staff of this agency. It would be regrettable, you will
agree, if we were to end up with a bill which might tempt a political
party in power to take advantage of a number of openings to
exercise what is generally called patronage.
(1015)
When human beings are involved there is always the risk of
human weaknesses, which is why I feel it is the duty of this House
to ensure that such patronage could not be possible, by quite simply
making the appropriate changes to the bill to prevent any
possibility of political appointments by the party in power.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief on group No. 6. This
group of amendments deals with the staffing of the agency. It
would make contracting and privatization of inspection services
very difficult.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House some of the
concerns we heard about this aspect of the bill in committee from
people in the food processing industry.
Currently there is a tremendous amount of food inspection in
some parts of the food processing industry. Maybe this is the wrong
term to use, but we could almost say that there is overkill with
respect to inspection. I was talking to the manager of a meat
processing facility who said that the federal government insists that
28 inspectors be on site to do the inspection of meat in that facility.
He told me that a facility of the same size in the United States that
processes the same amount of food would require three federal
inspectors. Perhaps three is not enough, but I would think that 28 is
far too many.
I also talked to someone in the food processing business who
said that the more federal inspectors there are looking over
employees' shoulders the less diligence there is to ensure they are
processing safe and healthy food. It is really not their responsibility
to ensure the food is of good quality and safe for human
consumption. There is an inspector looking over their shoulder
every step of the way. If anything is not properly inspected it is not
the responsibility of the employees of the processing plant. The
focus is on the inspectors who have failed to do their job.
Many processing plants hire their own inspectors. They feel it is
important to have their own inspectors on site to ensure quality
7505
control and to ensure that a healthy product is being put on the
shelves for Canadians to eat. Therefore, in some cases there is
duplication.
Bill C-60 would move employees from three departments into
one federal food inspection agency. Those employees are
guaranteed two years of employment whether they are needed or
not. This draws attention to the fact that the government is not
looking at taxpayers' concerns. It is only looking at maintaining the
bureaucracy at its present size. It is totally ruling out any
possibility of privatization or downsizing of inspection services
within the guidelines that are required to ensure safe and healthy
food for Canadians. I point that out to the House as another glaring
omission or failure of the Liberal government, one of many that has
come to the attention of Canadians.
We oppose motion No. 14 in group No. 6 because we think it will
make contracting out or privatizing of inspection services in the
future very difficult. Several of these motions are unnecessary,
such as motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17.
We support motion No. 18. It would give the standing committee
the power to review the agency's appointment process. My Bloc
colleague reiterated what I said before in this debate. Patronage is a
problem which needs to be addressed.
Finally, we oppose motion No. 36. It requires the government to
develop a code of conduct for the agency's employees before the
bill comes into force. While that is not a bad thing, we do not
believe it is necessary in this piece of legislation.
(1020)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when my
colleagues asked me to speak to Bill C-60, I looked at the bill and
at the work done by our research group.
I was struck particularly by the motions in group 6, by what my
colleagues had said earlier, and also by the fact that we cannot deny
our past. I am a former member of the labour movement and proud
of it. I worked for the CNTU for 20 years. Every time the Liberal
government introduces a bill like this one, I think it clearly
contradicts what the red book says about creating jobs, jobs, jobs,
and also what the ministers are saying today.
These ministers often claim they are the workers' friend. They
keep telling us they are on the workers' side. This bill shows once
again, as I said this week, that with friends like these, workers do
not need enemies. The message is clear.
When we talk about vested rights in the labour movement and
when we talk about bargaining power and negotiating on equal
terms, these are important concepts. However, we do not find them
in this bill. On the contrary, the government wants to axe vested
rights. It wants to axe bargaining power. It wants to axe working
conditions.
I think this is the logic of a lunatic. What is the point? What is
the point of telling federal employees today to do something else,
to give up some of their working conditions? These people are
getting poorer and poorer. They are losing their jobs. They are
often forced to get together in groups and bid on jobs from the
government. In the end, we are seeing a loss of jobs and a loss of
working conditions. All this means there is less money in the
system. It does not take long to find out why the system is in such
bad shape.
That is exactly what will happen when the food inspection
agency is established under Bill C-60. You can hear the agency
saying: ``I am different from other employers. I am a separate
employer. I do not want to be subject to the Public Service Staff
Relations Act''. Really? And so what happens? Workers lose and
are worse off than they were before.
In my riding there are several abattoirs where a number of
veterinaries and inspectors for Health Canada and Agriculture
Canada are employed. Later on, these people are going to come in
my office and tell me: ``Mr. Bachand, we are losing our terms and
conditions of employment. What can you do for us?'' They are
lucky to have a member from the Bloc Quebecois who is prepared
to listen. There have been several instances where the government
intervened and people wanted to see their Liberal members, but
found the door locked or were met by the police.
We never call the police, not for federal employees, not for the
employees at the Saint-Jean military base and not for the
Agriculture Canada employees at Saint-Jean. We invite them in and
we listen to them. These people know that, if a Liberal member
were sitting in the chair of the member for Saint-Jean, they would
not be listened to carefully.
That is one reason we try to defend them as best we can. I think
there are more important things to do than for them to say they are
making progress, that there is a party line and that they are obliged
to do what the minister says. ``You know, everyone must make an
effort''. We here this regularly from federal members and
ministers.
Finally, along with the agency comes a whole patronage haven.
Think about it: the governor in council appoints the president, who
appoints the executive vice-president. Names are already being
proposed, and the agency has not yet even been set up. Soon, we
will know in advance who will be on the agency's board of
directors.
Naturally, if the governor in council makes the appointments, it
will not be on the basis of competence. It will most likely be on the
7506
basis of colour. Blue will be put to one side in order to intensify the
red. This is what is likely to happen.
The Liberals' palette of colours is very limited: it is red, red, red.
In all likelihood, we will end up with a president appointed by the
governor in council, that is, cabinet-a red president and a red
vice-president. And the rest follows. Then there is an advisory
board. The bill provides, furthermore, that the president will
choose the employees.
(1025)
Once again, the red chain forms. The president and the
vice-president are appointed by cabinet. When the president goes
to hire, what will the first question be: What party do you belong
to? Competence is being set aside along with working conditions.
The aims of the Bloc Quebecois' amendments are to bring this bill
a little more into line and make it a little less arbitrary.
It is also the aim of the unions to put an end to employer tyranny.
In this case, the employer is the federal government, and things are
going even further. The public service is being set aside so that now
appointments will be almost political.
Therefore, the amendments proposed by the Bloc are essential. I
would ask the Liberal ministers and members on the other side of
the House to better co-ordinate their words and their actions. We in
the Bloc are fed up with hearing them say: ``We are the workers'
good friends''. However, in action, in the legislative agenda and in
fact, they are not the workers' friends. The very opposite is true.
I think the workers' friends are on this side of the House, and not
the other, and this is why we are making amendments that will add
an element of civility to the inspection and that will ensure the
agency is not appointed by the governor in council and cabinet. We
do not want the agency to be all red. We want a competent agency,
which is the reason for the amendments by the Bloc Quebecois. I
hope the government will listen to reason on this bill.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to the
hon. members who are surprised to see me speak on this issue, I
should point out that there are several reasons for my doing so,
particularly the fact that, as a child, I lived next door to a
slaughterhouse. As was customary at the time, during the summer,
the doors were open and the work was performed in front of us
kids. We would watch operations with great curiosity, sometimes
with awe and other feelings I will not get into. It was a small
operation and, in those days, the workers cared about the health of
their customers, their fellow citizens.
Times have changed and, today, slaughterhouses are fairly large
operations owned by very large corporations that may or may not
be as acutely aware of their impact on public health today and in
the future.
First of all, we could look at why the federal government had to
get involved when Quebec had already taken its responsibilities.
There is a certain sensitivity because of what was called the tainted
meat scandal, which set off a public scare that lasted several
months. It is clear that, over this whole issue of ensuring meat
quality and making sure it is properly handled, there is, in Quebec,
a sensitivity that could certainly be described as distinct and which
explains why this issue is important to the Bloc.
We have every reason to be extremely concerned when we see in
Group No. 6-and that is why we are proposing amendments to the
contrary-that the agency is excluded from the Public Service of
Canada Act and that the regulations under which the independence
of inspectors used to be guaranteed will be twisted around and,
contrary to what our colleagues are saying, they are very likely to
be strongly profit-driven.
(1030)
Inspections in any area, be it occupational health and safety or
public health, require that those who conduct them on our behalf be
assured they are totally and completely free to do what they have to
do when stocks must be rejected or when meat or any by-product
that does not meat quality requirements must be destroyed. As a
result, someone who is hired for a fixed term of service and does
not have the full protection that a collective agreement should
provide in this respect would be likely to give in to direct and
indirect pressure.
This is a very serious matter. Because it is debated at the end of
the session, some people may think it is a minor matter. It is not.
Just think of the tragedy that struck England. I am not suggesting
that is the way we are headed, I am simply saying that the quality of
the job done in inspecting meat and of the procedures used in
slaughterhouses is closely linked to health and that health is not an
area in which we can afford to take chances.
I hope members opposite will vote with us to guarantee this
indispensable independence for those who conduct inspections.
This means that inspectors cannot be removed, or be the object of
monetary or other forms of pressure. Their work is already difficult
because of a possible self-censorship in these hard times.
Therefore, it is extremely important that the amendments
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois be accepted, that common sense
prevail, and that members opposite realize that, while it may not
have affected the other provinces, Quebec-perhaps because of its
history and even culture-went through a particular experience
with the issue of raw milk cheese, which is why we would like to
have control over the inspection of meat but, if this is not possible,
we want to at least make sure inspectors can enjoy such
independence. In our opinion, this implies that they be protected by
iron-clad collective agreements.
7507
Members of this House should realize that this is clearly a case
where it would be a definite asset to have job security, grievance
rights, and the guarantee of working without being hassled. This
is a plus that must be protected by the party in office, otherwise
it will be responsible for the major inconveniences that could
result. Since we would be the ones paying for these
inconveniences, we urge the party in office to support our
agreements.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the Bloc Quebecois's
amendments to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, because
the Liberals seem to have nothing to say about this bill.
(1035)
Why is this? Because they have a short term vision. They are
prepared to set aside Canada's reputation in the food inspection
sector in order to be able to appoint their friends to the good
positions and to control the entire staffing process. Since this
government is unable to create jobs, it feels it must at least find
some way of hiring its friends and dispensing a bit of patronage.
That is why the Liberals have nothing to say today. Nobody is
rising to speak on the Liberal majority side. We do not hear a peep
out of them. We do not know whether they have anything to say in
defence of their bill.
I would also like to say that, in the area of food inspection, it is
very important that the people who will be working for the
proposed agency be completely free of all forms of influence.
There are large companies that are major stakeholders in the
food sector and that are in a position to influence political parties,
so it is very important to ensure that the agency will be
independent. When inspectors do their rounds and make decisions,
they must be able to do so with full knowledge of the facts and
without undue influence.
The way political parties are funded in Canada, with large
companies like Canada Packers being allowed to make
contributions of $10,000, $20,000 or $50,000, when the time
comes to declare a facility unsanitary, the telephones may well start
ringing.
If the agency is not independent of the government because its
president has been appointed by the government, there is a chance
that inspectors may be prevented from doing their work properly.
There will be the same kind of difficulties as in the past.
It is already very difficult in the present context to do this work. I
recognize the quality of the people working in this difficult field.
Some things have important economic impacts. Let us get our act
together now so as not to add the additional burden of political
partisanship that the government's bill is paving the way for. When
the time comes to make appointments to the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency, some difficult choices will be compounded by
having to consider the political affiliation of candidates.
We have already seen this sort of thing with other boards, in
other sectors such as immigration, and parole. A number of years
ago, people were appointed to positions simply because of their
political affiliation. This always creates problems, because
sometimes the calibre of decisions made is adversely affected.
Let us recall some things that have happened in the past. It would
perhaps be a good thing for the government to look into the Bloc
Quebecois amendment to clause 93 more thoroughly. The purpose
of this amendment is to prevent the act from coming into force
until a code of conduct and ethics to govern the appointment of
employees by the Agency has been prepared jointly by the unions
and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. In this way, the
rules of the game would be very clear and public, and no political
interference with the appointment of employees would be possible.
The objective is to do away, for once and for all, with the
patronage which could very easily set in within this agency, given
the pyramid of appointments set out in the bill. I believe that the
appointments set out in the bill for the management of the agency
make this bill sufficiently partisan already. Now they want to take
away the employees' present autonomy and independence which
help build Canada's reputation in the area of food inspection.
Although inspectors may sometimes be perceived as a little
inflexible, they are gaining a reputation for quality and honesty.
The government is taking a backward step by sacrificing, not
necessarily to privatization, but also by trying to lay a path to
enable it to appoint people just about everywhere.
If the act is adopted as it stands, I predict that Canada's food
inspection system will have taken on a new image before 10 years
have passed. Things will be like they used to be before with the
harbourmaster appointments. Food inspection appointments will
be the same. We will see a return to the old system, where
everybody in the agency changes when the government changes.
(1040)
This kind of situation is entirely inappropriate in an area like
food inspection, where we need some degree of independence and a
reputation for quality. Decisions must be made sensibly and
objectively, not based on the political affiliation of the appointee.
In a way, this would be very insulting to those who have
performed these duties in the past. The bill provides no guarantee
that incumbents who have performed their duties for 10, 15 or 20
years with the utmost competence will keep their positions. A
choice will be made, and since there are no objective criteria, we
have no guarantee that in the process, this will not be an occasion to
7508
settle old grievances, as has been known to happen in the past in
certain organizations.
Granted, this could also be an opportunity to get rid of people
who are perhaps less qualified, but some very competent people
could be ousted as well. In the inspection field, someone who does
his job conscientiously, as well as his immediate superiors, may be
subject to all kinds of pressure. If he has job security, if he has a
guarantee that his job will not be on the line whenever he makes a
decision, he will do a much better job and stand up for the
consumer, for those who in the end will purchase the products.
In my opinion, this bill to establish the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency is based on a principle that may be attractive to
federalists, and I am referring to the fact that instead of the three
intervenors we had in the past, the government finally decided to
keep only one, but it overlooked one thing. The provinces already
have their own food inspection systems. And as we saw in the case
of raw milk cheese, there are also a number of cultural differences
between the various parts of Canada.
I mentioned another example connected with food inspection,
when a disease is found in a herd of cattle or sheep or whatever. In
the past, and this applied to sheep, all animals liable to contract the
disease were slaughtered. This worked very well in Quebec, where
herds of sheep consist of around 200 or 300 head. The practice, the
regulations were changed a year and a half ago, following
representations by producers in western Canada. This is
understandable, because they have thousands of animals in each
herd.
However, now they use quarantine. If a producer has 200 or 300
animals, putting them in quarantine is the equivalent of killing his
business. Is there no way to give the provinces jurisdiction in such
cases, because respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces would
make for an inspection system that would reflect local economic
conditions.
The same applies to the fisheries. There is no single rule that
works for all Canada-wide systems. We have always found that
``wall to wall'' does not give satisfactory results. Now, when you
add the variable-the possibility of political patronage, political
influence in decisions-the regulations and the operating standards
will become very malleable. This cannot be if we are to ensure that
food is properly inspected in Canada in the future.
Let us return to the underlying principles. Yes, let us try to
reduce the number of people involved. Yes, let us respect
provincial jurisdiction. However, most importantly, let us give
those who have to do the job room to manoeuvre, enough
autonomy to make the right choices and to stand up to business
when they have to intervene so that, in the end, in five or ten years,
Quebec's and Canada's food inspection system will continue to be
recognized internationally as one of the best in the world. In a
world where the scope of exports continues to grow, we must avoid
running the risk of crises or harming our producers in a few years'
time.
The winners are the producers and the consumers if inspectors
are autonomous in their decisions. I invite the Liberal majority,
which is silent this morning, to listen to our arguments and to
accept these amendments, particularly the one I was defending.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches by my hon.
colleagues with great interest. It is becoming clear to me that this is
an issue of great concern to all members of the official opposition,
the Bloc Quebecois, whether they come from a rural riding or an
urban riding on the island of Montreal, like the hon. member sitting
next to me. This is an issue of great concern not only to the people
of Quebec, but also to everyone in English Canada.
(1045)
As far as I am concerned, this is a bill I followed closely
because, as you probably know, the riding of Berthier-Montcalm
is a major producer of poultry, quails, ducks and pork. There are
therefore many slaughterhouses in our riding and this industry is
very important for the riding.
Just recently, in my capacity as the federal member for my
riding, I have had to fight quite hard to keep some slaughterhouses
open and particularly to have the one in Saint-Esprit reopened. I am
sure that you will see no objection to my saluting at this time the
people who have fought to have this slaughterhouse reopened and I
thank them because, as a result, 120 jobs were created and
investments amounting to some $7 million were made in the riding
of Berthier-Montcalm, all of this thanks to the support of the
community, the investors and the pork producers of the Lanaudière
region.
That being said, I gave these figures to show how important this
industry is, in Quebec in particular, because Quebec is a major
processor of raw material, be it the raw milk we have heard about
on the hill, poultry or pork. It is therefore very important to us to
have a bill dealing specifically with this industry, that meets the
specific, or distinct, needs of Quebecers. There too lies our
distinctiveness.
Unfortunately, I must say that Bill C-60 before us this morning
does not meet these objectives. I think this bill will not meet the
government's objective of facilitating the development of this
industry. Worse yet, it does not give any guarantee concerning the
whole inspection process. When there is no guarantee, one may be
less tempted to invest money. If the changes made to the rules of
the game are not very clear initially, investors will start asking
questions, especially in Quebec.
