CONTENTS
Friday, May 17, 1996
Bill C-20. Consideration resumed of report stage 2927
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2927
Bill C-20. Consideration resumed of report stage 2929
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2935
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 2935
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2938
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2938
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2938
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2938
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2938
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2939
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2939
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2939
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2942
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2942
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2942
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2942
Mr. O'Brien (Labrador) 2943
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 2949
Bill C-36. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 2949
Bill C-37. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 2949
Bill C-38. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 2950
Bill C-39. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 2950
Bill C-40. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 2950
Motion for concurrence in 18th report 2950
Motion moved and agreed to 2950
Bill C-20. Consideration resumed of report stage 2953
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred. 2953
Motions Nos. 13 and 14 2953
Motions Nos. 13 and 14 agreed to. 2953
Division on Motion No. 15 deferred 2957
Division on Motion No. 25 deferred 2962
Bill C-4. Motion for second reading 2962
Consideration resumed of motion 2963
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2970
2927
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 17, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 15, 1996, consideration of Bill
C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air
navigation services, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee; and of Group No 2.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, I believe the hon.
member for Laval Centre has the floor.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to say that you are right. Besides, what
could be more fantastic than to be the first one to speak in this
House on a beautiful Friday morning, before an eight-day recess,
not a holiday, but a change of pace?
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20, an act respecting the
commercialization of civil air navigation services. As you know,
the Bloc Quebecois supported the principle of this bill. However,
you will agree with us that this bill is far from being perfect, as
demonstrated by the several amendments proposed by the official
opposition. As it is now, we are sure the commercialization will not
be done only in the best interests of users. I will deal more
precisely with the Bloc's motions in Group No 2, before us this
morning.
First, I would like to comment on the bill in general. As I
mentioned, the Bloc Quebecois is not against the bill as such. We
are not against the privatization of air navigation services, but the
one thing that concerns us the most and that we must not forget, is
the issue of safety.
Privatization must never be done at the expense of the safety
standards inherent to navigation services. Too often, privatization
of public services entails a deregulation leading to a certain lack of
rigour concerning safety standards for example.
Last week's tragedy in Florida involving a ValuJet aircraft may
be an indication of that. We have every reason to wonder if, as an
effect of deregulation, some carriers more interested in profits than
in passenger safety are not ignoring minimum safety rules.
The motions in Group No. 2 we are debating today are about the
distribution of Nav Canada's notices concerning its decisions on
airport facility closures. Bill C-20 states that these notices should
be sent to local newspapers and band councils by mail or
electronically. It is true that this is the age of the information
highway, but is it reasonable to choose one way or the other? We
believe not.
The motions presented by the Bloc Quebecois, only 18 motions
concerning six clauses or three motions per clause on average, are
mainly intended to change this so that notices are sent both by
regular mail and the more modern medium, e-mail. As members
know perfectly well, not everyone has access to e-mail and it is of
capital importance that all those concerned, all the groups that
could be affected by a Nav Canada decision to reduce or close
airport facilities, receive an advance notice early enough to be able
to take action.
That is simple respect for users. The fact that air service is
privatized does not mean that this service should be less accessible.
Services must be maintained, particularly in remote regions where
news information is sometimes harder to get and less timely. God
knows there are many remote regions in this huge territory that is
Canada. The people who live there are entitled to a quality service.
My colleague from Abitibi gave a very good description of the
concerns of remote regions as regards air service, which is very
often an essential service in cases of medical emergencies or other
such problems. Privatization does not mean the government can
forget its obligations in matters of aviation safety and air services
that must be provided to Canadians.
(1010)
The government cannot do what it did so blithely with ADM,
saying it had no say in the closing of Mirabel because it was a
private sector issue. It can try to hide behind a private corporation,
but Quebecers and Canadians will not admit that. On the contrary,
when the government adopts such an attitude, Canada and Quebec
reject it.
2928
If privatization is necessary to reduce costs, very well, but it
must not be done at the expense of services to users. They must
not do it for the sole purpose of reducing the deficit and, at the
same time, transfer costs to the taxpayers. It seems this
government has developed that habit, but you can be sure the
official opposition will be there to remind members of the
government that we find it totally unacceptable.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate, at second reading, on
Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air
navigation services.
As my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, said in this
House on Wednesday May 15, when the former Minister of
Transport, now Minister of Human Resources Development, first
announced the policy on commercializing airports and air
navigation, in July 1994, the Bloc Quebecois agreed with the
principle.
Since then, we have been thinking long and hard about how the
principle is to be applied. The creation of Nav Canada, a non-profit
organization providing a public service, is aimed necessarily at
being cost-effective. This corporation bears a striking resemblance
to ADM, Aéroports de Montréal, the corporation managing
Montreal airports, airports being plural, of course. It is not for
profit and has no capital stock.
On August 1, 1992, ADM signed a lease with Transport Canada
giving it the mandate to manage, run and develop Dorval and
Mirabel airports. ADM is headed by a board of seven directors
representing businesses in metropolitan Montreal, and by a CEO
appointed by seven agencies making up SOPRAM, the body
responsible for promoting Montreal airports.
Even though I am not a member of the Standing Committee on
Transport, I have a particular interest in Bill C-20 as the Lachute
municipal airport and Mirabel airport are located in my riding of
Argenteuil-Papineau. Both airports, together with about 600
airports across Canada, are affected by Bill C-20.
Before I continue, I would like to give a brief history of Lachute
airport. It was built in 1950 by Ayers Limited and acquired by the
City of Lachute in 1973. Considering the enthusiasm of the local
population and private companies for the municipal airport of
Lachute, it was decided to proceed with a study on development of
the airport with a view to attracting companies in the aviation
sector, without taking anything away from the recreational aspects
of the airport.
Improvement work was started in the Fall of 1992, with the help
of a federal contribution from the Financial Assistance Program for
Local and Commercials Airports at Transport Canada. Today,
Lachute airport, with 200 acres of industrial and commercial land,
close to Dorval and Mirabel airports, is a major drawing card for
the region. The amendments that the Bloc Quebecois proposed
would protect taxpayers and air carriers.
The first motion of the Bloc Quebecois is very important. It
would add to the preamble of Bill C-20 that the safety of
passengers, personnel, air carriers and the public take precedence
over all other considerations in the business decisions taken by Nav
Canada. It is essential that safety and the interests of the public
come before the commercial interests of Nav Canada.
(1015)
Motion no 2, also presented by the Bloc Quebecois, is equally
important since there are some similarities with ADM, and since
the board of directors is constituted the same way. Only large
carriers are represented on the board of Nav Canada. In the case of
ADM, we now realize that the public has really no voice to choose
representatives to protect its interests.
For these two companies, only business interests counts. And
what about these political appointments that certainly do not
necessarily ensure the interests of taxpayers and air carriers,
especially small carriers?
The federal government is transferring to local authorities
responsability for the management and operation of airports. There
must therefore be close and increased monitoring to prevent abuse.
Bill C-20 must not be passed without including the amendments
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, amendments that will ensure a
minimum of protection for the public and air carriers.
With my colleagues from the Lower Laurentians, the hon.
members for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes and Laurentides, the
mayor of Mirabel and many other stakeholders, I personally
intervened in the issue involving the transfer of flights from
Mirabel airport to Dorval. I can assure you that ADM had no
scruples making decisions without public consultation.
Indeed, a public hearing request was made repeatedly by local
representatives and others, a request that was supported by
Quebec's transportation minister, Jacques Brassard. The answer
was shocking: ADM gave a one-month deadline, without going
over the decision taken a long time before.
This brings me directly to motions No. 25 and 26, which would
delete clause 96.1 and add Nav Canada to the list of institutions in
the act. The Bloc Quebecois categorically opposes Motion No. 25,
which attacks the very foundation of transparency. The federal
government would be well advised to exempt Nav Canada from the
Privacy Act. As in the case of ADM, the public would be unable to
be informed of major information regarding them.
I myself recently asked for the reports on which ADM based its
decisions regarding the transfer of flights from Mirabel to Dorval.
ADM told me flat out that, as a protected corporation, it was under
2929
no obligation to provide me with the studies or reports, just as
Nav Canada will be protected by the government's proposed
amendment.
Taxpayers' representatives then commissioned an economic
study on Dorval and Mirabel airports. This study, which was done
by Professor Yvon Bigras, from the Université du Québec à
Trois-Rivières; Professor Robert Gagné, from the École des hautes
études commerciales; and Professor Jacques Roy, from the
Université du Québec à Montréal, was in complete contradiction
with ADM's arguments for consolidating flights at Dorval. The
public could read this report, but not some of the studies allegedly
done by ADM.
This report scientifically outlines the myriad disadvantages of
consolidating flights at Dorval. All the measures to be
implemented were estimated at $643 million by ADM in 1993.