7509
Again in this area, Quebec is a distinct society, since we already
have a complete food inspection organization. The Government
of Quebec unified this whole field. If the Government of Canada
had followed through with the resolutions that were passed here
in this House, it would have done something about this. The
government, and especially the Prime Minister and the Deputy
Prime Minister, often remind us that a resolution was passed in
this House to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness. We in the
opposition say that this resolution was nothing but a smoke screen,
that it gives Quebec no additional jurisdiction and means nothing
to Quebecers.
The subject matter of this bill is really quite mundane. Food
inspection is not nearly as important as constitutional
matters-which does not mean it is not important. This bill should
have reflected the government's resolution recognizing Quebec's
distinctiveness, if it meant something, but it does not mean
anything. There is nothing in it to prove otherwise. This resolution
does not mean anything. Had it meant something, the bill we are
studying this morning would have contained a whole chapter
specifically for Quebec, as our distinctiveness extends to the food
inspection area. But the government did not do anything because
the resolution it adopted does not mean anything, and we will have
to remember that.
That being said, the group of amendments introduced by the
Bloc Quebecois is aimed at preventing patronage. Unfortunately,
``patronage'' and ``Liberal'' seem to be synonymous. After
condemning the Conservatives during the 1993 election campaign,
what are the Liberals doing today? The exact same thing.
(1050)
Perhaps the only difference-one must render unto Caesar what
belongs to Caesar-is that they may be doing it more intelligently
than the Conservatives. They hide what they are doing. They work
behind the scene. They give themselves nice little tailor-made laws
to disguise patronage. This is a case in point. Listen to this: the
government reserves the option to appoint the vice-chairman and
the 12 people who will sit on the committee. It is the government
that will decide who to appoint according to criteria about which
we know nothing so far.
Furthermore, nothing in the bill guarantees that the current
inspectors, who are doing a good job and seeing to the quality of
products offered to consumers, will be hired by the agency. If they
contribute to the coffers of the Liberal Party, maybe they will have
a better chance of working for the agency. This is what the
government is doing under the cover of law to ease their
conscience. But one needs to review this in detail in order to
understand.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, are open in the way we collect the
funds for our election campaigns, in the way we get our
funding-since it is public funding, we are open, we show our
books, we have nothing to hide-and we would like the
government to do the same in its laws regarding staffing in order to
avoid patronage and especially to force them to honour some of the
commitments in the famous red book.
During the 1993 election campaign-you may not remember it,
Mr. Speaker, the government may not remember it either-there
were promises of transparency, integrity, ethics, non partisan
politics, appointments according to predetermined criteria, should
the Liberals form the next government.
Today, we are giving them the opportunity to be consistent for
the first time in three years-it should not be too much to ask-and
support the amendments we are proposing since in fact the thrust of
these amendments is transparency. I am referring to Motions Nos
18 and 36 moved by Bloc Quebecois agriculture critic, the member
for Frontenac, seconded by a member who has his constituents'
interests at heart, I mean the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
It might be worth reading them so that people who are listening
can see that what we are proposing makes sense, and that the
Liberal government is breaking another one of its election
promises, in terms of transparency this time. We are asking the
government to include the following requirement in the bill:
One year after the Agency is established, the President shall provide, for study, to
such committee of the House of commons as is designated or established to consider
agricultural matters, a detailed report respecting the criteria used in making
appointments under subsection (1).
We want the government to clearly state the criteria used to hire
employees. We want a level playing field for everyone, be it a
member of the Liberal Party of Canada or not. Is this clear enough,
is it not?
I believe the Liberal government should support this
amendment. I believe the government opposite will pass this
amendment, if it wants to follow through on its famous red book's
promise of transparency. No doubt it slipped their mind. I am sure
the government simply forgot to include such a provision, as it
happens sometimes at the last minute when bills are being
prepared. We are giving them the opportunity to keep their own
election promises by supporting this amendment.
The other amendment is similar. Its purpose is the same: equal
opportunity for everybody who might want a job in the agency and
all the inspectors or employees already working for that
department.
(1055)
I see my time is up. It goes by so fast. I will speak to the other
groups later on because, as I said earlier, this is a subject of great
concern for me, given its importance for my constituents.
7510
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The questions on the
motions in Group No. 6 are deemed to have been put, in accordance
with the order made yesterday.
Accordingly, the House may proceed with the debate on Group
No. 7. Motions Nos. 19 and 20 are deemed to have been moved and
seconded.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are three or four minutes remaining before
statements by members. This means I will rise again after oral
question period, but I want to start dealing with the amendments
moved by the Bloc Quebecois on clause 16, which in fact is Group
No. 7 of amendments to Bill C-60.
As my colleagues have been saying since we started our
speeches, we see there is a guiding principle behind this bill, which
is the establishment of an iron-clad patronage system. We will be
able to show this also with clause 16, which will ensure the creation
of an agency that will have lost all its credibility even before it is
set up. People will not trust the work done by the employees of this
agency. Who will be the real losers in this bad decision based only
on political partisanship? It will be the people in general, because,
if we do not trust the work done by the agency's employees, we will
not trust the inspection and this will have disastrous consequences.
The real question we must ask at this stage is whether the Bloc
Quebecois' concern I just mentioned is also a concern among the
people.
Let me say that I am very proud of my colleagues from different
ridings, urban ones, such as the hon. member for Mercier, who just
spoke to this bill, semi-urban ones, such as my colleague from
Saint-Jean, or rural ones like my own. I am thinking more
specifically of the hon. member for Richelieu, who is known to be
close to his constituents. If there is a member in this House whom
we can say is close to people, it is the member for Richelieu.
You are indicating that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. I
will conclude and resume after question period.
But allow me finish what I was saying in praise of the member
for Richelieu. I was saying he is close to people, he is even perhaps
the equivalent of the worker-priest in Montreal, a few years ago,
who drove a taxi and whom we used to call ``the Good Lord in a
taxi''. Using the example of the Montreal ``Good Lord in a taxi'',
we could say the hon. member for Richelieu is Mr. Democracy. If a
member like my colleague from Richelieu condemns this bill, it is
because the whole population of Quebec is condemning it.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being eleven o'clock,
the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
7510
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to pay tribute to the Northern Lights Festival in Owen
Sound.
The festival is a spectacular display of lights along the banks of
Sydenham River in the heart of the city in celebration of Christmas
and the holiday season.
This year the festival has been been expanded to reach the inner
harbour and now includes two ferry boats, the Cheecheeman and
the Nindayama. The boats and trees along the harbour and river
banks are trimmed with Christmas lights which shimmer and are
reflected in the inner harbour waters.
The Northern Lights Festival is a volunteer effort that is
generously supported by businesses and the people from Owen
Sound and the surrounding area. It is a major tourist attraction
drawing busloads of people from Bruce-Grey and all of
southwestern Ontario.
I congratulate all the volunteers and participants who have made
this project such a success. The lights symbolize their hard work
and dedication to the festival and remind us all of the true spirit of
Christmas.
* * *
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week Canadians saw once again how the Prime
Minister is compared to a box of assorted chocolates: You have no
idea what you are going to get. Now it seems that the Minister of
the Environment wants to be one of those assorted chocolates. His
legislation may look okay, but watch out for the inside.
This past Tuesday the environment minister refused to commit
to conducting a full environmental assessment of the proposed
testing of U.S. plutonium in the Candu reactors even though he is
required to do so under his own Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. As the law states, an environmental assessment is
required if a federal authority gets involved. He said we should be
cautious about plutonium but yesterday his party voted against a
Reform Party bill that would ban the importation of nuclear waste
into Canada.
The Prime Minister made an election promise to abolish the
GST, then broke faith. The environment minister promised to
7511
protect the environment, and then he does not act. The minister is
great at introducing legislation, but then he will not use the law.
With the Reform Party, every time you open the box, you know it
is a fresh start that really satisfies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Prime Minister appointed Lise Thibault lieutenant governor of
Quebec.
A motion was passed by the Quebec National Assembly
requesting more of a say in the appointment of the lieutenant
governor, but the Prime Minister chose to ignore it. Once again, the
Prime Minister of Canada is giving us an example of decentralized
federalism at its best.
Let it be clear that the Bloc Quebecois wants the position of
lieutenant governor to disappear, along with the Senate. The Bloc
Quebecois regards both of these as unnecessary, expensive and
outdated, a throwback to the colonial era.
These remarks concerning the function of lieutenant governor in
no way reflect on the dignity and great worth of Mrs. Thibault as a
person, and we welcome the appointment of a woman to that
position.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, four million
people use passenger rail service each year in Canada. They do so
because it is fast, efficient, curtails pollution and saves jobs.
Many of these four million people have sent small cards to the
government stating their wish for rail service to continue to be one
of their transportation options. Today I carried about 150 pounds of
these small cards to the Prime Minister's office to let him know of
their interest and intent.
I note that the red book spoke of implementing an infrastructure
investment program. Some railway people have produced position
papers showing that high speed rail, at speeds in excess of 300
kilometres an hour, is technically feasible since Canadian
companies are bidding on French and American contracts. High
speed rail could also improve air quality, public safety and is
economically and financially feasible.
It is time the government considered investing to bring about
improvements to Canada's infrastructure and to our way of life.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to commend the Minister of the Environment who this week tabled
legislation which will strengthen the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act known as CEPA.
One of the key elements of this new legislation is a stronger
emphasis on prevention, as the minister himself said, on being
proactive rather than reactive when it comes to reducing pollution
and controlling toxic substances.
As members know, Canada is known the world over for its
natural beauty and vast green areas. Canadians do not want this
reputation tarnished. The increased focus on prevention contained
in the new legislation is a sign that this government is listening to
the concerns of Canadians and is working to safeguard the
environment.
* * *
Mr. Janko PeriG (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through
strategic investments in research and development, COM DEV
International of Cambridge has established itself as an
international leader in the design and production of equipment for
satellite payloads. Eighty per cent of its annual revenues are from
exports which demonstrates an ability to compete in the global
economy. It illustrates how Canadians with vision can succeed.
(1105)
Founded in Canada and Canadian owned, it has grown from a
small start-up company to one which employs over 1,000 people
with facilities in Canada, Europe and Asia. Its equipment has been
chosen to fly on over 300 satellites. Its customers include NASA
and all major commercial prime contractors. In 1996 alone, COM
DEV created over 200 new jobs.
COM DEV is Canada's premier supplier of satellite payload
equipment. This business success story needs to be recognized.
COM DEV continues to boldly face the future with continued R
and D, capital investment and expansion into new markets. We
must all work together to help companies such as COM DEV to
continue to succeed and generate economic wealth for Canada.
Merry Christmas.
* * *
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, imagine
the efficiency of a program that can feed breakfast to upwards of
200 children five days a week throughout the school year at a cost
of 30 cents per child per day. Imagine the tremendous loss to the
7512
children serviced by this program if it were to close down due to
funding cuts.
I would like to acknowledge the outstanding service the
Thistletown Community Breakfast Club provides to the children of
Etobicoke North. The breakfast club at Greenholm Junior Public
School provides a hearty breakfast for 200 children each morning
before class.
The link between proper nutrition and educational performance
is well documented. When children are preoccupied by hunger,
they cannot concentrate on reading or arithmetic. This is a
dangerous lost opportunity for both the child and for society as a
whole.
Through the efforts of the small staff and committed volunteers
at the Thistletown Community Breakfast Club, children from low
income families are able to start their day in a positive way with
healthy food and a chance to interact with peers and volunteers who
care.
Both the mission and the financial operation of this program are
impressive. I fully support the efforts of the Thistletown
Community Breakfast Club. I urge those who control the funding
for this essential service to continue to support this important
program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
morning, at a press conference I attended, the Association
coopérative d'économie familiale de l'Outaouais announced that
more than 40 consumer associations in Quebec had just formed a
coalition to ask that legislation be passed to cap credit card interest
rates.
It is interesting to note how many associations have come
forward in support of the Outaouais ACEF campaign and how
quickly they did so. These are associations from every region of
Quebec, including a large number of co-operative home economics
associations, the Service budgétaire et communautaire de
Jonquière, the Carrefour d'entraide Drummond, the diocese of
Gatineau-Hull, Logemen'occupe and many more.
These associations support the coalition of federal members of
Parliament demanding that banks and stores lower the interest rates
on their credit cards.
As a member of the executive of this coalition of federal MPs
and on behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, I want to
congratulate these associations and their volunteers and to thank
them for their support on this issue.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to ask the Minister of Finance to implement a rebate program
to help seniors on fixed incomes, low income individuals and
families, and farmers cope with a sudden and sharp increase in the
price of propane of up to 120 per cent since last August.
This program would rebate part of the huge increase in the price
of propane and would be funded by the increased amount of money
this government will receive through corporate taxes due to the
windfall profits of the manufacturers. Furthermore, I would
propose that this program have a sunset clause dated for the spring
of 1997 when the supply of propane should be back to normal.
Something must be done to help these individuals who are
suffering great hardship due to this huge increase in the cost of
home heating.
This government claims to be the saviour of the poor and the
downtrodden. Let it demonstrate compassion now by
implementing such a program.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, more than
one in five people on Earth lives in poverty. That is over one billion
people who are unable to provide for their own basic needs and the
needs of their family.
In February 1997 parliamentarians from around the world will
attend the first ever Microcredit summit in Washington, D.C. This
conference has been organized to launch an important global fight
against poverty.
The Microcredit summit will be the first stage in a 10-year
campaign to reach 100 million of the world's poorest families by
the year 2005. The goal is to provide these people with access to
Microcredit for self-employment and in the process, provide the
opportunity to free themselves from poverty and live with dignity.
(1110)
This campaign targets the poor in industrialized countries and
the developing countries of the third world.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Results Canada for
their hard work in organizing the Microcredit summit. Their
commitment to ending world poverty is truly commendable.
7513
[Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week, three postal workers came to see me, to complain that the
post office would no longer deliver flyers and other mail items
currently handled by part-time workers.
These workers earn a little over $7 per hour. Most of them are
single mothers, people with disabilities and immigrants, and this is
their only job. If they lose it, these 10,000 workers will have to rely
on unemployment insurance or social assistance.
[English]
These postal workers were supposed to be hired by the private
companies that are taking over the distribution of the ad mail.
Instead these companies are advertising for children nine years of
age or over to take over the service. Some advertisements even
read: ``If you-are old enough to read this notice-''. The pay
would be minimal, like one-quarter of a cent per flyer delivered.
It is a sad situation which has brought much sorrow to the people
losing the jobs and to their families. I hope that these jobs can be
saved for the good of the workers and their families.
Happy holidays, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
recognize the work of a company in my riding of Oxford.
The Principal Pipe Organ Company of Woodstock was asked two
years ago to dismantle the Dominion Carillon in the Peace Tower.
Twenty-one of the smaller bells, the keyboard and most of the
remaining components were safely stored in the basement of the
Confederation Building.
The company spent five weeks bringing everything back to the
tower, reinstalling and adjusting the carillon. The clock was
cleaned, repaired and adjusted. The Westminster chime and hour
strike mechanisms and the clock movements were replaced.
Thanks to the hard work of Principal Pipe Organ we are once
again able to hear the wonderful sounds of the Dominion Carillon.
On behalf of all members of this House, I would like to
congratulate Principal Pipe Organ for their excellent work.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thanks in
part to the pressure exerted by the official opposition, we learned
yesterday that Radio Canada International was granted a last
minute reprieve for another year.
Recently, in Ottawa, the Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed a
group of people involved in foreign policy and in the
communications and computer industries. The minister then
proposed an international information strategy to allow Canada to
exert a political, economic and cultural influence in the context of
globalization.
The government is making the broadcast of Canadian culture and
values a priority in its foreign policy. According to the minister, we
must find a way to put our new technologies and expertise at the
service of our country abroad, and to promote Canada throughout
the world.
However, some consistency is required. If we are to keep open
Canada's window on the world, it is essential to ensure the long
term survival of Radio Canada International.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.):
'Twas the night of the Town Hall and all through the House,
All the Liberals cringed as Canadians groused.
The Prime Minister stammered, then denied his own words,
As he tried to defend the absurdly absurd.
``I never did say that,'' he said to the crowd,
While the lady who asked him was gasping out loud.
``I never said kill, or abolish or scrap'',
And the people who listened thought he had snapped.
``I have some advice'' said the leader with pluck,
``If you don't have a job, you can rely on blind luck.''
Then he screwed up his anger and foamed at the lips,
As he blamed it on God, and on tapes and on slips.
Then out in the country there arose such a clatter,
The Prime Minister's handlers asked: ``What is the matter?''
They pulled down the blinds, turned the lights way down low,
Then sprang to the TV to replay the show.
And what to their wondering eyes should appear,
But the truth, which is something they've never held dear.
So they slumped in their chairs and they watched the assembled,
Endure the sight of a Prime Minister as he boldly dissembled.
7514
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is as Prime Minister does.
* * *
(1115 )
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, every year drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of
death, injury, heartbreak and destruction. On average over four
people are killed every day as a result of alcohol related vehicle
accidents. That is why I would like to pay tribute today to the
hardworking people at Mothers Against Drunk Driving, sometimes
known as MADD.
MADD's mission is to stop drunk driving and support victims of
violent crime. The local MADD chapters transform individual
experiences of both concerned citizens and victims into activism
for the public good. These committed volunteers are brought
together in pursuit of their shared goal: preventing further
casualties.