Moreover, compensating Mirabel's current franchisees would cost
some $80 million. The transfer of flights to Dorval raises the
problem of noise with the resulting operational restrictions.
(1020)
This report shows that the advantage of concentrating flights at
Mirabel lies in the airport's quasi-unlimited ultimate capacity and
few noise restrictions. ADM even admitted that, in any case, flights
will have to be consolidated at Mirabel within 10 to 15 years
because of Dorval's limited capacity.
What will be the fate of regional airports, which will have to pay
charges without having a say in this?
This brings me to Motion No. 15 put forward by the Bloc
Quebecois, whose purpose is to ensure that aircraft belonging to
DND or to a national government are not exempted from paying
charges. In the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, if clause 32(2) is not
amended, it will, once again, hide DND's spending. The Bloc
Quebecois has always been in favour of reducing defence spending.
The bill would force taxpayers and carriers to pay DND's charges.
In conclusion, I urge the government to join us in protecting
taxpayers and carriers.
* * *
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a
message has been received from the Senate informing this House
that the Senate has passed Bill C-275, an act establishing the
Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, with
amendments.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-20, an act respecting
the commercialization of civil air navigation services.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House at
report stage to speak on Bill C-20 respecting, as mentioned
previously, the commercialization of civil air navigation services.
The purpose of this bill is to privatize air navigation services
across the country through the establishment of Nav Canada, also
called NAVCAN. This is a name worth repeating a few times so
that the public will get used to it, because it may well become
infamous for the problems it will create.
This corporation will be responsible for supervising air
navigation services throughout Canada. As someone already
pointed out, this kind of organization is being established as part of
an overall Transport Canada strategy to modernize transportation
services across the country.
Under this strategy, the government has already privatized CN,
recently commercialized some services provided by the Canadian
Coast Guard and is currently contemplating the possibility of
commercializing the operation of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Canada is selling off its ports, airports, railway lines, railway
cars and even bridges. This is like some kind of huge liquidation
sale. The sale of bridges, and the Quebec bridge in particular, will
obviously give rise to untold difficulties, since whoever buys the
bridge in Quebec City will not have to take on the obligations the
government had regarding the bridge. In fact, the government has
gone into business.
Today, it is civil air navigation services that are being
commercialized. The federal government tells us that we must
agree in principle with improved efficiency and lower prices. The
federal government's real motivation in creating Nav Canada is
quite obvious. Its main concern is really to make air navigation
services cost-effective-or so it says-at the expense of safety and
regional development.
The former Minister of Transport himself has admitted that the
government can no longer afford the cost of maintaining adequate
air navigation services. We must therefore ask ourselves if the new
corporation will be able to do any better. Several of the
stakeholders who spoke on this issue expressed their concern about
the possible costs of the new system and their impact on charges
paid by users of air navigation services.
2930
Only large carriers will have a representative on the board of
directors of the new corporation known as Nav Canada. Regional
air transportation associations and companies will not be
represented.
(1025)
We know that, for a long time, in Quebec as well as in other
provinces, the government has been asked to decentralize its
operations so that local residents, who are familiar with local
conditions, can have a say in something affecting their community.
Again, in this bill we see an excessive centralization that will result
in large carriers being the only ones to be heard.
Thus, regional air transportation associations and companies
will not be represented. Large carriers are being given an advantage
over small ones, especially as far as passenger fees are concerned.
This aspect must be followed very closely, and we will do so as this
bill progresses.
My colleagues and I are worried about the impacts of Bill C-20
in this regard. That is why we are proposing to add to the preamble
a note indicating that Nav Canada must agree to maintain equal
opportunities for small and large carriers in setting all charges.
This way, we will ensure small carriers a certain degree of
fairness in this regard, and we know how important this is. Usually,
large companies always end up deciding on everything, and
everybody abides by their decisions. Nav Canada is meant to be a
non-profit corporation with a mandate to manage public interests,
and as my hon. colleague was saying a moment ago, we can draw a
comparison with Montreal, where private companies will
determine the future of Montreal airports without involving
anybody else, without holding any public hearings, without making
any studies available. The government is about to do something
similar with this bill and the establishment of Nav Canada.
This creates a risk for users and the general public, since Nav
Canada will hold a monopoly over air navigation services in
Canada. The corporation will impose user fees and will have
absolute control over the tariff structure. We want to make sure that
Nav Canada's financial interests do not take precedence over the
public interest. This is why the Bloc Quebecois motion seeks to
include, in the preamble of the bill, a recognition that the safety of
passengers, personnel, air carriers and the public has priority over
all other considerations in the decisions taken by Nav Canada.