One of these committed workers is Mrs. Joan Hemsworth, a
special constituent of mine who is working hard to establish a
MADD chapter in Perth county. I salute her for her efforts to bring
the good work of MADD to Perth county. I encourage my
constituents to lend their support to Joan for this worthy clause.
To all Canadians this holiday, I urge you not to drink and drive.
_____________________________________________
7514
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has had to face some sharp criticism
this week, not just in the House, but also during a television
broadcast, in the course of which he was questioned by members of
the public. They reminded the Prime Minister that, during the last
election campaign, he had promised to scrap the GST, something
he denied. But the Prime Minister was seen and heard on Toronto's
CFRB in August 1993 saying, and I quote: ``Yes, I will scrap the
GST''.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally admit that the Prime
Minister made such a statement, so that we are not forced to
conclude that some look-alike played a dirty trick on him, because
we all know that the Prime Minister definitely did not tell a lie?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the member is quoting from an interview given by the
Prime Minister on CFRB on August 26. I would like to put the
quotation in context by giving it in its entirety.
[English]
He said: ``Yes, I will abolish it, but I need the money. It is taking
$15 billion and I will have to collect another $15 billion. So you go
and sit down in a very civilized way and say to the provinces that
the poor small businesses have items with federal tax, other items
with provincial tax, or both, or sometimes none. So we have to
clean up that mess and produce $15 billion''.
[Translation]
I think the member should at least be honest enough to quote the
Prime Minister in context.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the most honest people are the ones capable of supplying
their own answers to questions put to them, instead of relying on a
finance minister who admitted to having made an honest mistake.
The Prime Minister did not conduct the last election campaign
on his own. He did it with a team, which was elected with a
majority, except in Quebec. The Minister of Finance admitted that
it was an honest mistake; the Deputy Prime Minister resigned
because she thought she had understood, along with many other
people, that the Prime Minister had promised to scrap the GST, and
this was the Minister of Finance's understanding as well, because
he said it was an honest mistake. If that was not his understanding,
there is an inconsistency, because he said it was a mistake. So, this
whole business is certainly confusing.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain that the Minister of
Finance said that it was an honest mistake, that she resigned, that
everyone understood the same thing, except the Prime Minister,
who claims he did not say, or did not think he said that? We would
like to understand these three versions, his version, her version and
the version of the gentleman who is not answering this morning.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is well aware that, when I made the statement here in
the House, I did so for the government.
(1120)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, that is an even bigger problem.
I am pleased to hear the Minister of Finance, who speaks on
behalf of the government, being so honest, but those of us who took
Politics 101 always understood that the Prime Minister was part of
the government. He is therefore speaking on behalf of the Prime
Minister if he is speaking on behalf of the government. He is
therefore saying, on behalf of the Prime Minister: ``It was an
honest mistake''. That is not what the Prime Minister is saying. The
more versions we hear, the less we understand. You need a strong
7515
ego to be in politics. Every politician knows this, but what you
really need most is a very large amount of humility.
Would the Finance Minister promise to advise the Prime
Minister to show a little more humility, and above all, to have the
wisdom to admit his mistake, honest or not?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat.
Here in this House-and the Prime Minister happened to be
here- I was speaking for the government. When a minister speaks
in the House, he does so for the government. I gave the
circumstances, and I made the statement.
Once again, I think that we should look at what the Prime
Minister said during the election campaign, even in the interview
cited by the member. The Prime Minister said, in English:
[English]
We will look at other alternatives. All sorts of systems are being
proposed. We wanted to take the time to sit down with the
provinces. That is what we did. We wanted to listen to business
people. That is what we did. We wanted to listen to citizens. That is
what the Prime Minister said and that is what we did.
[Translation]
That is what we did. The House finance committee took two and
a half years to look at 20 options. In the end, they heard from small
and medium size businesses, those that create the most jobs, and
we did what they wanted to do, which was to institute a process for
creating a harmonized tax, which is much simpler and more
effective when it comes to job creation.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we do indeed have a big problem, as my colleague, the
hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has pointed out, because
the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are both members
of the same government, claim to speak on behalf of the
government, but are not saying the same things. We are in trouble
here, it makes no sense.
During the 1993 campaign, the Prime Minister said, and I quote,
``We will scrap the GST''. Yet this week he informs us that
``scrap'', when translated into French, becomes
``harmoniser''-harmonize.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he explain to us
why it will cost the federal government $1 billion to scrap the GST
in the maritimes, when harmonizing it in Quebec cost him nothing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is well aware that, when fundamental changes
occur in a province or in a region of the country, it is the
responsibility, the duty, of the federal government to help that
province or region to adjust. We have, moreover, done just that on
many occasions for Quebec. We have done so on many occasions
for the western provinces.
We made an offer to the provinces which would have sustained a
loss of revenue as a result of harmonization. We offered to help
those provinces. The ones eligible were the Atlantic provinces,
Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The provinces which were not
eligible under the criteria were Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and
British Columbia. The three Atlantic provinces accepted the offer.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it really takes a lot of courage for the Minister of Finance
to defend the totally undefendable position of the Prime Minister.
He has my total admiration.
In another vein, we were speaking of the provinces just now.
According to Quebec Minister of Finance Bernard Landry, Quebec
would be entitled to $2 billion in compensation for harmonizing its
sales tax with the federal GST.
Will the Minister of Finance respond favourably to Quebec's
demand for compensation, or will he give Quebecers proof that
they are left footing the bill for a bad campaign promise?
(1125)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have already responded to the hon. member's question, and I have
already responded to Mr. Landry: we have offered compensation to
the provinces which sustained losses. Quebec did not. Ontario will
not. The same goes for Alberta and British Columbia.
I do not think the hon. member would want me to offer
compensation to provinces which did not sustain a loss. That would
make no sense.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
dancing gives new meaning to the words revenue neutral. I cannot
believe what I am hearing today.
``Scrap, kill and abolish the GST''. That is what the Prime
Minister promised Canadians in the last election. That is he
promised the House Commons in May 1994 and that is what he
promised his own caucus evidently. We have the tapes and the tapes
do not lie. Now we have the eye witness account and proof from the
member for York South-Weston.
I ask this question once again because we still do not have an
answer. Will the Prime Minister admit that he broke it and he blew
it? Fess up.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every time I heard the Prime Minister deal with the question of the
7516
GST, he put it within the context of a government that was unable
to give up $15 billion in revenue.
The Prime Minister made it very clear it was crucial to sit down
with the provinces and come up with a simplified system that
would work. What the Prime Minister said was what this
government did.
It put in place a House of Commons finance committee that went
across the country for two and one-half years. It looked at 20
alternatives. At the end of the piece those who were creating jobs,
the small and medium size business community, said to us: ``We
would like to see a harmonized tax. We want to see one tax auditor,
one set of tax forms''.
This government wants to create jobs, unlike the myth on the
other side. Basically that is what the small and medium sized
business community did and gave us a tax system that is going to
work.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think
it has been proved time and time again that the tax system is not
working. This minister has a nerve to try to blame this on the
provinces. It is just unbelievable.
This morning this same finance minister admitted to the Press
Club that the Liberals may have promised more than they could
actually deliver.
The finance minister has apologized twice now. Even the Deputy
Prime Minister has apologized once. What is the problem here?
Can the Prime Minister not admit that he has some shortcomings?
There is no great shame in that. Just say sorry.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the Canadian people would like to know this. Members of the
Reform Party were part of the finance committee that went across
the country. They said they supported the harmonized tax. In fact
Reform members said they would go beyond the harmonized tax
and would tax food and drugs. We said we would not do that.
How can the Reform Party stand up in the House and criticize the
harmonized sales tax when it is part and parcel of its policies?
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minority report said quite clearly that Reform would balance the
budget first. That is the first sentence in that report. That is the only
way that we can offer Canadians tax relief, by balancing the budget
first. Any government that brags about overspending $28 billion
can hardly be proud of its accomplishments.
The Prime Minister is the only person in this country who really
believes that he did not promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST.
Life must be pretty nice for the Prime Minister in his imaginary
world. It truly is a magic kingdom.
The finance minister has admitted that he has made a mistake.
The Deputy Prime Minister also did that. Why can the Prime
Minister not just swallow his pride and spit out his foot and simply
say sorry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
are most other industrial countries, Canada is going through
fundamental economic change as a result of the technological
evolution. As a result of the interdependence of global trade, as a
country we are doing very well.
The House of Commons ought to be debating the fundamental
issues of the day, yet what do we hear day after day? Reform Party
members stand up, totally disconnected from the reality of the
Canadian people and engage in personal attacks. They attack
minister after minister, member after member, because they are
unable to deal with the issues that concern Canadians.
Canadians want to talk about unemployment and how they can
get back to work. What Canadians want to talk about is the
preservation of their social programs. When will the Reform Party
wake up and smell the roses and understand that Canadians want
the House to deal with their problems?
* * *
(1130)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the space
agency.
Obviously things are out of kilter at the space agency. The
vice-president and financial comptroller was let go for doing his
job, because he criticized the dubious practices of senior
management of one of Canada's major research institutes. The
minister is taking the word only of those primarily involved, those
who are the subject of the allegations, in his inquiry where he
concluded that nothing happened.
How can the minister responsible for the space agency claim that
he fully investigated the allegations made by Mr. Rinaldi, the
former vice-president and financial comptroller, when he did not
even take the time to meet this person, who was dismissed for
refusing to countenance fraud.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question is based on false allegations. In any case,
public servants throughout the Government of Canada have lost
their jobs because of budget cuts.
7517
Some of them, no doubt, consider it unfair that they lost their
jobs. Some, including Mr. Rinaldi, have lodged a complaint
against the government. The court will decide if he is right or not.
I am not prepared to meet with every public servant who wants
to make a complaint.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think the minister responsible for the space agency
would do well to consult his former colleague at national defence,
because his scenario is strikingly similar to what he did, to the
cover up, and it could end up in the same place.
Mr. Rinaldi was definitely dismissed. A year and a half ago, he
filed a grievance. What did the government do? And why is Mr.
Rinaldi in court? Because the government is dragging him to court
to contest the arbitrator's jurisdiction. It will be a year and a half
when the federal court finally decides on the jurisdiction of the
grievance arbitrator. There are neverthess limits to misleading the
public, Mr. Minister. You are pretending arrogantly you do not
understand-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member knows
full well she must address her remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we know where arrogance leads,
do we not? How can the minister go on protecting his former
adviser, who has now become the president of the space agency,
when, if he assumed his responsibilities, he would call for an
outside inquiry to bring to light all these serious allegations
regarding the president of the space agency and his executive
vice-president, Mr. Desfossés?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us understand what the Bloc is asking here.
As I recall over a number of days of questions, it has asked for a
public inquiry on three issues. Bloc members complain that a
secretary tore up hand written notes after she had transcribed them
on a typewriter.
They complain that Mr. Evans submitted a travel expense claim
of $116 when he travelled by automobile from Saint-Hubert to
Ottawa, although the amount was never paid to him.
They complain of an amount of just over $500 which was paid to
a former employee of the space agency who later became employed
as a political assistant in my office. When the issue was raised it
was debatable. Therefore, the individual in question, out of an
abundance of caution, repaid the money without any pressure other
than the question having been raised.
(1135)
These are the issues on which they wish to have a public inquiry.
What is really happening here is that these people are using the
House of Commons as a place in which to prosecute a claim which
ought to be dealt with by the civil courts.
I do not know why they think an issue that could be raised in the
courts is a one-sided issue. For my part I am quite anxious to hear
the evidence presented in court and to see what the courts decide.
However, in terms of the allegations that have been brought
forward, there is no substance based on which I could take any
other action than let the courts decide. I would encourage them to
do likewise.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not talking about GST, HST or BST, although the
government might be talking about a lot of BS. The real issue here
is the truth. The fundamental issue, in answer to the finance
minister, is a broken promise. Maybe the Prime Minister should go
visit a bank machine. It seemed to have done the trick for the
Deputy Prime Minister. She admitted that the government had
broken its GST promise.
The finance minister admitted in April and again this morning at
the press club that the government had made a mistake with its
GST promise.
I ask the government why the Prime Minister does not join with
his colleagues and admit that he made a mistake when he promised
Canadians he would abolish the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the context in which the Prime Minister made his statements is
very clear and a matter of record. They make it clear that the
government was unable to give up the $15 billion to $18 billion of
revenue.
The fundamental issue is the nature of the public debate within
this House. Somebody, for whom I have an enormous amount of
respect, once told me that when one enters politics and it comes
down to the basic decision of what is good for the country, if there
is any difference between that and what is politically right then
integrity is doing what is good for the country.
My colleagues of cabinet who are here and indeed those who are
in caucus know full well that at the very first cabinet meeting we
had, the first thing the Prime Minister said to all of us was that in
any individual instance if a choice has to be made between what is
politically right and what is right for the country we will choose
what is right for the country in every single instance. In cabinet, the
Prime Minister has chosen to do the right thing. I will tell members
right now that he is a man of great-
7518
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member for
Prince George-Peace River, a supplementary.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to recognize the members opposite for that
standing ovation. I appreciate it.
This is not the 1960s. The Prime Minister should quit living in
the past. He should be aware that we are now in the 1990s and
technology has produced something called videotapes. By now,
almost every Canadian has seen those tapes. They know in what
context that promise was made before and during the election
campaign.
How can the Prime Minister deny the existence of the evidence?
How will he continue to deny the evidence of his broken promise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have stood in this House on behalf of the government and made a
statement. That statement speaks for all of us.
If the hon. member wants to talk about contradictions, perhaps
he would tell us why it is that in the most recent discovery of the
need to create jobs in this country by the leader of the Reform Party
and his party, he has been able to deny the fact that in 1993 in
Penticton, the Reform Party brought down a program. At that time
the leader of the Reform Party had no difficulty saying that it would
cost jobs but jobs were not as important as cleaning up the deficit.
How is the Reform Party going to deal with the fact that in its 1995
taxpayers' budget it said that the short term employment impact of
spending and deficit reduction was negative but manageable? What
kind of job loss is manageable? Is it 30,000? Is it 50,000? Is it
100,000?
(1140)
How can they talk about integrity when they stand in the House
of Commons and contradict every single thing they have in their
own policies?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is jubilant,
every time he talks about negotiating active employment measures
with the provinces and the flexibility of federalism. When
confronted with the figures of his own department, which show that
between 1993-94 and 1996-97, Quebec suffered major cuts
totalling $160 million in funding for active measures, the minister
denies this.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister in a position to confirm whether or
not the federal government proceeded with cuts of around $160
million in all active measures in Quebec alone between 1993-94
and 1996-97?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always
interested in questions put by the hon. member. The question she
asks is at this point somewhat hypothetical. The question she asks
is what will be the active measures for the province of Quebec.
She knows and the House knows that we are negotiating with the
province of Quebec at this moment with respect to part II of the EI
legislation. Under part II of the EI legislation we will be
negotiating with the province of Quebec on active measures. When
that negotiation has been completed we will be able to tell her what
the amount of dollars will be that will go to the province. Until that
negotiation is complete I do not think she or I or anyone else knows
because we are still in the negotiation process.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member certainly did not understand the question. My question
concerns all moneys spent on active employment measures
between 1993-94 and 1996-97, as indicated in the department's
figures.
I will to quote the Minister of Human Resources Development,
who said this week: ``I am always shocked by the attitude of people
who like to fiddle in around with this figure or that figure''.
Will the minister finally admit that his own government has been
fiddling with the figures, since the additional $800 million for
active measures were drawn from the unemployment insurance
fund, a procedure that actually camouflages a substantial drop in
the amounts formerly spent on employment measures which came
directly out of the consolidated fund?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can
understand that the member is having difficulty understanding the
finances of the Department of Human Resources Development. It
is for one reason. She is looking at the old programs that the
province of Quebec used to have.
We have made significant changes in programs. Those
significant changes, for example the EI legislation, have moved a
lot of money over to active measures. An additional $800 million is
going into active measures in the next number of years. That
necessitates program shifting from one area to the other.
We have also committed $300 million for TJF. The member
knows that those particular dollars have been reallocated from
other funds. If she is having trouble dealing with the numbers, she
7519
can arrange to meet with us and we will give her the numbers. The
programs are different now. She is still looking at the old numbers
from the old programs which have changed.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what we see developing here is a very disturbing trend on behalf of
the Prime Minister. At the town hall meeting the other night on the
national unity strategy, in order to reassure a Quebecer who is
concerned about the future of Quebec in Canada, he said that if
things ever got really rough he could always move out.
His solution today is a distinct society clause. In 1989 he
opposed Meech Lake. He said this about the distinct society clause:
``No matter how the supreme court interprets the distinct society
clause, it would always make francophones or anglophones feel
defrauded''.
(1145 )
Why would the Prime Minister take a position on distinct society
today that he once fought so vigorously against and why would he
tell a Quebecer that if things get rough he can always just leave?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the politics of the
Reform Party, the Prime Minister is actually fighting to keep the
country together.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have seen the trend. The Prime Minister has flip-flopped on the
GST. He has created imaginary homeless friends. He has blamed
things on acts of God. He also says that blind luck is the best job
creator.
Let us have a reality check here. In 1989 the Prime Minister had
the audacity to call Brian Mulroney a liar for promoting the distinct
society clause. He said that Mulroney was telling the French
Canadians in Quebec ``it is the best thing you ever had'' and after
that, he turns around to English Canada and says ``don't worry
about it, it means nothing''.
If the Prime Minister called Brian Mulroney a liar for promoting
the distinct society clause, will he now admit that he is doing the
same thing today?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is
promoting, as he has all his life, a recognition that in this country
we have two founding nations, two founding peoples, with
languages, cultures and civil codes that were enshrined in the law.
What is unfortunate in the position of the Reform Party is instead
of looking at where we came from, instead of understanding the
reason we are where we are today is that we have a history of
shared consciousness and a history of shared commitment, what
the Reform Party is trying to do with its politics of division will
drive this country apart.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
All the parties involved have come to an agreement on the terms
and conditions for the reopening of the Kenworth plant. PACCAR,
the solidarity fund, the union and the Quebec government followed
through on their commitments. However, at the very last minute,
the federal government has come up with new requirements which
could prevent the reopening to be announced before Christmas.
In order to preserve some 900 jobs, could the Minister of
Industry tell the House if he intends to follow through on the
commitments made by his officials concerning the Auto Pact and
the Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement to ensure that the
Kenworth plant will reopen?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are dealing quickly with this issue, but some things are
still under discussion.
Since November 26, when the solidarity fund and PACCAR
came to an agreement, we have acted rapidly. Right now, we are
still waiting for the company to submit its business plan. We will
see what has to be done as soon as we get it.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, while they are thinking about it and splitting hairs,
unemployed Canadians have run out of UI benefits. What we want
is action.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development, because the parties involved are also
waiting for an agreement over the TJF.
I would like to know if the Minister of Human Resources
Development intends to commit funds from his transition job
program to ensure the reopening of the Kenworth plant.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the TJF in
the province of Quebec is now in full force. If the member is asking
if we are willing to look at a proposal to help a particular industry
or to create long term jobs I suggest that he make the proposal to
human resources development and we will be more than willing to
look at it.
7520
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-62, the new fisheries act, includes a provision that
fishers, fishery associations and fishing communities have been
requesting for years.
(1150)
Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain to the House
how the new partnership agreement proposals in the bill will work?
What is being done to ensure that all interested parties will be
included as part of the consultation process?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, partnering is a new way of doing business in the
fishing industry whereby the fishers will have a greater say and a
greater share in the management of the fisheries itself.
This is a responsibility they have been looking for more and
more in the past. It will build on the success of our recent
co-management agreements that we have had, the best example of
which is the zone 19 crab agreement in Cape Breton.
I see this provision, a major improvement in Bill C-62, the new
fisheries act, as a tremendous opportunity for representative
organizations and the industry to have a direct voice in fisheries
management to develop ways to manage the fishery more
effectively and efficiently and to provide a more stable climate for
long term business planning.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in a letter from the customs minister referencing the
government's appeal of David Sawatzky's acquittal, the minister
stated: ``Until this matter is resolved, Revenue Canada will
continue to apply sanctions such as vehicle seizures''.
Is it the customs minister's opinion that her department has
applied these sanctions and seizures equally on all farmers who
have allegedly violated the customs and wheat board acts?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, customs administration in this country takes very
seriously its responsibility to uphold several acts that are its
responsibility.
In this case we have been told and we are responsible to ensure
that people who export barley and wheat across our borders have
the appropriate permits. We consider that the job we have done is
effective and precise in fulfilling our responsibilities.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a Saskatchewan farmer indicated he would go public with
information that Canadian Wheat Board officials made a deal with
him, providing $223,000 in selection bonuses.
Then Canada Customs filed $165,520 worth of forfeitures
against this farmer for previous grain export violations. I would
like to know why the customs minister has not prosecuted this
farmer and seized his vehicles with the same lightening speed used
to prosecute farmers like David Sawatzky, Andy McMechan and
Bill Cairns. Is this the Liberal government's idea of justice for
farmers?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the responsibility that Canadian Customs officers have at
our border is tremendous.
We have, in fact, the responsibility to ensure active facilitation
of trade and also to ensure the safety and protection of our country.
We uphold several acts that have been passed by this Parliament
and we do it in a very effective and precise manner.
I suggest to the hon. member that if there are individuals who
have complaints, there is a full process of appeal that we are part
of. I would encourage him to support his constituents but we will
uphold the acts as they have been written. We will apply our
responsible actions in a fair and productive way and we take very
seriously the dual role we have in Canada Customs to facilitate
trade and to ensure the safety and protection of Canadians within
our country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the heritage minister.
During a reception to honour the athletes who participated in the
Atlanta Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Quebec Minister of
Municipal Affairs, who is responsible for recreation and sports,
learned that the Canadian Paralympic Committee did not pay all
the costs associated with the participation of our athletes in the
Atlanta games. So he made the commitment to give the athletes, or
their sports associations, grants in the amount of $16,485 to cover
half of the unpaid expenses.
Will the minister respond to the letter dated December 2 from
her Quebec counterpart asking her to do her share and to reimburse
the other half of the costs incurred by the athletes to participate in
the Atlanta Paralympic Games?
(1155)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given the fact that my
department paid a large portion of the costs of the Paralympic
Games for Canada, we, as the Government of Canada, will
7521
certainly continue to do so, but I am inviting the Quebec minister,
Guy Chevrette, to join us in subsidizing 50 per cent of all the costs
associated with Quebec paralympic athletes.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
Quebec minister made a commitment to pay the first half of the
costs, will the federal minister recognize that athletes who reach
such a high level of performance and who represent us in the
Olympic Games should not have been subjected to this kind of
affront?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the
offer I am making to the minister from Quebec. Given that it is the
Canadian government, I in particular, that has worked very hard to
assume a large portion of the cost of the Paralympics, I am inviting
the minister, who obviously has a very sincere interest in this issue,
to share with me all the costs associated with the Olympic and
Paralympic athletes from the province of Quebec so that we can
share this on a 50:50 basis.
I am certainly willing to look at that and I hope to hear from
Minister Chevrette to see whether he is really committed to this or
whether he would rather, unfortunately, play politics with this issue
on the floor of the House of Commons.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, recently the minister of agriculture was publicly
criticized by a federal court judge. Justice Muldoon expressed
concern that the minister would introduce changes to the Canadian
Wheat Board Act while he is presiding over a charter challenge to
the existing act.
Why did the minister break with proper protocol and table
changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act while the existing act is
being challenged in the court?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, grain
marketing in western Canada is a topic of considerable debate
among farmers and others.
Farmers have made strong recommendations for changes in
legislation. Farmers are anxious for those changes to come forward
for their consideration and ultimate enactment by Parliament as
rapidly as possible. Indeed the Reform Party has also been urging
the government to move in that very direction.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I did not say this is an urgent issue but perhaps the
minister has acted irresponsibly and improperly. So I would ask the
justice minister what steps he will take to redress the improper
activities of the minister of agriculture, which may be seen as
interference by the minister in this case.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada has
responsibility for introducing, considering and ultimately passing
legislation. Obviously at any moment in time there can be a whole
variety of litigious matters before the courts in every field.
If we were to follow the admonition of the hon. gentleman, we
would never consider any piece of legislation in this country if
there were matters outstanding under previous legislation at any
point in time. Obviously that is a formula for stalemate. Maybe that
is what the Reform Party wishes to have but as far as this
government is concerned, we want to move forward into the future.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Recently the European Union and Canada agreed in principle to
an agreement which would eliminate a threatened EU ban on
Canadian fur imports. However, now the European Union council
of environment ministers has rejected this draft agreement, thereby
throwing the whole process up in the air.
We have waited long enough for the Europeans to get their act
together. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me if the government
is prepared to take this issue to the World Trade Organization so as
not to leave our Canadian fur industry out in the cold?
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite
correct. For one year the Canadian government has been
negotiating in good faith with the European commission to
conclude an agreement with respect to this industry.
On December 6 we initialled an agreement, and so we were very
displeased and rather annoyed when some of the European Union
environment ministers made their statements.
(1200 )
However, in the last few days the Minister for International
Trade has met with Sir Leon Brittan who told us once again that he
fully supports the interim agreement that was signed onDecember 6.
If the European commission does not ratify the agreement, the
Canadian government will act very quickly to initiate an action at
the WTO to protect access by the Canadian fur industry to
European markets.
7522
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Yesterday, the minister introduced in the House Bill C-79, an act
amending the Indian Act. However, this same minister, last
September 11, stated and I quote: ``Changing the Indian Act
requires very strong support''.
In light of that statement, how can the Minister go ahead with his
amendments, whereas I have on my desk letters from 542
aboriginal nations out of 600 in Canada that are opposing his bill?
Does he not agree that he should go back to do his homework in
co-operation with the aboriginals, as requested in the
Erasmus-Dussault report and by most of the stakeholders in
Canada?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not addressed the
Indian Act since 1951 and we cannot continue to look at a problem
only every 45 years. It has taken is two years to get to this point and
the package which is before the hon. member and the committee
has three processes.
The first is substance. I am prepared to turn over substantial
powers to the aboriginal people, where it should be, that I now
exercise and do not want. I am prepared to take those sections that
they want to discuss further or which may be controversial and put
them before the committee. Its members can use their imagination
and move into the future.
Finally, I am prepared to make it optional. I was prepared to go
further than that so that no one can ever say that the government
was not prepared to transfer these powers. Now it is up to the First
Nations to decide whether it wants to exercise these powers.
Most important, a process is finally in place that over a period of
years will deal with substantive issues of the Indian Act and get rid
of that offensive act once and for all.
* * *
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Liberal red book promises that the government will promote
fairness and opportunity and yet day after day we have more
broken promises. Environment Canada is apparently unfairly
bidding against small private sector firms for water quality and
meteorological services.
Why is the minister's huge department bidding against private
firms? How can the public believe that the government is using a
level playing field and being ethical when doing this questionable
practice?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting how the Reform Party wants to pretend
that it cares about the environment. The last time Reform asked a
question was on May 17.
If we look at fresh start the only thing that comes close to
mentioning the environment is the green colour. Not one word on
the environment is mentioned in their fresh start campaign. Reform
members have the audacity to talk about us breaking red book
commitments when we have introduced the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, the endangered species legislation,
MMT which that party is against. We have a harmonization accord
in the works with the provinces.
The government is not only keep its commitments on the
environment, but also pushing the file as well.
In answer to the specific question from the hon. member, like
other departments we are working within Treasury Board
guidelines. We have met with the business community. We have
joint ventures with those companies. It is something that is sought
after. The good name of Environment Canada is very much a viable
commodity.
_____________________________________________
7522
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
(1205)
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
1995-96 annual report of the Indian Claims Commission.
7523
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-365, an act to amend an act respecting holidays.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would restore the name Dominion
Day to the July 1 holiday. The country founded on July 1, 1867 was
not Canada but the Federal State of the Dominion of Canada, still
the country's official name.
The word ``dominion'' has its linguistic roots in the French
language and was chosen as the name for this country by the
Fathers of Confederation from the 72nd Psalm: ``He shall have
dominion from sea to sea and from the rivers unto the ends of the
earth''.
It has been a mistake for this country to try and preserve its
future by destroying its past and the name Dominion Day should be
restored.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-366, an act to amend the Criminal Code (joy
riding).
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem in this country,
one that touches 160,000 Canadians a year. It is a $1.6 billion
problem and that problem is auto theft.
Our loose laws encourage people to break the law, I believe,
especially in the view of young male offenders who steal over half
of the cars stolen in Canada mostly to joy ride and experience the
thrill at somebody else's expense.
The problem is out of control in British Columbia. In my
constituency and in the city of Chilliwack, for example, auto theft
is up 87 per cent this year over last year.
My bill would strengthen the provisions of section 335 of the
Criminal Code, the section under which young offenders are
usually charged. It prescribes a minimum and a maximum sentence
in terms of a fine, a jail term and restitution to the victim. It also
states that the parents of young offenders who have contributed to
the delinquency of their child should be held responsible for the
payment.
I hope that all members will take note of this serious problem
and support this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table today, on behalf of nearly 2,000 of
my constituents, a petition asking for the abolition of the Senate. It
is in addition to the 30,000 petitions already tabled. I hope the
government will take abolition of the Senate under serious
consideration for its next budget.
[English]
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
privilege of presenting to the House petitions from concerned
citizens of my riding.
The petitioners pray and request that the Parliament of Canada to
introduce amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that anyone
convicted of impaired driving causing death receive a sentence
from seven to a maximum of 14 years.
(1210 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am presenting today another 77 pages of petitions containing 1,700
names. The petitions are signed by people from all across Canada
who are very concerned about the serious personal injury crimes
and sexual offences involving children and in the way the criminals
are treated by our justice system.
The petitioners request that changes be made to the Criminal
Code. They want to be notified when a sex offender is released into
the community. They want a central registry to be available for
people who work with children so they will know who has
committed these crimes. They want to prohibit pardons for those
convicted of sex offences involving children.
I have now presented approximately 25,000 or 30,000 names on
this subject.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am tabling a petition signed by 720 people. Their names
are to be added to the 30,000 signatures calling for the abolition of
the Senate, that other Chamber which is still holding us, the elected
members of the House, hostage.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to Standing Order 36, allow me to table a
7524
petition signed by 60 constituents from Carleton-Gloucester. The
petitioners ask that Parliament not increase the federal taxes on
gasoline.
[English]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I also have seven petitions signed by 139 of my
constituents. The petitioners ask that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the charter
of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate
societal approval of same sex relationships.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
present a petition from 29 Calgary constituents who call on the
government to support the immediate initiation of an international
convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition
of all nuclear weapons. They request that the initiative be
concluded by the year 2000.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present two petitions in the House today.
The first petition is signed by 75 Manitobans. The second is
signed by 300 Manitobans, many of whom live in my riding of
Dauphin-Swan River.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the negative
impact pornography has on men, women and children. They urge
Parliament to strictly uphold Canada's laws against obscenity.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to table a petition signed by 105 residents of Quebec, who are
asking Parliament to intervene to ensure that immigration officials
enforce the Immigration Act without discriminating against people
connected with the Patriarche. Established in more than 15
countries including Canada, the Patriarche is a not for profit
organization assisting addicts, including those from abroad.
Since 1992, immigration officials have denied entry to addicts
who cannot prove they have been drug-free for at least two years.
This is unjustified, as neither the legislation nor the regulations
provide for the enforcement of this two-year criterion.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present 11 petitions.
The first 35 petitioners request that Parliament not amend the
Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and
allow educational reform to take place within the context of the
framework agreement in that province.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the next three
petitions represent 245 citizens who urge the government to reduce
spending instead of increasing taxes and to implement a taxpayer
protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have one
petition containing 66 signatures. The petitioners call on
Parliament to return the rights to the citizens of Canada from the
criminals.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
remaining six petitions which I wish to present pertain to sexual
orientation. More than 400 petitioners call on Parliament not to
include sexual orientation in the Canada Human Rights Act, but to
define this phrase and consult the Canadian people on this issue.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to present an additional four petitions containing approximately
1,550 signatures.
The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Criminal
Code to prohibit any type of lap dancing in any place to which the
public has access. They do so because they believe obscenity
distorts human sexuality and can be linked to violence.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, and on behalf of my colleague the
hon. member for Don Valley West, I am pleased to present a
petition which was received from the riding of Don Valley West.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament support the
immediate initiation, with the conclusion by the year 2000, of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable for
the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
(1215)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to table a
petition signed by fewer people than the one tabled by my
colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. Still, people are
starting to talk about this. The 77 petitioners want the Senate
7525
abolished, mainly because of its high cost, that is, $43 million.
They think we could do without this expenditure.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, I have a second
petition with only 26 names but the petitioners want it to be tabled.
They ask the government to get involved in funding the upgrading
our national highway system.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I pleased to present the following
petitions from my constituents in Comox-Alberni.
The petition is signed by over 2,100 signatures, bringing the total
number to 7,600. This represents 15 per cent of the voters in my
riding.
The petitioners request that Parliament allow Canadian citizens
to vote directly in a national binding referendum on the restoration
of the death penalty for first degree murder convictions.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to table petitions submitted to me by 2,400 residents of
Windsor and Essex County. The petitioners are objecting to the
mandatory 25 per cent tax being withheld by the United States on
their U.S. social security benefits.
These petitioners call on the Canadian government to renegotiate
the Canada-U.S. tax treaty to stop this inequity. I know the
government is working on a solution to this problem and I would
urge the government to find it soon.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have two petitions I would like to present this
morning.
In the first, the undersigned residents of Canada draw to the
attention of the House that 38 per cent of the national highway
system is substandard, that Mexico and the United States are
upgrading their national systems and that the national highway
policy study identified benefits of the proposed national highway
program.
The petitioners urge Parliament to request that the federal
government join with provincial governments to make the national
highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the second
petition, the undersigned believe that the application of the 7 per
cent GST to reading material is unfair and wrong. The petitioners
urge all levels of government to demonstrate their commitment to
education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax on reading
materials. They ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's
repeated and unequivocal promise to remove the federal sales tax
from books, magazines and newspapers.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, the
Automobile Association reminds us that 38 per cent of the highway
system is substandard and that both the United States and Mexico
are now upgrading their own systems.
Finally, the petitioners call on Parliament to press the federal
government to work with the provinces toward upgrading our
national highway system.
[English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition
signed by a number of my constituents who call on Parliament to
urge the federal government to join with provincial governments to
make the national highway system upgrading possible.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 9 and 16 could be made Orders for Return, the
return would be tabled immediately.
It is certainly in accordance with what I said to my hon.
colleague yesterday that he would have the answers before
Christmas. Christmas greetings and some Christmas readings.
Merry Christmas.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 9-Mr. Hermanson:
What is the total dollar amount spent on advertising by the government and its
Crown Agencies in fiscal years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 by province, in each of
the following mediums: television, radio, daily newspapers, weekly newspapers,
monthly newspapers, billboards and direct mail?