The first motion in the first group aims to have the government
and Nav Canada recognize that public safety and interest take
precedence over Nav Canada's financial interests. We have to
ensure that someone is still accountable for safety standards, which
must always remain the top priority. The government would be
ill-advised to oppose the motion, since the minister sponsoring the
bill said, in a speech, that Transport Canada's top priority is to
maintain and, whenever possible, to improve the safety and
security of Canadians.
The government can really not vote against a motion confirming
such priority in the bill, since the minister himself alluded to it. I do
hope government members will support the statements made by
one of their ministers, even though what we saw and heard in recent
weeks might lead us to think otherwise. Indeed, as recently as
yesterday, the government did not even support a declaration made
not too long ago by its Prime Minister, in some kind of
autobiography, not posthumous of course.
The third motion in the first group seeks to add to the preamble a
mention that Nav Canada recognizes that ``Canada is a country
where air services to northern and remote regions is essential''. The
purpose of this motion is to establish a basis for interpretation.
Again, I do not see how government members could oppose the
motion. We want to make sure that regional services will
effectively be provided, particularly in remote regions.
This parameter will serve as a basis for interpretation by
stressing that one of Nav Canada's fundamental objectives is to
provide services to the regions. The idea is to make sure that large
carriers do not impose their rules on smaller ones, without regard
for regional markets and needs. Co-operation and understanding
are essential between all carriers, large and small.
(1030)
As you can see, the first group of motions includes three motions
that would fit into the preamble in order to recognize the legitimate
rights and responsibilities that Nav Canada should always respect.
What these motions propose is, roughly, that the government and
the new corporation recognize that the safety of passengers is one
of the most important concerns and must take have paramountcy
over all other considerations, including the financial interests of
large carriers and the new corporation. I would like to mention, not
as a vision of doom nor as something that could happen-because I
hope it will never happen-the plane crash that happened recently
in the United States, in the Florida Everglades.
The possibility was clearly raised on television, at least
according to some comments I heard, that the accident could be
related to the financial problems suffered by the airline, which
would appear to have great difficulty in performing the technical
checks needed to ensure the full safety of its passengers. This is
currently under investigation in the United States.
I mention this case to ensure that we do everything to prevent
such an occurrence here. As we know, this country's two largest air
carriers have financial problems. And we do not want them to take
advantage of the establishment of this new corporation to bail
themselves out by increasing rates, for example, which would
immediately impact negatively on small regional carriers. We do
not want to find ourselves once again in the situation where the
2931
little guy is made to pay for the big guy. This seems to have become
the rule nowadays.
We only have to think of what the Auditor General of Canada
just told us. Large family trusts have no problem because, through
nebulous rulings made behind closed doors, and often in matters
that could be judicially examined, they can transfer billions of
dollars out of Canada without paying taxes. When you are big,
there is no problem doing that. We are even setting precedents that
will allow all the others to do the same afterwards.
Last week, the Financial Post quoted Revenue Canada
documents to the effect that over $60 billion in assets were taken
out of Canada in 1991 without any tax being paid. It is obvious that
big shots in Canada have no trouble whatsoever making their sweet
little deals. Included in those big shots were most Canadian banks
who advertise on television and tell us how much they care about
the public's interest. What we would not like to see happen with
this bill is big companies ending up with an advantage over the
small ones.
In conclusion, there is no reason why the government should
oppose these motions, especially those in the first group, since they
are a mere confirmation of principles the government itself has
applied repeatedly. All we want is to see these principles clearly
entrenched in the bill and included in the preamble.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased this morning to have the opportunity to
take part in debate at second reading stage of Bill C-20, an
important piece of legislation to privatize Canadian airports.
As my colleague from Laval Centre mentioned earlier, the Bloc
Quebecois is not against any privatization initiative that could
improve the efficiency of airport management throughout the
country. However, there is privatization and privatization. When
privatization leads to security problems, as we saw recently in the
United States when a ValuJet airplane crashed, then the Bloc
Quebecois cannot give its assent. Also, when basic principles such
as fairness and transparency are set aside, then again the Bloc
cannot give its assent.
In the bill before us, two basic principles are violated. First, the
local communities are not treated fairly. As for respect for the local
communities, nothing in this bill leads us to believe that regional
and local communities will have their say in the privatization
process and the management of the airports in Canada, or will
receive the information they need and be treated fairly and
respectfully for what they are.
(1035)
It is not surprising that this bill shows no concern for local
communities. The former Minister of Transportation, now Minister
of Human Resources Development, reacted the same way when
the issue of unemployment insurance reform was addressed
recently. He showed that he did not care about some local
communities who depend on seasonal work, by overlooking the
many concerns expressed by people from his own riding, people
who live in these communities, who know them well, who are able
to assess the bad decisions made by the government and the real
negative impact they have on the local economies.
It does not surprise me that Bill C-20 reflects a lack of concern
for local communities and that the government has turned a deaf
ear to our numerous requests in this regard.
Such a bill should not only aim to ensure, directly in the mandate
of this new organization created by the federal government-Nav
Canada-air transportation in remote areas, for example, but also
to advise local communities, which are the first concerned and the
main clients of the air carriers, of any change in services-rates,
frequency, schedules, etc.-and in air transportation equipment or
infrastructure.
The bill is rather deficient as far as information to be provided to
local people is concerned, since, according to the government, one
notice only in a national newspaper like the Globe and Mail or Le
Devoir, for example, should do. Thus, this group of motions, that
is, motions Nos 4 to 12, aims essentially at ensuring one thing:
information.
It is not normal that people living close to the airport in
Mont-Joli, for example, should be informed in the Globe and Mail
of changes that concern them. The normal and respectable thing to
do would be to publish these notices of changes in the Mont-Joli
local newspapers. Le Devoir would not be the normal vehicle for
such a notice on the North Shore, since this newspaper is not that
easy to find in that area.
Local communities should have a guarantee that they will
receive notice directly, through their local media, of changes in the
frequency of service, in the schedules, etc., or of more substantive
chaanges such as the reduction of some services or even the closure
of some airports. The same holds true for Native bands. It is not
always easy to reach them, even through the local media. The band
councils must be informed of the changes regarding local airports.
Today, information is not only a privilege, it is also a basic right,
all the more so since the communities that will be the first affected
by the changes made by Nav Canada are the local ones. It will not
be the communities in major centres, where there is a larger density
and frequency of services. This then becomes a necessity.
In this respect, let me praise the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for being sensitive to these issues,
that is to say for insisting on service, respect and fairness for local
communities. As you may know, our colleague, the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, is also the official Bloc Quebecois
spokesman for a major organization in Quebec called Solidarité
rurale, and I think it is much to his credit to have succeeded in
making our party, our
2932
caucus and our members more aware of the needs of local
communities and of the respect we owe them.
(1040)
It is more and more obvious that this government wants to carry
out all its reforms by betraying the very principles it says it wants
to protect. In the red book or the speech from the throne, much is
made of respect for people, for rural communities and the people's
decisions. But this government's actions give a completely
different picture.
I was listening to the Minister of National Revenue who
displayed such compassion for Canada's richest families. She said
that there should more of them. In other words, she supported her
department's decision, which allowed the transfer of $2 billion
worth of assets in the United States absolutely tax free, without one
cent of tax being paid on capital gains. She displayed a lot
compassion for those families.
If her government displayed the same compassion for local
communities and the needy, we would be one hundred per cent
behind the government, but the fact is that there is an almost
insurmountable chasm between what the government says and
what it does.
Out of respect for local communities, for the human beings who
live in these regions and who are the victims of the government's
carelessness or of the cruel and inhuman decisions of the Minister
of Human Resources Development concerning unemployment
insurance, maybe we should, for once, be taking measures which
favour them; in other words, we should give them an inalienable
right to information when it comes to an important project such as
the privatization of airports.
So this is the meaning of the motions moved by the Bloc
Quebecois, and it can seem strange for people who live in Ottawa,
Toronto, Montréal, Québec, Winnipeg, Calgary, etc., to call for
these notices to be given in the local media, but for the people
concerned, it makes all the difference between the pride of being
who they are and the respect due them by government.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to give the context of the series of changes proposed by
the Bloc Quebecois and included in the second group of
amendments, it must be pointed out that the objective of the bill is
to commercialize the air navigation services, which is to say to
transfer to a not for profit organization a service that had been up to
now in the public domain.
As I said in my speech on the first group of amendments, that is
something that could be interesting and commendable but only if
we can guarantee the population that the security and safety level
of the services will be maintained and that it will have its say at the
regional level on all decisions having a major impact on the local
economy.
For that reason I would like to correct an impression left by the
parliamentary secretary on May 15, when he said that our motions
contained errors because we were not referring to the right clause.