Return tabled.
Question No. 16-Mr. Collins:
Regarding the amount of Federal Government (including Crown Corporations)
spending on advertising in all forms of media (radio, television, daily newspapers,
weekly newspapers, magazines): please specify, by type of media, and by province,
where Federal Government advertising funds were allocated for the years 1992, 1993,
1994, and 1995 and what amount was spent on each medium in each of those years, in
7526
particular the amount spent on weekly newspapers, for all of Canada and broken
down by province?
Return tabled.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.):: Mr. Speaker, I
would like to point out that we currently have nine questions still
sitting on the Order Paper with regard to the airbus fiasco. All of
these are designated 2, meaning the response was requested within
45 days. Our Questions Nos. 62 to 70 were put forward by the
member for Beaver River, the member for Lethbridge and me. Six
were put forward on June 19 and my three questions are dated
September 12.
We have not received responses to any of these and the
government has missed the deadline. These questions are to be
answered within 45 days and today is day 55.
(1220)
Will the government tell us why it has missed the deadline and
when it plans to respond?
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point
out that we also have concern about the lack of response to our
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, again related to
the airbus fiasco, the role of former Prime Minister Mulroney and
this Liberal government in those particular contracts. We currently
have 17 such notices and have not received anything from the
government on any of them. We gave notice for two of these on
March 19 and for the other 15 on September 12.
Given that this is or at least is supposed to be the last day of
sitting before Christmas, we would have appreciated a response
from the government. So can the government tell us when we
might get some action on these matters?
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
my hon. colleague could tell by the 48 pounds worth of documents
that his colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster's order
required, we have busy elves over here preparing the information
for the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
I am happy that we were able to provide the important
information that our colleague was looking for and I will look
forward to perhaps getting the information that my hon. colleague
is looking for next week.
We will look into the matter with due diligence and we will look
forward to having that information some time before Christmas.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): If the Chair might be
permitted a personal remark, it is to say how pleased the Chair is
that the question of the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster has been answered. I know that my past
involvement in securing the answer was one that interested the hon.
member.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
7526
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Resuming consideration at report stage of Bill C-60, an act to
establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and
amend other Acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 7.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): The hon.
member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead has six minutes left
to make his remarks.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will ask for your indulgence in allowing me to
raise all the points I consider necessary.
Before oral question period, when we resumed consideration of
the motions in Group No. 7 amending Bill C-60, I said that the
people were really concerned by this bill, as I tried to demonstrate.
I gave the example of my colleague, the member for Richelieu,
as well as of my other Bloc colleagues who represent ridings where
the people are different but share the same concern, that is the need
to have credible institutions, institutions that they can trust.
Unfortunately, as we said before and will keep repeating, the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency that is proposed in Bill C-60
contravenes this objective.
I also said it was important to recall the guidelines underlying
this bill. We have clearly shown that the president of this
institution, who is appointed by the governor in council, will
naturally have to show some gratitude to the government which
appointed him. The appointee will undoubtedly also have to prove
his political allegiance, and we hope that this person will still be
required to have the skills needed to perform his functions.
That being said, if the bill is not amended, the advisory board
will, in turn, be composed of members chosen by the
cabinet-appointed president, who will use the same criteria to set
up an advisory board that will be every bit as political.
7527
(1225)
As though that were not enough, there is even a clause which has
very few equivalents, if any, at the federal level. It excludes the
agency from the application of the Public Service of Canada Act.
Why, Mr. Speaker? Is it to save money? Is it to make things
easier and the agency more efficient? No, Mr. Speaker. It is simply
because they want to have total control over the hiring process,
because they want to circumvent existing legislation and get rid of
the unions. They want to hire whoever they want.
The very high risk of patronage was clearly established by my
colleagues. And there is more. The list of arguments against this
bill is endless. What do we find in clause 16, which is what
amendments in Group No. 7 deal with?
Clause 16 will exempt the agency from section 9 of the
Department of Public Works and Government Services Act when it
hires experts from outside the public service. That section would
have fouled up the government's patronage scheme, so out it goes.
Clause 16 circumvents section 9 of the Department of Public
Works and Government Services Act by providing that the agency
may, with the approval of the governor in council-that is
cabinet-on the recommendation of the Treasury Board-that is a
minister and one of the most partisan members of this government,
namely the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer-``procure goods and
services, including legal services, from outside the public service
of Canada''.
When I read this clause, I can already see Liberal lawyers in the
eastern townships opening their cheque books to make
contributions to the Liberal Party since they will be the ones to get
contracts from the Food Inspection Agency. That is a fact. We are
about to give them a very nice Christmas gift.
Fortunately, our colleague, the agriculture critic and member for
Frontenac, was vigilant and saw through it. He too has denounced
this situation and proposed amendments which would create a
framework for that process.
Mr. Speaker, in the minute I have left, I want to address the
amendments put forward by my colleague from Frontenac.
What my colleague is proposing is that before procuring services
from outside the government, namely consultant services, we make
sure that we do not have the needed resources inside the federal
public service. At a time when we are asking all public
administrations to cut services and improve efficiency, it goes
without saying that when the government needs consultant services
it should look first among its own public servants. Many of them
are very competent. We should use their services. That is what we
are asking.
(1230)
This is only common sense. It is terrible to have to raise the issue
in this House at this time in our history. We understand that when
the time comes to dispense patronage, and I will conclude on this,
nothing can stop our Liberal friends. The economic context
requires that everyone be cautious about the way they spend
money, except if they contribute to the coffers of the Liberal Party.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my comments reasonably brief on
Group No. 7 of the report stage of Bill C-60.
I do not believe I can support the two motions in this group
because it looks like they will make it very difficult to contract out
or privatize inspection services in the future. Although a provision
in Motion No. 20 seems worthy of support. It calls for open bidding
in the private sector for any goods and services procured by the
new agency. We were recently reminded of how important that is
when the auditor general uncovered another untendered contract to
Bombardier.
Over the years we have noticed a very close affiliation between
Bombardier and both the Conservative and Liberal governments. It
is such a cosy relationship that it certainly makes one very
uncomfortable. Any time there are untendered contracts without a
proper bidding process, the taxpayer should be very nervous.
Members of the Reform Party caucus are extremely nervous about
the Liberal government's practice of offering untendered contracts
to its friends in the corporate sector.
There is a broader question concerning the single food
inspection agency: What kind of impact will these motions and the
bill itself have on the effectiveness of the new agency? When we
are trying to analyze the merits and problems of a new inspection
agency it helps to make a comparison. We need something to
illustrate our concerns.
An obvious comparison is the Pest Management Regulatory
Agency which is currently under tremendous criticism by the
industry. The PMRA is another institution that was amalgamated
by Parliament. It has a fairly large staff. The amalgamation was
supposed to save the taxpayers money and provide a valuable
service to the industry. There was an outcry of protest from a
diverse array of organizations such as the Crop Protection Institute
of Canada, Prairie Pools Incorporated.
The CFA was very critical of the PMRA. The Canadian meat
processors were extremely upset. The Canadian Cattlemen's
Association has expressed its concern. The Ontario corn growers
are very very upset at the costs the PMRA has forced them to incur.
7528
That brings us to the issues of job security and job creation.
The new food inspection agency will have the equivalent
bureaucracy to the agencies and departments from which it will
be birthed. Perhaps there will be jobs saved in the public sector
but how many jobs will be lost in the private sector? How many
jobs will be lost in the failure to see economic growth?
We know that products are not being registered effectively with
the PMRA because of all the loops and hassles that the pesticide
manufacturers have to go through to meet needless requirements of
the PMRA. That is costing jobs. It is costing jobs in the agriculture
sector. It is costing jobs in the manufacturing sector. It is slowing
the growth of agriculture and affiliated industries that support
agriculture. That is why these very astute agricultural organizations
are so upset with the PMRA.
Imagine anything as diverse as the CFA, Prairie Pools, Crop
Protection Institute, Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Ontario
corn growers, meat processors. Even the horticulture people are
very upset with the PMRA. It has been very difficult for their
industry to grow and expand because of the bureaucracy and the
clumsiness of that agency.
(1235)
When the witnesses appeared before us in committee we
challenged the government about whether or not this new single
food inspection agency might be going the same route. In looking
at some of the clauses we are debating today, it looks as though it
may very well be doing that.
I do not believe that the Bloc's amendments will correct it, but
certainly if there was a call for bids and an open tendering process,
it would certainly help. If the focus on job creation was more on
seeing the private sector expand and grow, industry grow and
creating new, long term jobs, that would be far more beneficial than
providing security for the approximately 4,500 employees of the
new single food inspection agency.
I think I have made my point. I am not trying to delay the debate.
I know we all want to get out and enjoy the Christmas season. As
opportunity affords, I will speak to other groups and raise other
issues later on.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are dealing
with Motions Nos. 19 and 20 which deal with a common service
provider. It is important to make certain that we understand what
the government's proposal is in this area. What we are trying to do
is make certain that there are certain providers which can be put
together in a cost effective, common way to make sure that the
program delivery is efficient and effective and financially sound.
There is no question that before proceeding the agency must seek
Treasury Board approval and governor in council approval to hire
outside people based on cost effectiveness and a sound business
plan. Also, since there is a crossing of different ministries required
in dealing with the agency, there is no question that the minister
responsible has to confer with his colleagues in cabinet and make
certain that everyone is aware of the crossings which may happen.
I would like to highlight as well that the proposed clause requires
the agency to follow the normal contracting rules, including calling
bids and tenders and respecting all current contract rules.
Many things that are being said are being said erroneously I
believe because there is uncertainty about all of the details that are
included in the bill. I do want to assure everyone that the
contracting rules put in place by Treasury Board will be confirmed
with the agency. I assure them that the rules with regard to
contracts for employees are in place as well. I thought those areas
should be clarified.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to discuss this series of amendments
proposed by the hon. member for Frontenac, who is official
opposition critic on agricultural issues.
The hon. member deserves to be congratulated for the quality of
his work, and for his efficient and thorough review of this bill. The
amendments that we are discussing today also seek to improve the
proposed legislation, that is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Act.
The federal government finally decided to clean up the food
inspection sector, and it deserves to be congratulated for doing so.
However, there is the issue of provincial jurisdiction regarding this
activity, and we alluded to it when we discussed other amendments.
This group of amendments concerns a basic issue, even though it
does not relate to the jurisdiction of the provinces. The same is true
in the case of many other agencies and crown corporations: given
the current wording of the bill tabled by the government, the
minister responsible will be able to wash his hands of the actions
that could be taken by the new agency.
(1240)
There are examples of this at Canada Post. When it suits her, the
minister praises Canada Post for its action, but when she is not
pleased, she shirks the responsibility by saying that this is a crown
corporation dealing at arms' length and that it can do as it pleases.
This issue is all the more important in the food inspection sector,
since decisions made have an impact on people's health, and also
on domestic and foreign trade for Quebec and Canada. We must
make sure the minister is fully responsible and accountable to the
House, and that he can make any changes that are required.
7529
Our amendment to clause 16 proposes that the responsible
minister for the agency's decisions in these matters have full
responsibility, answer questions, take corrective action and ensure
that everything is working properly.
Food inspection is an area that is very sensitive to public
opinion. We do not have to imagine all kinds of scenarios. It is
enough to remember what happened in Great Britain with mad cow
disease. We need quick political reaction and politicians and
responsible ministers who can act quickly.
If we do not ensure that the minister is truly responsible for his
actions, we may create a vacuum that will harm the reputation of
the agency and the quality of its food inspection services. That is
why I think it the government should consider this amendment and
make it part of the bill.
This amendment is in no way partisan. Its purpose is to
recognize the role of elective representatives and the person who
happens to be the minister responsible for this agency and to
increase their effectiveness. There are many shortcomings and
loopholes in the bill, in its present form, that would let the minister
shirk his responsibilities, and this is not a good thing for food
inspection.
The other aspect I wanted to raise is the agency's right to procure
legal services from sources other than the Department of Justice.
As in the previous groups of amendments, in the food inspection
sector it is very important for lawyers to be able to speak out with
full impunity and not be influenced by the situation.
I see a scenario where the agency could very well develop two
kinds of legal contracts: there would be lawyers capable of being
flexible in specific situations and there would be those the agency
would use when it needs a very firm, very solid approach.
Who will decide how contracts are awarded? Is it not possible
that awarding contracts for legal services from outside the
government would open the door to patronage? Will the eligible
lawyers on the list just happen to be Liberals? And when there is a
change of government, will the list change so that we lose all the
expertise that has been acquired in that sector?
As in the case of inspectors, the procedure for legal services
must be watertight. The person who gives a legal opinion must not
be subject to pressure in connection with his job or other situations.
The best way to guarantee the independence of legal services is to
ensure that those who give legal opinions are accountable only to
the government and that they have job security. They must be able
to give opinions that are impartial and devoid of any partisan
considerations.
The government has its work cut out for it in this area. It has to
work on making the agency independent. The agency must not be
vulnerable to political interference. It must be independent at all
levels: inspectors, lawyers, board members and the appointment of
the president.
(1245)
That is the kind of guideline that is missing in this bill, a problem
the Bloc's proposed amendments seek to address so as to maintain
Canada's reputation for food inspection, which has served Quebec
and Canada well in all our international initiatives. It must remain
clearly and unequivocally 100 per cent unaltered. We must have an
impeccable international reputation at all times and be able to show
any consumer on the face of the earth that ours products are quality
products and that the services we provide are not marred by
irregularities.
We have developed expertise in that area based on past
experience. Consolidating the three government authorities into a
single agency is a step in the right direction, but let us not throw the
baby out with the bath water. We must not, on the one hand, make
improvements and, on the other hand, end up creating a whole set
of circumstances that could jeopardize the quality of the
inspections performed.
These amendments are part of a series of amendments tabled by
the hon. member for Frontenac and designed to retain the goods
aspects of the bill. But in those cases where the Liberal majority
indulged in making changes and decided changes were necessary,
they figured they might as well go all out and make room for some
of their friends. I urge the Liberal majority to reconsider that aspect
of the bill. There is still time, as we consider the proposed
amendments.
You do not have to pass them all as they stand, but I feel
compelled to ask the Liberal majority to consider those that are on
the table right now as part of this group. They should say: ``All
right, we agree that the minister should be really accountable and
should have to account to this House for what this agency does''.
We must have the clear assurance that the people concerned will
act fairly and equitably with regard to procurement and contracts,
particularly legal contracts, as well as in acquiring any other
equipment required for this activity. Loads of new technologies and
new tools that could be used are being developed all the time.
Before long, we will even be dealing with biotechnologies. Some
moral issues will have to be considered in food inspection, and we
will have to make sure we are not under the control of economic
forces whose interests may differ from those of the general public.
Ultimately, the farmer, the processing industry and the consumer
may have diverging interests. The government's responsibility is to
make sure the chain of production does not have any weak link,
because in food inspection, every detail counts and a rigorous
follow-up is required.
7530
In the past, I have seen reputations destroyed overnight, which
is what happened in the case of the mad cow disease and also in
the case of fish inspection. For all those reasons, I urge the House
to approve the amendments moved by the hon. member for
Frontenac, because they would improve this bill.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today we are debating an extremely important bill. In my
beautiful riding of Rimouski-Témiscouata, and more specifically
in Notre-Dame-du-Lac in Témiscouata, there is a big
slaughterhouse for pigs.
Recently, the owners wanted to expand the facility to increase
production. They wanted to increase the number of nurseries, and
their plans sort of clashed with the Quebec legislation, which is
very strict in this regard. Quebec cleaned up this sector a long time
ago.
The important thing is to be able to guarantee to the public that
food inspectors can do their work professionally, and with the
proper safeguards to prevent any problem.
(1250)
In Quebec, we had an inquiry on the tainted meat scandal.
Incidentally, it was around that time that we got to know people
who have since become great politicians in Quebec, including Mr.
Bouchard and Mr. Chevrette. Following this episode, we decided
that such an incident should never happen again. This is why we
developed legislation which guarantees to the public that the work
is done extremely well.
I think that the inspection of food should come under provincial
jurisdiction. In February, the government pledged, in its speech
from the throne, to do its utmost to eliminate overlap, duplication
and useless spending. Since the federal government is getting
involved in an area which, we feel, comes under provincial
jurisdiction, it is headed in the wrong direction and should leave
this responsibility to the provinces.
It is also very important to make sure the integrity and the
competence of those hired to do this work can never be questioned.
What is being proposed is an agency outside the government, but
whose president would be appointed by the government. This
president would select his own board members, hire his own staff
and so on. The whole process would take place outside the scope of
the Public Service Employment Act. If you establish an institution
in this fashion, you are gambling as to who will be in control.
We can see it clearly in the case of certain other organizations.
The government must keep its distance, remain at arm's length as
they say in English. Unfortunately, I cannot think of the French
word. There must be some distance between the government and
the organizations in question. However, to move from that to
creating agencies and skirting the Public Service Employment Act
is a bit disconcerting.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage did exactly the same thing.
She created the ICO, the Information Canada Office. One of the
deputy ministers at Heritage Canada became its director, and its
employees do not come under the public service legislation. It
makes you wonder where we are headed. The government says:
``We have to cut costs, so, over a three year period, 45,000 public
servants across Canada are going to be laid off''. What is the
government doing? It turns around and says: ``We will need an
office or a board here, an agency over there''. And then, when new
organizations are created, their staff is not subject to the Public
Service Employment Act.
What raises concern is that new employees will be hired, but
they will still be paid with taxpayers' money. Twenty million
dollars were taken from the heritage budget to subsidize the ICO.