This is not the case because, as we also said in committee, we want
to ensure that information is made available not only on the
formula for calculating the fees, but also on the services because, in
isolated areas, services are as important as fees.
If decisions taken by Nav Canada have the effect of depriving
airports of safety equipment and have an impact on the volume of
local air traffic, we must ensure that the local population has its
say. That is the reasoning behind our amendments. If we want
regions to have their say, they must be informed of the decisions.
We want to give people the opportunity to send their comments
by traditional or electronic mail and ensure that they will be
informed of all planned changes.
We added special consideration for the native band councils
because, due to their particular situation, the traditional media are
not necessarily the best means to reach them. We must ensure that
they are well informed also. I think that, considering the special
interest of the government for the natives, it should accept our
amendment to guarantee appropriate coverage.
(1045)
An airport is vital to a remote area, to an isolated area, because if
often has a strong impact on the region. Let us take, for example,
the Mont-Joli airport, in eastern Quebec. It is obvious that any
decisions made with regard to aviation safety at this airport will
likely have an impact on the activity at this airport.
We want people from the regional county municipality, people
from Mont-Joli, all stakeholders in the tourist industry and other
industries to have their say in any decisions that will have an
impact on safety at the airport and that could ultimately have an
impact on the economic activity around the airport.
That is why we want to ensure that the information is adequate
and timely so that people can have time to react and make their
opinions known accordingly.
We have a very good example of that in the decision of
Aéroports de Montréal to possibly transfer international flights
from Mirabel to Montréal. It is not for me to say here whether this
decision is good or bad, but I just want to show that this
organization created by the federal government to manage both
Montreal airports has changed its position drastically in a relatively
short period of time. At first, it was saying that both airports could
survive, that it would share out responsibilities and transportation
opportunities between both airports, and that everything should
2933
work out this way. Now it is saying that it wants to transfer all
international flights to Dorval.
This situation is provoking reactions in the Dorval area because
people have certain fears in terms of safety. We saw it again today
in the newspapers. There is even talk of taking this matter to court.
So would it not be preferable for the consultation mechanisms
allowing people to voice their opposition and express their views to
be provided for in the bill that creates Nav Canada, the organization
which will be responsible for air traffic control, instead of ending
up with very expensive legal battles in which economic decisions
will be challenged?
I take this opportunity to urge the government once again to take
its responsibilities in this matter and also to make the comparison
with the bill before us today. If we have an example like the one
concerning ADM, because there is an unwillingness to let people
have their say about the future of their airport, the future of air
navigation in their region, is there not a risk that, in the years to
come, there will arise two, three, five, ten problems of the same
sort as we are seeing in Montreal, with negative reactions from
local communities, who are forced to take a very vocal approach or
go through the legal system in order to make their views known.
This is the reasoning behind our amendments today in Group No.
2. We want to ensure that people living in the Northwest
Territories, in northern Quebec, as well as in large centres, because
there are decisions about large airports that affect urban
populations, have a say. When an airport has a lot of traffic, take
Pearson in Toronto, it is certain that there are decisions that, in the
medium term, have an impact on all economic development in a
region, and it would be very appropriate if, before decisions about
safety equipment in these airports were taken, the people in the
surrounding areas were heard from.
That brings me back to the safety aspect. Last week, there was a
very unfortunate plane crash in southern Florida in the United
States, pointing up just how important the question of air
navigation is. No margin of error is acceptable in this sector. It is a
sector where guarantees of safety with respect to decisions taken
are essential, and if accidents happen, that they be truly
unforeseeable and not in any way due to decisions made either by
the government or by the new agency known as Nav Canada.
Imagine what we could have in a few years' time, if there were a
similar accident here and Nav Canada officials refused to accept
any responsibility, saying: ``The legislation did not oblige us to
have safety take precedence over our economic commitments. In
the case of the airport where the accident took place, we did
everything we were required to do. We did not necessarily buy the
latest equipment it would have taken, or put in place all the
required safety measures, but it was not in our mandate''.
(1050)
There would be costs in terms of human lives and of equipment,
and no way of ascribing the blame to anyone. It is important that
the bill provide some balance.
Originally, the costs of air navigation were extremely high. Steps
were taken in conjunction with the industry and most of the
stakeholders, although the small carriers were not given enough of
a say, with a view to ensuring lower and more acceptable costs.
The bill fails to make safety paramount, and also to ensure that
decisions will not have a negative economic impact on the regions.
The approach to this matter, as in a number of other current
government bills, is to make things uniform across Canada. This is
a trend which, in my opinion, ought to be resisted, and I think this
is important.
We have proposed a preamble, a sort of interpretive clause, to
restrict somewhat the considerable leeway afforded to Nav Canada,
and to require that it take the elements referred to into
consideration.
Our amendments on the distribution of information prior to a
decision and on finding out the regional point of view reflect issues
of importance to us, and we feel tney would make for a better bill.
Government acceptance of the proposed amendments would
provide the satisfactory balance the bill lacks at this time. We are
making a transition from a very costly system to one where the
costs will be well controlled. Let us ensure that passenger safety
will be guaranteed. This is the purpose of our amendments.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to express my thanks to my colleagues who spoke on the motions in
Group No. 2, namely: the member for Laval-Centre, the member
for Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies, the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Why? Because those members spoke on a fairly important group
of motions. I take this opportunity to say that I am somewhat
concerned by the lack of interest hon. members from the other
parties seem to have for this very important group of amendments
on which I will speak in a moment.
Those amendments do not seem to raise much interest in Reform
and Liberal ranks and this concerns me. As I said, I will explain
why in a few seconds.
It seems that because these amendment motions were introduced
by the official opposition they have no merit and are not
interesting. Actually the reason Liberals have no interest in these
amendments is that they are not the ones who had the good idea of
2934
introducing them. This is why they oppose them and do not even
bother to discuss them.
As my colleagues did this morning, I must emphasize that the
Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the principle of privatizing air
navigation services. It does not oppose privatization if that will
help these services to become viable to some degree.
What we are troubled by are the precedents. My colleague from
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup referred to the case of ADM, the
acronym for Aéroports de Montréal. I do not wish to take sides in
the debate on Mirabel or Dorval or on the timeliness of privatizing
Mirabel or Dorval or not, but I must say that this government, on
the pretence of making the industry aware of its responsibilities,
uses privatization as a means to shirk its own responsibilities.
(1055)
The other day we saw the minister wriggle shamefully out of
answering opposition questions by saying: ``That is not the
responsibility of the Minister of Transport. It does not come under
the authority of the federal government, but rather under the
authority of the ADM. We no longer have any say in this''.
It is totally unacceptable to have the government, under entirely
creditable and honourable guise, trying to wriggle out, to take
French leave, to avoid making a decision when one needs to be
made.
Still on the subject of the ADM, we should note that this sort of
privatization suffers from a certain lack of transparency. Decisions
can be made without public consultation; decisions can be made
without an environmental impact study. When studies are done, as
was the case apparently in the ADM decision, the public does not
have access to the impact studies, since these corporations are not
subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Finally, here I am at the main point of my
remarks-information. Information, according to René Lévesque,
means freedom. The purpose of the motions in group No. 2 is to
provide better public information.
No one in this House will argue against, at least I hope they
would not, the importance of airport facilities for local
communities in the regions. In my riding, at
Saint-Mathieu-de-Beloeil, there is a tiny regional airport, which is
very important to Saint-Mathieu-de-Beloeil and of course to the
neighbouring communities as well. The same is true in the ridings
of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and in other parties:
regional airports are very important.
Given the importance of airport facilities to these local
communities, it is essential we provide proper information on
decisions that have been made, particularly if a decision has been
made to close an airport facility. So as my colleague for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot rightly said a few minutes ago, we cannot
count on people in the regions being necessarily informed by the
dailies-and I am thinking of the people in Mont-Joli-such as the
Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star. We have to be able to inform
them directly through the local media.
It is not utterly silly to claim that it is important to include in this
bill a clause forcing the government to inform the public, through
the local and regional media, about the major impact of decisions
by Nav Canada.
Obviously, it is also important to inform native bands that would
be affected by Nav Canada's decisions to close airport facilities.
I will conclude by saying a few words concerning the use of the
information highway to inform interested parties about Nav
Canada's decisions to close airport facilities.
As an example, I will tell you about a discussion I had with the
Minister of Foreign Affairs. It will not take too long. The minister
told us that he wanted to consult Canadians through electronic
mail. That is good, but not all our fellow citizens have access to
these services yet. Therefore, other means, include the good old
fashioned postal service, must also be used to consult the public.
_____________________________________________
2934
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we walk into the House of Commons, the foyer
depicts much of Canadian history, including the important role that
natural resources generally, and minerals and metals specifically,
have played in our development. In fact, minerals and metals are
essential. Everything in this House involves products from the
mining industry.