But in that case, we no longer have any control. To a question I put
to the minister, she answered: ``Well, the hon. member opposite
only has to check on the Internet and she will find everything she
needs to know about the ICO''. I have used the Internet several
times and I am sorry to tell you that, if everyone surfing the
Internet relies on the ICO for information on Canada, they will be
sorry, because there are only about four pages on Canada, and most
of it is propaganda and not information. Apart from the fact that the
population of Canada hit the 30 million mark last summer, there is
not much factual data to be found on the ICO site.
(1255)
So we have an office that was set up. A director was appointed.
He was given the authority to hire people and spend $20 million,
without being subject to any public service quality control
measure. The exact same thing is being done here with this agency.
What is likely to happen with a quasi-government agency?
Unfortunately, we could see a lot of party politics, favouritism and
patronage. We will go back to the old system: ``If you vote for me,
you will have a job, a position in the agency, in the office, in some
other organization. Support my government and my party''. This is
the first risk.
We also risk having people who are almost in private sector,
outside of government but not quite, but hired prcatically on the
same basis as private businesses, people who, as we have seen in
many sectors, inflate the bills and invent items that do not exist.
We hear these days of what is happening at the space agency. We
would have a lot to say about that. The government says: ``Come
on, there is nothing to worry about'', when in fact we are losing
control of public funds. For the public, this is discouraging because
it is like shifting money from one pocket to the other and saying
that we saved something in the process. But if we really look at the
figures, we realize that there are no savings because even if we
have cut employees in the heritage department, we have created
7531
the office and given it $20 million. We may have cut positions in
the agriculture department but at the same time we have created an
agency that will control food quality, with all the very real risks
involved.
And then, there will be court cases. Who will be hired as
lawyers? Not federal employees. We will hire our friends. A
Liberal government will hire Liberals. A Conservative government
will hire Conservatives. And a Reform government will hire
Reformers. Friends will be hired to go before the courts.
I think the public is not being fooled. They know what is going
on. People understand that the government does not save much
except at their expense, that it reduces its support to the less
fortunate while it tries to set up official organizations that will
allow it to continue to spend taxpayers' money.
Therefore, I urge the government to carefully review our
amendments, which are very important in assuring Canadians that,
in the future, there will be no more political patronage and wasting
of money and that the new food inspection procedures will be in
their best interest.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
from Rimouski-Témiscouata was very eloquent in making the
connection between culture and agriculture, as was the Quebec
agriculture minister for whom I had the pleasure of working at one
point. And she is right. She is right because the federal
government's actions as regards culture and agriculture are similar
in many respects in that it is trying to eliminate public service jobs
for economic reasons to create an agency that will operate outside
the public service and that will give more freedom to the governor
in council, which, as you know, means cabinet.
(1300)
The first amendment put forward by the member for Frontenac
deals with the new agency, which groups together three agencies
that used to belong to three different departments, namely the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Health, into one single agency
falling under the jurisdiction of the agriculture department.
However, we can see that people would be appointed by cabinet.
If the amendment is not adopted, the agriculture minister, when
criticized, could defend himself by saying: ``It is a cabinet
decision. It is not my fault. I am not responsible. Yes, I am a
cabinet minister, but because of ministerial solidarity-''
Finally, it makes the minister of agriculture look good, except
that this is a rather special operation. I nearly said ``spatial'',
because there has been so much talk of space today, but no, it is
``special''. We in Quebec are not all that familiar with this custom.
These are measures taken in Quebec in very specific cases, in very
specific areas not generally covered by specific departments or
sectorial departments.
What is involved here is a food inspection agency, for which at
least there is a precedent. At least three agencies have been doing
the same thing. As I said yesterday, these various food inspection
agencies have been consolidated since 1978 in Quebec. Eighteen
years later, we see the federal government developing a desire to do
the same thing, moreover in an area of shared jurisdiction, at least
where agriculture is concerned. Where health is concerned,
however, this would, in principle, be a provincial area of
jurisdiction, except where foods from outside the country, or from
other provinces, are concerned. But this is not always the case.
We do not, however, have any objection to the principle of
consolidating three federal agencies. It is clearer, at least. People
will have a clearer idea of whom they are dealing with. But, after
grouping the agencies together, they take a diversionary tactic and
create one agency which will be able to operate in a different way
than the regular sectorial departments.
This leaves a great deal of scope for questions, not that we want
to accuse anyone of bad faith, but still. Amendment No. 1 says:
``Yes, but why go elsewhere looking for services, when there may
be qualified people within the Public Service?'' This would be
logical, particularly since the fusion may result in early retirement
offers or job cuts.
In this context, it seems to me that, before making such changes,
thought ought to be given to using the services of people who are
already working in the federal public service. That, I would think,
would be self-evident. Yet, it seems to me that the government is
resisting this amendment.
The other point concerns appointments as legal advisers.
Obviously, in Quebec, and I imagine everywhere else as well, there
have been appointments following the political trends of the time,
and I am not addressing only this present government with this. It
seems that the Conservatives also had a considerable appetite for
the same thing, which they had had to stifle during the long lean
years. It took them nine years to catch up, with a whole series of
appointments of lawyers and other professionals, who had all been
frustrated during the long Liberal years by not being appointed to
legal services.
We in Quebec saw the same thing happen during the Trudeau
Liberal years, if not before, and then Mr. Mulroney came along
promising change. But the essential change he made was that he
appointed different people. When you follow public affairs in
Quebec, you see what is going on with federal appointments. With
Christmas approaching, I think I could make an analogy with the
party game of musical chairs, which it resembles greatly.
7532
(1305)
Kids like to play musical chairs, but when political appointments
are involved, the game is less amusing. The Senate is, of course,
the ultimate version of the musical chairs game. When people
cannot run around the chairs fast enough, they send them on to the
other place. One might call this a kind of compassionate treatment.
I do not want to say that everybody in the other Chamber is no
good, but this is a costly duplication of an institution.
What we have here is another example, in food inspection. The
federal government obviously wants to keep its powers and
responsibilities and not delegate to the provinces. It would,
however, be much easier to say: ``There is an area where
duplication could be avoided, because food, fish, products,
especially in the context of free trade today, move not only between
provinces, but between countries as well''. In this context, the
government might well want to keep certain responsibilities. In an
independent Quebec, in partnership with Canada, mechanisms
could likely maintain this situation in cases where products moved
between countries.
We have no objection to the mechanism. Our objection is to the
way it is set up and to the excessive powers accorded the ministers
and the cabinet, because, as we know, the minister can recommend
appointments to cabinet. If criticized, however, he will say: ``Yes,
yes, but it is cabinet. You know, I am only a minister and I must not
break ranks with the other ministers''. Yes, we understand, but we
do not know who is right and who is guilty in this game.
The people of Quebec and Canada want greater transparency and
more public involvement in the management of public affairs and
political life. It is in this spirit, that the choice of the new leader of
the Bloc Quebecois will be by universal suffrage. He will be
elected by all members of the Bloc Quebecois. Members of the
Bloc wishing to take part will have to wait a few more weeks before
the convention.
This is the sort of situation that shows how management of
public affairs and political life could be improved.
Why do I say that? Because for a long time, at least in my first
years here, I was youth training critic. I was often in contact with
young people. What young people do not like about politics-and
after being in politics for so long you are aware of this, Mr.
Speaker, this will not faze you-is they would like to see some
changes, they are tired of the same old ways, especially with regard
to patronage appointments. Were the appointees selected because
of their hard work for the party, or for their generous contributions
to the party? We do not know how it works exactly and people think
it is wrong. They would like to see a mechanism such as the one
proposed by the member for Frontenac, namely an independent
nominating committee.
Mr. Speaker, if I do not have the opportunity to talk to you again,
I wish you a Merry Christmas and happy holidays.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Pursuant to an order made
earlier in this debate, all questions in group 8 are deemed to have
been put and deferred. The House will now proceed to a debate on
group 9, Motions Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr. Speaker,
we are now discussing the amendments in Group No. 8-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): We are debating Group
No. 8 which includes Motions nos. 24, 25 and 26. Please forgive
me, but the information I gave to the House earlier was wrong.
(1310)
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Therefore,
Mr. Speaker, are you saying I am right? Are we debating Group No.
8?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Yes.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this debate the thrust of
this bill has become increasingly clear. I think it is important that
we keep it in mind. I will briefly review all the comments made by
the opposition up until now.
This is what we have been trying to show all along, this bill,
despite its main thrust, which is quite laudable, namely to
streamline food inspection, bringing all responsibilities and
prerogatives pertaining to food inspection under one single agency,
the means used to reach this objective are totally unacceptable.
They are unacceptable and will be counterproductive.
We have already shown, quite eloquently I believe, that the fact
that the president is to be appointed by the governor in council is
par for the course, but that chances are he will be chosen more for
his political affiliation than for his ability to do the job.
Moreover, we have shown how extensive his powers will be,
including selecting his own advisory board, in other words the
power to be consulted on issues of his choice, to ask for advice of
his own choosing that will go along with what he and the
government, regardless of its political stripe, want.
Moreover, it was decided, under clause 10 or 12 of the bill, not
only to exempt the hiring of employees and inspectors of the
agency from the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but also to set
the terms of employment the president would see fit to set. In other
words, this amounts to eliminating the labour code and the long
standing tradition we have in this country to entrust negotiating
7533
labour agreements to a credible association controlled by its
members.
We have seen, a little further on, under clause 24 I believe, that
the agency will be able to hire whomever it pleases, including
outside professionals. We know what the hiring criteria will be in
such cases. Of course, this is going to be about consultants, whether
legal or otherwise, who will have contacts, people who are on good
terms with the agency and known as loyal servants, not of the
government, but of the Liberal Party.
In the motions in Group No. 8 which we are discussing now,
there is a reference to the report. There is an action plan the agency
will have to submit and that will be subject to public scrutiny. How
are they going to proceed? As I said earlier, it will be all behind
closed doors, to speed up the process, so no one will realize what is
going on and they can do things on the sly more often than not. The
agency will have absolute control over the action plan it wants to
develop. In other words, the agency will not seek the advice of the
advisory board or the local people when preparing its action plan,
but will seek the advice of outside consultants, which it is free to
choose.
(1315)
That is totally unacceptable and that is why the hon. member for
Frontenac and agriculture critic has put forward amendments
which hopefully will be considered on the basis of their merit and
accepted. What do these amendments say?
First, when agency officials produce an action plan, we do not
want this action plan to be put on the shelf and forgotten as soon as
it is tabled in this House; it should be referred to the Standing
Committee on Agriculture instead.
The members of this committee, government members and
opposition members alike, take the future of the farming industry
to heart, as, we assume, everyone else does. They want to ensure
that the right decisions are made.
These members will scrutinize the action plan submitted by
agency officials and will be in a position, at least we hope so, to
make the necessary changes before the plan is tabled in the House,
put on a shelf and forgotten by everyone. That is what our
amendments are all about.
We want the agency's action plan to be referred to the agriculture
committee for consideration and approval. This is not too much to
ask. I cannot see how the Minister of Agriculture or the members of
the government party could object to such a sensible motion.
What else is suggested? That the agriculture committee, in
considering the plan, listen to the groups concerned, those
representing farmers from coast to coast. They could tell us
whether this action plan is practicable and will achieve the stated
goals at a reasonable cost.
We could also hear from the consumer associations'
representatives to find out whether the inspection procedures meet
the standards or whether the inspection should target another kind
of industry or product.
We could also hear people from the industry. They could tell us
whether the agency's action plan will allow them to operate
normally, and whether it will give them credibility with the
consumers and guarantee the good quality of food for consumers.
Before we develop an action plan or have it tabled in the House,
only to meet the same fate as thousands of reports tabled here, that
is being shelved for good, it would be worthwhile, if this process is
to be of any significance, to have it referred to the agriculture
committee. The committee could hear from all those interested and
make sure, even if we have doubts concerning the agency and its
executive, the action plan is at least credible and can be examined
and judged on its merits.
I hope the government will consider these amendments and
recognize the enormous amount of work the agriculture critic and
his colleague have done.
Since this is my last speech before we adjourn, I would like to
extend to you my best wishes for the season.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I believe we have moved on to group No. 8. We
support the amendments in group No. 8, Motions Nos. 24, 25, and
26.
Motion No. 24 suggests that a parliamentary review of the
agency's business plan be undertaken before the bill is approved.
(1320 )
Motion No. 25 supports a parliamentary review of the agency's
business plan before the bill is approved. It also supports the
agency consulting with industry employees first. Accountability
which is required by Parliament is essential.
I believe the committee did an excellent job of reviewing the
bill. Excellent witnesses appeared before the committee. We were
able to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the bill. However,
when it came to implementing change, the powers of the
committee were hampered because the government held the heavy
hand on
7534
the committee and insisted that its members not consider valid
amendments and instead pressed ahead with the government's
agenda, whether or not that was the best position to take.
To illustrate that point, I would like to mention the one
amendment that was able to get through the clauses by clause
session. It amended the preface of the bill. That amendment called
for cost effectiveness. One would think that every member would
think that is an essential measure for the bill. It would ensure that
the new agency would be cost effective. The government said that
was its intention. The witnesses said it was paramount. One of the
key purposes of the agency is to make one food inspection agency
more cost effective than having three separate agencies under three
different ministers.
While this was a perfectly sensible and logical amendment,
government members voted against it. Fortunately, two
government members supported the amendment so there was a
split. That was the only amendment which was put forward in
committee on which government members were not unanimous. It
struck me as being very odd that three government members on the
committee would vote against cost effectiveness as a principle and
guiding light for this new single food inspection agency. That tells
me that government members are very hesitant for the agency to be
accountable to Parliament. That is very sad indeed.
Another amendment we proposed at committee stage indicated
that the fees set by the agency must be reasonable. The fees should
not exceed a reasonable cost in providing the service or the use of
that service.
Believe it or not, government members voted against that
amendment. That shows us the wrong direction in which the
government is going. A few months earlier when we debated the
Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, which was studied in the
agriculture committee, we were able to amend the act at report
stage by inserting the word reasonable. It put guidelines on a
government agency which said it could not be unreasonable.
Sometimes governments are unreasonable. We saw a lot of
unreasonable things happen in the Mulroney government. Mr.
Speaker, you were here then. You saw many of the unreasonable
things that they did and you spoke about them.
Governments change from time to time. Mr. Speaker, you
probably do not think this government is unreasonable, but
governments from time to time are unreasonable.
The Liberal government says it is going to be reasonable. Of
course we doubt that. It says that it will be reasonable, however, it
will not implement a restraint or a constraint to ensure that these
agencies deal with consumers and the industry in a reasonable way.
The government says that it will ensure the agency will always be
reasonable.
Sometimes governments are not reasonable. However, if the
legislation says that the costs must be reasonable, they will have to
be reasonable because it is the law of the land. If the bill is not
followed, legal recourse should be available.
It was extremely disappointing that government members were
opposed to amending the bill to ensure that the costs be reasonable
for the services provided by the single food inspection agency. This
is at a time when the government, under treasury board initiatives,
is implementing cost recovery. The industry is saying that many
times cost recovery is not reasonable. Strong statements were made
by organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture,
the prairie pools, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and food
processors that said that cost recovery is not reasonable.
(1325 )
The House has no powers to hold the government and these
agencies accountable. It is not there. We wanted to put it in the
legislation. The government said: ``No. We want the minister to
have all power and the committee can meet and discuss these
agencies at length then''.
We can talk until we are blue in the face, but unless we have the
support in legislation we do not have the clout. If an unreasonable
government is in place then our hands are tied behind our backs.
That is not the way government should work. That is not what
Canadians want. That is not what was in the red book.
The hon. member who left the Liberal ranks a few days ago
because he could not be reconciled with his party over the budget
and then tried to get back into the party was told: ``No way, José''.
By the way his name is not José but I am not allowed to his name.
However, he got up in the House and said to the Prime Minister:
``You promised that government would be more accountable. It is
in the red book''. When he quoted the page he was booed by his
colleagues. They called him a traitor for quoting the red book. It
was shocking. The government is moving away from being
reasonable and accountable. It is disgusting. It is wrong.
The House is studying the single food inspection agency and
amendments by my colleagues from the Bloc. We put forward
similar amendments in committee. As I mentioned earlier, Reform
put its amendments forward at committee stage because under the
new process there is supposed to be a better chance of reasonable
amendments being considered in committee if they are presented
before the bill is approved in principle. No way. That is another
broken promise.
Even a simple amendment that said the cost would have to be
reasonable was defeated. At a time of user fees and cost recovery,
at a time of friction between the government and the industry, the
government said: ``No. We don't want to be accountable. The
committee can look into anything but it has no power. There is no
sanction in the legislation. We want to keep the minister's hands
entirely free. We want the agency to be able to do as it pleases,
7535
charge what it pleases for the services it provides''. That is
unacceptable. That is unreasonable.
The auditor general should be able to hold this agency to full
account as well. We are concerned that the auditor general will not
have sufficient opportunity to hold the new single food inspection
agency accountable.
The other day the auditor general in a report to committee that
the whole system of guidelines for cost recovery are vague if they
exist at all, that there are unquantifiable factors out there, that the
department has not done its homework and does not know what it is
talking about when it talks about what the cost recovery levels are
for our competitors, what the expectations for cost recovery are,
whether cost recoveries are considered to be in the public or the
private good.
He said that guidelines have not been put in place by the
department of agriculture or by Treasury Board and certainly will
make it much more difficult to determine whether this agency is
being accountable and reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this chance to speak to this grouping
of motions. As I said, we support them.
Perhaps this is my last chance to address the House and the Chair
prior to the Christmas break. We are not sure what is happening
here. I certainly want to wish all members a very merry Christmas
and, Mr. Speaker, may you enjoy the holiday season. May you all
be safe and have precious time with your families. We will look
forward to seeing each one of you in the new year.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 1.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed in today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
7535
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-214, an act to provide for improved information
on the cost of proposed government programs, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak to this bill presented by the Liberal member for
Durham. I feel in this particular instance he is definitely on the
right track. As this is a private member's bill I can personalize it
and strongly emphasize how much I support the general thrust and
intent of the bill.
The bill will require that the estimated annual cost and the cost
per capita of every new government program be published as soon
as the bill that authorized it is introduced in Parliament or the
regulation that implements it is issued. The auditor general's
opinion on the estimate is also to be published.
When a bill would come to this House at second reading stage
there would be a requirement for the government to present to us
the costs and economic impact of the bill. The actual requirement is
that the government would have to explain the economic impact so
that all members of this House and all Canadians could understand
the nature of the bill. This has to be a tremendous improvement
over what we are doing now in this House of Commons. I will use
two examples to illustrate areas that would be improved by this
bill: the tobacco bill and the disability aspect of the Canada pension
plan.
The tobacco bill is being hotly debated and hotly contested. It is
a tough issue. There is a fine line between trying to impose
regulations and steep taxes on this legal substance-it is legally
allowed to be sold-and restricting the impact of this substance on
the health and welfare of individual Canadians, especially the
young people because of its highly addictive qualities.
We have debated this bill. The tobacco industry and related
lobbyists have said that the advertising and sponsorship provisions
in the bill and the restrictive nature of the sale of cigarettes will
force them to reduce their funding.
The Minister of Health has not provided us with any numbers on
the economic impact on advertising or sponsorship. He has raised
the taxes by $1.50 per carton. He said that he could not go any
higher, that the committee had advised him a greater tax increase
would encourage the smuggling trade. Some of these numbers
should have been given to us, for example the extra revenue the tax
increase will generate.
Why is it that cigarettes can be sold in B.C. for $44 a carton with
a high taxation level, which encourages east to west smuggling?
When people are in Toronto they go to the huge warehouses and
buy cartons of cigarettes for $19 each whereas in B.C. they pay
$44. They will spend $500 to save $500. It pays for the air fare. If
they bring $1,000 they can really save money.
When bills are presented, these things are not being explained to
us as members of Parliament. If this type of explanation were
given, a bill like the tobacco bill would not be debated just on the
basis of emotion, the emotion of addiction, the emotion of what it
is doing to youth, the emotion of something that supposedly is bad
but nevertheless is legal. The bill could be discussed with some
balance; the emotional arguments would be balanced with the
economic arguments.
7536
The government has been trying to introduce the tobacco
legislation for 14 months but has not been able to. People have
been dying from smoking cigarettes. But when the health minister
suddenly introduces the legislation, it has to be passed now, before
Christmas. It has to be fast tracked because people are dying and
that is all we are concentrating on.
If a bill were presented along with its economic impact it would
have to have a more thorough review at the departmental and
ministerial levels before it even got to cabinet. If cabinet were to
approve the bill with its financial ramifications, it would then be
presented to us on that basis. That would make a big difference for
all parliamentarians. Then we could make a proper balanced
decision on these bills.
I read the member for Durham's opening speech on this bill. He
said that many members of Parliament end up voting just to go
along with their party line, but they do not really understand what
they are really voting for and why they are voting the way they are.
I am currently a member of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts. We just finished reviewing chapter 17 on CPP disability.
In his report the auditor general indicated that management is a
problem in the civil service. I am not saying nor is he saying that it
is mismanagement. The problem is undermanagement.
There is not enough leadership, not enough guidance. There are
not enough rules for the people in management to carry out
effective control of the programs they are in charge of. There are
not enough effective controls to say yea or nay to certain people on
disability. The rules are archaic. They have been added on since
1970. It is an abomination.
(1335)
Some of these people in the bureaucracy need help. As
legislators, we are the ones who are standing in the way. We have
now given them the tools to work with so all they have to do is say
no or yes to people and there are a lot of complaints. This type of
bill would enable the presenter to make the proper changes and talk
about the financial impact.
An overall review is necessary in our CPP, which we are doing,
but it is also needed specifically in the disability area. Since 1993
the department has done 24,000 reassessments of long term
disability claimants and found that 34 per cent of them no longer
qualified but were still receiving benefits. Fortunately, over half of
that money will be recoverable and the government will get some
money back.
It is a serious matter. There has to be a mechanism in the rules
which states that we must present a cost benefit analysis of a bill or
changes to a bill so that everybody understands not just the kind of
society we are trying to create or the caring we want to show the
people in Canada but also the economic impact along with the
emotional impact.
It is important for us as legislators to give those in the civil
service the tools to work with so they can do a proper job in
effectively controlling the public purse strings. It is becoming far
too easy for politicians to stand up and say that they just blew it. If
that is what we say, then we are not assuming our responsibilities to
pass good and effective legislation that will make spending more
visible, that will make the cost of government more apparent that
will be in the best interests of every single political party in the
House and all Canadians whose tax dollars we suck out of their
pocketbooks. We must know who spends it, who is accountable for
it and how wisely the money is being spent, which is what Bill
C-214 does.
We could amend the bill a little by adding a sunset clause where
it would be compulsory at the end of the fifth year to check out the
viability of each of the programs to see if they are successful in
achieving their desired ends.
On the auditor general's opinion on the estimates, which is also
to be published, I disagree a little bit with my colleague from
Durham in this area. The job of the auditor general is to audit after
the fact and not predict before the fact.
The auditor general's job in auditing is to match the intent of
government legislation and the intent of programs with the success
or failure of achieving the objectives, which is what he is doing
now. I believe that is something he can still do. He would be doing
the value for money audits but for example, it would have been so
much easier had the Minister of Health presented all the financial
implications of the Tobacco Act.
There is also the Endangered Species Act. How much is that
going to cost? What is the impact of that act? There is hardly a
member of Parliament here who knows what the impact of that bill
will be. Why has that not been presented to us by the minister?
We have a right to know how the money is going to be spent and
who is going to have to pay for it. Things like that are very
important, very critical and very crucial. I commend the member
for Durham for bringing forward a private member's bill like this
one.
This is what is going to happen with this. The President of the
Treasury Board has said: ``We must equip ourselves with better
systems for evaluating the actions of government so that we can
genuinely answer for actions first and foremost to our fellow
citizens who are both clients and taxpayers''. He is not showing his
support for this bill. He is staying neutral because he says it is a
private member's bill. He says it is the job of the standing
committees to ask those questions about what a bill costs and what
money is going to be spent.
My colleague from Lloydminster in a prior speech has pointed
out how effective standing committees are in getting that kind of
information. The minister says: ``A cost analysis is given to cabinet
confirming the financial impacts in a confidential memorandum''.
If it is already being done, then share it with the Canadian public
7537
and the House of Commons. It should not be any big deal for the
minister to support this.
I would just like to conclude with one comment by the member
for Durham. I like this quote and will give him credit for it: ``The
forces that would turn government back on the road to fiscal
irresponsibility are at work today'', and they are still out there.
``They ponder how to spend annualized surpluses, even though the
debt stands at over $600 billion. This legislation will serve as a
check on these forces''.
(1340)
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to express my views to the House during the debate on
Bill C-214.
The bill proposes that the government make a declaration to
Parliament of the estimated annual cost of every new program
which it intends to implement. I welcome the opportunity the
member for Durham has given me to remind the House of the
progress the government has made in recent years and is continuing
to pursue in this very important area.
As an example, I would cite the improved reporting to
Parliament project. This initiative responds to the need for better
accountability. It entails working with Parliament to provide good,
meaningful information not only on the costs of government
programs but on the results we achieve in relation to the goals and
objectives we set for ourselves.
We would all agree on the importance of the initiative, given that
these programs and the results are funded by the dollars which the
taxpayers have entrusted to us to manage well and to deliver the
services they expect and need from federal departments and
agencies.
In the improved reporting to Parliament project, the government
is endeavouring to draw on the expertise of all stakeholders,
parliamentarians, public servants, interested professionals and the
clients and constituents whom we serve.
Improved information to Parliament is also a key component of
two other recent government initiatives, program review and
getting government right.
Program review is now in its second phase. We have been
scrutinizing all federal activities to ask the questions that are
important to us all, questions such as: What activity should the
federal government continue to be engaged in? How should these
activities be delivered? By what level of government? If federal, by
which department or agency and at what cost and for which level of
service?
The results of the program review have been significant in a
number of ways. We have clarified the roles, responsibilities and
the priorities of federal departments and agencies. We have begun a
thought process with respect to options for alternative
organizational forums and mechanisms for program delivery.
The bottom line is that program review means that by 1998-99,
annual spending on federal government programs are projected to
fall by about $9 billion and will be delivered by a smaller, more
effective and less costly public service.
Getting government right is a complementary initiative which
involves the modernization of federal programs and services to
meet our obligations as a government and the expectations of our
clients today and in the years to come.
I would encourage any member who has not already done so to
read the progress report on getting government right which was
tabled in this House on March 7, 1996. It describes what we have
accomplished in clarifying federal roles and responsibilities in
making the federal government work better and in rethinking
program delivery so as to adjust to today's reality and the
challenges ahead.
More specifically, getting government right means ensuring that
resources are devoted to the highest priorities, responding to the
public demand for better and more accessible government and
achieving more affordable government.
In moving forward on this agenda, the government is mindful of
the need to ensure that the role of the national government is
preserved to meet core responsibilities. These include:
strengthening our economy and economic union to ensure a
prosperous country for ourselves and our children; enhancing
social solidarity in Canada; pooling our national resources to
achieve common goals efficiently and effectively; defending
Canada's sovereignty; and speaking for Canadians collectively on
the world stage.
While I support the objective of Bill C-214, its enactment would
only add to the cost of government without making any substantive
improvement in the quantity and quality of information which the
government is providing and plans to provide to Parliament.
Consider the changes we have already benefited from in the
1996-97 estimates documentation. In addition to part I of the
estimates which provides an overview of federal spending, part II,
the traditional blue book which supports the Appropriation Act,
and the individual part IIIs, two important innovations were
introduced.
7538
(1345)
First, the government tabled a new document entitled ``Program
Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental Spending''. This
document, while not formally constituting part of the estimates,
represented an important step forward in that it combines federal
program spending detail which was previously presented in both
part I of the estimates and the budget. This provides a bridge
between the budget document and other estimate documents.
``Program Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental
Spending'' gives Parliament both an overview of program spending
within the context of part I and program review and more detailed
information on program spending by sector and by federal
department. Program review's principal achievement will be
structural changes in the business of government, many of which
are already visible to all parliamentarians and the Canadian public.
For example, in the transportation sector shifting from owner,
operator or subsidizer to regulator and policy maker; and in the
agricultural sector, in partnership with the provinces, moving from
commodity based agricultural subsidies to a whole farm safety net,
focusing on income stabilization rather than income support.
Other important restructuring initiatives include withdrawing
from programs which provide direct financial support to industry
and addressing overlap and duplication to consolidate activities
wherever possible, thereby making program delivery more
efficient and more effective.
The second phase of the program review builds on the first.
Specific measures resulting from program review II which affect
primarily the 1998-99 fiscal year include the rationalization of
subsidies, privatization and commercialization where feasible, and
further reductions in spending.
While in some cases specific measures to implement program
review II decisions will be developed over the next two years, it is
clear to the government that innovation in service delivery is a key
factor to our success.
We want to move away from traditional hierarchical delivery
structures to forms which are more cost effective and more
responsive to Canadians. The creation of the three agencies
announced in the speech from the throne and the budget is well
under way.
Another change which we saw in the 1996-97 main estimates in
addition to the document profiling departmental spending was the
tabling of six pilot part III of the estimates departmental
expenditure plans. These documents are pilots or tests in the
government's effort to address the concern of parliamentarians who
have better information on the multi-year costs of government
programs and constitute a key initiative in the improved reporting
to Parliament project.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out to my
colleagues that the progress which we have seen today is only the
beginning. The estimated costs of a program represent only one
side of equation. The government is equally concerned with
reporting to Parliament on the results.
The government is currently considering mechanisms for
reporting to Parliament on the performance of government
programs in a more timely and complete manner; for example, the
introduction of performance reports which would be tabled in the
fall of each year rather than as a component of the planned
expenditure information which we currently receive as parts of the
estimates documentation.
This government has made a concerted and ongoing effort to
involve parliamentarians in shaping the form and content of the
information which is presented to us not only on the cost of
government programs but on their results. I believe our
participation in this process is the key to improving the information
for Parliament. The member for Durham shares our objective.
However, I believe that the legislation being proposed presents
potentially costly and ineffective alternatives to the initiatives I
have just outlined.
I believe that more focused, streamlined information to
Parliament will make it easier to assess government programs.
Information which is better organized and more user friendly will
strengthen the accountability of government to all Canadians.
I am grateful to have this opportunity to address the House on
this proposal. I too wish you all a Merry Christmas and prosperous
new year.
(1350)
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. speaker, it is a
pleasure today to debate Bill C-214, the program cost declaration
act tabled by the hon. member for Durham.
Let me take a few minutes to outline the purpose of the act and
what is behind it. The act, which is a votable item, would require
departments of the government to provide a financial or cost
analysis of each piece of legislation on its introduction to the House
of Commons or at the time the minister or governor in council
issues regulations or other instruments.
The auditor general would certify that the method used to arrive
at this analysis was fair and reasonable under the circumstance.
The cost would be disclosed in total as well as based on the per
capita cost for each Canadian citizen.
7539
This legislation would cause legislators and their departments to
be more conscious of the financial impact their legislation would
have. The PCDA, as it is called, would provide for a greater degree
of disclosure and accountability for government programs and lead
toward a more integrated expenditure system. It would give
members of Parliament and the public more knowledge and to that
extent more control and scrutiny over how government spends.
If this type of legislation had been in place years ago, I believe it
is true that would not have so easily created the massive deficits
and debt which the federal government is now forced to deal with.
That really is the purpose of the legislation, as stated by the
member for Durham. I think it is transparent that the legislation is
worthy of support. It has been supported in statements from the
auditor general and the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation. The
retiring president, Mr. Jason Kenney, has said that he supports the
legislation. James Forrest, the executive director of the Alberta
Taxpayers' Federation, has indicated that they support it. During
the first hour of debate it received fairly favourable reviews from
MPs representing all the recognized parties in the House.
I could also note that professional accounting organizations have
also indicated their support. Marcel Latouche, president of the
Charted Association of Certified Accountants has indicated
support; the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario;
the Society of Management Accountants of New Brunswick and
Prince Edward Island. They endorse the principles behind the bill,
and I could go on.
I guess the real question is why anybody would do it any other
way. When we think about it, it is quite extraordinary that in this
day and age governments would think of tabling and publicly
adopting legislation without providing assessed cost information as
part of the process.
I do not believe there is any chief executive officer in this
country who would go to his board or his shareholders and not be
prepared to give a definitive cost assessment on a project that the
company had undertaken. Nor would any intelligent head of a
household enter into a major purchase, any purchase other than out
of pocket, without making an assessment of the real costs over
time.
If anything, I think the bill probably does not go far enough. This
is absolute bare bones, as some of my colleagues have pointed out.
There are other things that could be done with the bill but which
have not been done. There are no sunset clauses on any of these
expenditures. There is actually no provision for making the targets
that are assessed by the auditor general mandatory or for any
amendment if the costs are out of range from the original estimate.
There is no assessment required of benefits or of the present value
of the cost stream. There is no requirement to indicate what the
source of the income would be to cover the cost or how precisely
these sources are related to the benefits and the beneficiaries of any
of the projects.
This is a very small step, one that is worth pursuing and I believe
ultimately worth adopting. However, it is not putting any kind of
undue restrain on government, nor is it even challenging some of
the basic Liberal philosophy that I think is ultimately the problem
here. I may get into this later if I have time.
(1355 )
This is what the member himself is ultimately up against
because $600 billion in debt was not run up in this country by
accident. It may have been run up through incompetence but it
really came down to the heart of the Liberal Party philosophy and
the philosophy of modern liberalism which is that government
exists to spend, to transfer money from some people to other
people for the benefit of politicians and bureaucrats, and ultimately
it is a political and not an economic question on how resources are
allocated. That is the philosophy of modern liberalism, not just to
serve a dependency but to create it, to nurture it and to build big
government around it.
That is why we have the problems we do in this country. That is
ultimately what the hon. member is up against in trying to move
this bill forward not just with the philosophy of liberalism but,
frankly, with a political party and a leadership that have to justify
the last 30 years, justify the way things have been run. They
surround themselves with the representatives of the old way of
doing things. That is a problem when getting the House to look at
this kind of measure.
I would point out in the few moments I have left that this is not
by any means the only measure that parliamentarians of various
parties have tabled in this Parliament to attempt to bring modern
cost evaluation and cost control to the federal government.
I will mention a few of the private members' bills that are on the
Order Paper right now, all of which relate to this kind of matter:
Bill C-213 put forward by the hon. member for Capilano-Howe
Sound to amend the Constitution Act to require balanced budgeting
and spending limitations; Bill C-294 by the hon. member for St.
Albert which would require the periodic evaluation of statutory
programs, two-thirds of federal spending not subject to a regular
review process; Bill C-342 by the hon. member for North
Vancouver would require stated principles of fiscal management
from the Minister of Finance consistent with generally accepted
accounting principles and would require public periodic reports
that deal with approaches to debt reduction, to balanced budgeting,
contingency for risk and stable tax rules; Bill C-349 by the hon.
member for Medicine Hat to require public disclosure and
parliamentary scrutiny of federal user fees; Bill C-361 by the hon.
member for Yorkton-Melville, the people's tax form act, which
would give
7540
voters and taxpayers a say on their tax forms in terms of what kind
of federal government programs are supported and with what kind
of tax dollars.
There are various other propositions. I think all the ones I
mentioned are reform propositions but there are others from
Liberal members which deal with not just reforming spending
directly but making government more accountable, whether it is
through giving people more say on their tax form or through
referendums or through reforms of the House of Commons. There
are endless numbers of propositions. None of these has been
addressed so far in this Parliament or seriously entertained.
I would like to review some of the objections that have been
raised to this type of legislation if I have time. Let me say before I
get to that in summary that what all of these objections have in
common, and I am sure we will hear this from the parliamentary
secretary later, is somehow the theme that we are doing it right
now. Everything is just fine the way it is. Cost control is really
terrific. We now have only a $30 billion deficit this year. Therefore
what are we really worried about when it comes to taxpayer
dollars? The other objection is how can we afford to spend this
money to control federal spending and to control the federal
budget.
These people never have any problem with spending money at
the front end. They always find it very expensive to monitor. They
can always afford to spend the money. They can never afford to
have the accountant to keep the records. That is an amazing
philosophy but it will come out in all the objections.
As I say, there is really no valid reason for opposing this type of
bill. It is standard practice in every other institution. The auditor
general knows this is consistent with modern accounting practices
and would like to see his office handle this sort of role.
(1400)
I commend this bill to the House. I know that many Liberal
members support it. They reject the old philosophy. I ask them to
vote in favour of this legislation.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to support the bill of the hon. member for Durham.
Essentially the bill calls for a full disclosure of costs for any
legislation brought before the House, any regulations that are
enacted or any other instruments that are implemented by the
government.
This bill should be applauded. Canadians are demanding more
accountability from their parliamentarians. I salute the hon.
member for Durham for bringing this bill forward.
In the spirit of the bill, I am sure the member looked at the costs
of implementing this particular bill. I would say that the costs of
implementing this bill would be very limited. I am sure the
member will bring forward those costs at a later date.
Most departments and most ministers do some kind of
accounting or cost estimating of what the implementation of
proposed measures will cost. I am sure those numbers are
reasonably available. What the member is saying in this bill is that
those costs should be brought before the House.
Too often in the past legislation has come before the House and
has been passed without members knowing fully what the costs and
the impacts of the legislation will be. In my view, there are
different kinds of legislation. Some legislation costs a lot of money
to implement and some costs very little. However, if the costs are
not known, it is very difficult to make any kind of judgment.
Another element can creep into legislation and that is the
problem of incremental costs. A small piece of legislation on its
own may not be that costly to implement, but given other
legislation and other initiatives, the cumulative costs can be quite
significant. The bill would provide a very transparent process. It
would ensure that members of the House would know what the
implementation costs of the legislation would be.
This bill calls for that information to be prospective, not
retrospective. What good does it do if the auditor general comes
along later and says that a program cost X dollars and the benefits
were less than the cost? At that point it is too late. This bill
demands accountability up front in terms of disclosure. It is a much
more appropriate way to deal with the issue.
I echo what other members have said before me. The bill is a
start. It is certainly not the full solution. It is a first step in a very
important process.
Other questions need to be answered when legislation is
introduced and when regulations are implemented. For example,
what would be the impact of legislation on other stakeholders?
Other stakeholders could include other orders of government. It
could mean the business community. It could mean a whole host of
things. While the bill deals with the cost of implementing
legislation within the federal government, we also have an
obligation to analyse what legislation will do to other orders of
government and to the business community.
For example, a tool has been developed by treasury board and
Industry Canada which is called the business impact test. It is used
to assist legislators and departments to assess the impact of
proposed legislation on business. The business impact test is
affectionately referred to as the BIT. It is an important tool which
parliamentarians should encourage. There is nothing to stop that
information from being presented in the House when other
legislation and costs are presented.
When we look at the impact of legislation we should also be
looking at alternatives. What alternatives were looked at before the
department brought in the legislation? Are there market instru-
7541
ments that could be used as effectively? Are there voluntary means
that could be implemented to achieve the same goals?
(1405)
We have a habit of bringing in laws and legislation telling
business how to run and operate its business instead of putting in
legislation which sets certain standards and criteria that are
required and allowing the business community to develop the
processes by which it could meet those standards. When that is not
done, it adds another cost to the burdens of government. It also
makes business more inefficient.
The way that laws and regulations are brought forward,
developed and implemented are very complex. A number of
processes are in place. Sometimes legislation is driven by the
bureaucracy. Sometimes legislation is driven at the political level.
Sometimes it is driven by stakeholder groups that create a demand.
We need to be very cautious that we do not fall into the trap of
building empires, whether it is building empires for bureaucrats,
special interest groups or politicians. This legislation really
provides a vehicle for a full debate, full disclosure and full
accountability at the start of any proposed initiative.
Often we debate legislation and the issues of public policy and
law in this House. That is very important but too often we do not
debate the fiscal impact of some of the initiatives that are brought
forward.
Perhaps if we had done more of this in the past, we would not be
facing the fiscal challenges we face today. Now is the time to start
on a new program, on a new footing. This bill allows us to do that.
The effect of this bill, in my view, is that it will have a large
deterrent effect that would be positive. In other words, private
members or the government of the day will be reluctant to bring
forward bills that have a heavy cost associated with them, and
where the benefits are not clearly defined.
Government is not like business. It cannot always put legislation
in the context of cost and benefit in the same kind of quantifiable
way that can be done in business. However, it does not preclude
governments from adopting some of that rigour and applying it in
any way it can.
I applaud the member for bringing this forward. Legislation and
regulations have a huge impact on the competitiveness of our
industries. The market does not solve everything. We know that,
and governments have a role to play.
We need to really examine carefully the impact that regulations
and legislation have on businesses because the capacity and the
ability of businesses to develop jobs and economic activity will be
partly a function of the regulatory environment and the legislative
environment in which they work and how that compares with those
environments in the countries where competitors are domiciled.
If we do not really look at those elements on an incremental
basis or on another basis, we can put businesses on a footing where
they are not competitive to deal internationally or even within our
own domestic markets.
This bill is a giant step forward. I applaud the member again for
bringing it forward. I certainly will support it. I hope other
members will.
I too would like to take this opportunity to wish everybody a
very happy and safe holiday and a prosperous new year.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
too am pleased to speak in support of this bill, the Program Cost
Declaration Act, Bill C-214.
It is said that the Canadian public is becoming cynical about the
political process. I believe it was the American humorist Mark
Twain who said that a cynic is a person who knows the price of
everything but knows the value of nothing.
(1410)
What the hon. member for Durham is trying to do with this bill is
to put two concepts together. If we know the price of something and
we know we are getting a good buy for the price then we are quite
willing to pay for it. This bill is about how to determine the price
and whether value for money is being given.
I will give an example. If one was to go down to one of the
luxury car lots not far from Parliament Hill, no doubt a car could be
found that was worth $75,000. That is a lot of money. However, if I
take the car out and test drive it, I may begin to feel that with all the
bells and whistles and all the good things that are included, $75,000
is not a lot of money to pay for the vehicle. In my opinion, $75,000
is a lot of money for a car but if someone can afford it and it is good
value, they will pay for it because it is not a problem.
As legislators, we often get into programs that cost money but, at
the same time, are good value. I am not quite as cynical as some of
the earlier speakers from the Reform who only talked about the
price and did not want to talk about the value. They were only
interested in the cost because it is a personal lifestyle issue to them
as opposed to what it means to us as Canadians or to the country as
a whole.
At the same time, as individuals, collectively we are entitled to
know what the large picture cost is of this and what the individual
or per capita cost is of the particular program.
As an example, a couple of years ago in the province of British
Columbia, the then minister of the environment in that province
wanted to introduce environmental legislation that sounded great.
It was reformulated gasoline. It was a wonderful idea which would
7542
have wonderful effects on the environment. People thought it was
just what they needed and that the government should proceed with
it.
However, when the people of British Columbia found out that it
was going to cost them eight cents a litre more to buy reformulated
gasoline, they had very severe reservations and told the minister of
the environment to back off because they wanted to think about it.
Once the price had been leaked to them, they started to realize that
maybe under those circumstances they were not getting good value.
There is another side to this. As Canadians we know that health
care costs a lot of money. Despite the fact that health care, no
matter what country one lives in, has a large price tag attached to it,
Canadians know that they are getting good value. If we compare
ourselves to what I heard earlier from the Reform members, they
are only interested in the price. They would prefer to adopt the
American model which suggests that as an individual it does not
matter what the price is as long as it is affordable. It does not matter
if it is good value or not.
In the United States we know they are spending at least 2 per
cent to 3 per cent more of GDP on a per capita basis for health care,
whereas we know in Canada it is expensive but collectively we get
a better deal and it is better value. That is where we differ from the
Reform Party in the role of government.
However, that does not detract from what the hon. member for
Durham is saying. I can recall in Ontario a number of years ago
when government was growing that it was introducing all kinds of
programs and would say: ``This is a great program and it will only
cost you 15 cents a week or 15 cents a month''. That was one little
department of the government keeping 15 cents here and 15 cents
there. It all adds up at the end of the year when somebody has to
pay for it. We know that the somebody at the end of the year is you,
me and everyone else who was involved in the taxation system.
I want to point out one other thing. We have also heard from the
Reform members. They know the price of everything but the value
of nothing.
(1415)
I would like to point out a strange twist in their philosophy. They
stand in their places here and talk about getting tough with
criminals: ``Let us lock them up, do not give anyone the benefit of
the doubt, do not consider the value of rehabilitation. Let us not say
to a person: You have served your time, we will give you a second
chance. I am a Reformer and I want to lock you up''.
Maybe we should start costing what their criminal law
amendments would add up to. Maybe we should sit down and ask:
What is the price that the Reform Party is putting on the criminal
justice system? To you, Mr. Canadian Taxpayer, is it good value?
Does it mean a whole lot to you that a person will be locked up
forever? What does it mean to you as a taxpayer when we do the
collective routine?
I am not a cynic in the sense of the Reform philosophy that there
is a price. I am saying to tie the two of them together. Let us look at
the price and let us look at the value we will get from it. What is the
overall cost and is it good value? Is it something Canadians want?
Canadians will have to know what they are paying for.
I realize a number of groups have endorsed this. The present
auditor general has said that he shares the view that the cost of
government programs and operations should be made more visible
to Parliament and to taxpayers.
Today I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour talk about program review and that programs are being
made more cost efficient. That is the right thing to do and as a
member of the government I applaud that. We must do that. We
have no choice. And we are doing that.
But this is not a question of making programs more efficient. It
is a question of telling people up front, right then when we
introduce a law what it is going to cost the country and what it will
mean to every man, woman and child in the country. Legislation
has many yardsticks which can be applied to it. We put legislation
to all kinds of tests, but this is the one test that has obviously been
missing.
I realize that this may impose an onerous burden on certain
departments. After having heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Labour speak, I think it is like a scene out of ``My Fair
Lady'' where Eliza Doolittle was being taught English and she did
not want to continue any more. She said that she was tired, fed up
and could not carry on. In this case I would suggest that the
department has no reason to be tired. It can carry on and it ought to
carry on in the vein and with the intent, purpose and thrust of what
the hon. member for Durham has proposed in the bill.
It is ironic that the Alberta Taxpayers' Association has said that
the bill is a good first kick at the can and deserves the consideration
of members of Parliament. This is what the member has succeeded
in doing by getting this bill to the floor of this Chamber.
I know there are others who will speak to the bill today and in the
future. At the same time I believe it is incumbent upon us to
thoroughly examine the bill. In the end I believe we on this side of
the House at least will conclude that we are not cynics but we do
want to know the price and then we as legislators can determine
whether this is good value for the people of Canada.
7543
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to
begin with, I would like to congratulate our colleague from
Durham, for taking the initiative to introduce a bill to improve
information on the cost of programs proposed by the government.
(1420)
Our fellow countrymen, administrators, a list of accountants,
which we have seen, and even the office of the auditor general have
said that this initiative would be welcome. When we look at the
enormous expenditures of the government, it is clear that we need
mechanisms to ensure program costs are made public at least in
general terms, given that it is impossible to have precise
information and figures for a five-year period.
But the primary initiative of this bill will be to help bureaucrats
realize that Parliament, which has the last word on programs,
requires information that is as precise information as possible,
because we are aware of the impact, the ramifications, of program
expenditures and do not like to find out, a year or two down the
road, that certain programs have ended up doubling or tripling the
original estimates.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. This is an initiative I
like very much. There is no doubt that many mechanisms do exist,
as our hon. colleague from Prince Edward Island has said. There
are mechanisms in place to control, if you will, or to give some idea
of the costs of programs.
However, I think that this proposal by the member for Durham
would put our bureaucrats and, of course, ministers and deputy
ministers, who are responsible for the various departments, on the
alert, forcing them to make sure that the information provided is as
accurate as possible, otherwise we are the ones who are going to
incur the wrath of our fellow Canadians if they realize that
expenditures were higher than anticipated.
In the short time I had, I just wanted to draw the attention of my
colleagues to this aspect of the bill. Such legislation deserves a lot
of attention and certainly deserves to be debated. I hope it will help
those responsible for program analysis to realize that we have the
last word and that we need information that is as accurate as
possible.
[English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will start by wishing happy holidays to everybody, to all Canadians
including my constituents, and of course a very Happy New Year.
[Translation]
I wish a Happy New Year and a good holiday to all Canadians
and to my colleagues. I also say to all my Italian friends: Buon
anno a tutti miei amici italiani.
I congratulate the hon. member for tabling a rather important
bill. We need to have details when we vote as members of
Parliament, and we also need to be convinced that the legislation is
an important one for our communities.
My only concern relates to the auditor general's involvement,
since it could delay the passage of an act that can be extremely
important for the country.
[English]
Private members' bills are extremely important for the
backbenchers who speak to their constituents and know what their
problems are. There seem to be a lot of constraints on private
members' bills. A private member's bill is the only tool a
backbencher has. From my own experience I have introduced three
private members' bills. They were intended to address injustices in
the electoral act.
Some people may not know that a private member's bill first has
to be introduced. Then the member's name has to be drawn and
eventually the votability of the bill has to be established. I do not
think that the votability should have to be established. We should
be able to present and discuss the bill and then if the debate
collapses, it collapses.
My first bill related to an injustice regarding political parties
losing their party status. They had to decertify because they did not
have 50 candidates. In British Columbia if we were to create a
party, it would never become national because there are only 34
seats, whereas in Quebec for instance, a provincial party could be
made national because there are 75 seats. That is something which
should have been addressed but unfortunately the debate collapsed.
(1425)
I would like to support this bill. It is important that there be more
accountability in what is presented to the House and I am prepared
to support that idea. It is a good idea that we all know what we are
voting on and we know from the beginning what the costs are going
to be.
Again, a very happy holiday to everybody and particularly to
you, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I shall
speak just a few minutes on the bill tabled by my colleague, the
hon. member for Durham.
First of all, I will congratulate my colleague for having presented
a truly worthwhile initiative, one worthy of the House of
Common's attention. I personally have had the opportunity to
examine it and to ask a few questions, particularly of Treasury
Board employees, in order to determine just what they do at the
present time with regard to the information they provide about the
House of Commons.
7544
I am pleased to inform you that the main thrust of my
colleague's proposal has already been implemented. The
Department, and the President of Treasury Board, have undertaken
to facilitate, and to provide far more information to members of
Parliament than they did in the past. For example, in collaboration
with the other political parties, they are starting to make it easier
to obtain information and to provide far more reports, not only
on the new government programs, but also on existing ones.
The government has also taken very aggressive initiatives to
ensure that Canadians have access to affordable programs which
are appropriate to the population's needs.
At the present time, the government is holding discussions with
representatives of the provinces and territories with a view to
saving money, while ensuring that the programs established to
serve Canadians are appropriate and transparent.
My problem with this initiative is that it will be redundant. Each
year the auditor general makes recommendations on the
government's operations, and then makes his report public.
Historically, more than 65 per cent of his recommendations have
been implemented, whereas the government and the ministers take
action every time the auditor general makes recommendations.
I think that it will bring in another type of bureaucracy one that
will be more costly, especially when the government is already
involved in implementing all manner of measures to ensure
government transparency and the availability of information to the
House and its members.
I just wish to say that the 1996-97 estimates have demonstrated
the government's serious intent, since it has taken tangible steps. It
has not only talked about taking steps, it has taken them. I therefore
wish to congratulate the administrators and the ministers for their
initiative.
Let me wish everyone a Merry Christmas, and as my colleague
has said, buon anno a tutti e grazie signor.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped to the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
Perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words.
[Translation]
On behalf of all of the occupants of the Chair, to my colleagues
in the House and to everyone, I would like to wish a good holiday
season.
[English]
I want to say how much the Chair and the other occupants of the
chair-I say this on the part of all of us-appreciate the
co-operation of all hon. members, of the clerks at the table, of our
pages and of all those who make this Chamber work. Without the
help of hundreds of people, we could not function here.
[Translation]
To everyone, I would like to express holiday greetings from all
of the hon. members of this House.
[English]
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We hope we will not be
back next week.
It being 2.30 o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until
Monday, February 3, 1997 at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing
Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)