(1100)
National mining week, May 13 to 19, helps celebrate not only
mining's contribution to the Canadian economy but that this is a
high technology sector. Our prospecting experiences, combined
with our expertise in mineral technology, remote sensing and
creation of geological maps put Canadians at the forefront of
technology and environmental development.
This experience and expertise will keep Canadians at the
vanguard of mineral wealth creation well into the 21st century.
2935
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this week Quebec celebrates the family. This year the
emphasis is on young families. In order to accomplish the delicate
and important task they are faced with daily, they need support.
Quebec society has gone through gradual changes to become the
modern society we know now. Today, the family has many faces,
but behind each face are the same needs, and the same
requirements, since each member of the family unit has to deal
with his or her own needs and reality.
I invite all the members of this House to think about how to
collectively provide our young families with the support they need
to improve the society they live in.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has added several new meanings to the GST letters.
We still have the goods and services tax but we also have a
government House agenda GST, a grossly sedate tempo, and the
firearms registration GST, gun control silly tactics.
Then there is the east-west coast fishery GST, a gadoid, salmon
and turbot fiasco, gadoid being a type of cod fish.
From the budget there are a couple more GSTs: the gasoline
sales tax which increased the government's revenues, and the
opportunity for the former deputy prime minister to gurgle `slipped
tongue' song.
Through all this we watched the rat pack disintegrate to the
grovelling sorry twosome, and from there to the grumbling solo
tenant.
Two more GSTs the government can add to its list are get
sensible today, and Canada's got serious troubles.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a talented
group of individuals, Canada's quilters.
Recently Canada's quilters proclaimed the month of May as
national quilters month. I believe these talented artisans deserve
the recognition. For years quilts have been an important part of the
fabric of rural life. In a larger sense quilts are a mirror reflection of
the lives of all Canadians.
In the same fashion as our country was formed, quilts were built
with hard work, perseverance and dedication. While each
individual part in its own way is unique, together the individual
parts form a cohesive unit, a true piece of art.
I salute these tireless artisans and invite all Canadians to take a
moment to recognize these talented Canadians during national
quilters month in May.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to
recognize national police week. It is an occasion for all Canadians
to pay tribute to the professionalism, dedication and personal
sacrifice exhibited by our police officers as they carry out their
duties, often under unpleasant or adverse circumstances.
This year's theme of police in the community promotes the links
between Canada's police forces, large and small, with the
communities they serve. Community policing projects continue to
record tremendous success in the war against crime and community
security. An ounce of crime prevention is worth countless pounds
of cure.
I would like to particularly acknowledge members of the
Niagara Regional Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police and
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, all of whom serve with
distinction in various capacities in Erie riding.
I encourage all Canadians to shake a police officer's hand this
week. Thank you for helping to keep our streets safe, our homes
safe and our families safe. Thank you for being there when we need
you.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, beginning this year May has been declared
Gaelic cultural awareness month in Nova Scotia. This month is
being designated to celebrate the important role which the Gaelic
language has played in the history of the province.
The descendants of the highland Scottish settlers, the Gaels,
have contributed greatly to cultural diversity in Nova Scotia and
throughout North America. Their language and culture have
influenced countless individuals, communities and institutions.
Canada's first two prime ministers spoke fluent Gaelic.
I congratulate the Nova Scotia Gaelic Council on its efforts to
promote Gaelic and I invite members of the House to celebrate
Canada's cultural diversity and the importance of all minority
languages in Canada.
2936
(1105)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the 11th gala of the Grands Prix du tourisme québécois
was held last weekend in the Montcalm hall, in Quebec City.
I would like to take this opportunity to offer my most sincere
congratulations to all the winners of the Grands Prix du tourisme
québécois. I would like to pay tribute specifically to Father
Fernand Lindsay, Cleric of Saint Viator, founder and artistic
director of the Lanaudière international music festival. Father
Lindsay received the award of excellence. Every summer,
thousands of spectators flock to the Lanaudière amphitheatre to
listen to the best musicians in the world.
The exceptional quality of this festival makes the
Laurentides-Lanaudière area and the rest of Quebec very proud.
Nine other awards were given in various tourism fields of
activity. Over a thousand prominent members of the Quebec
tourism industry and business sector were in attendance.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is in the
newspaper this morning that recently four boys aged 10, 11, 13 and
15 abducted a 13-year old girl and forced her into an apartment
where she was raped by the 11-year old. This horrendous act of
abduction and rape was done because the government failed to
protect this 13-year old girl by providing her attackers with a shield
of immunity.
The untouchable 11-year old who raped this innocent girl had a
string of offences against him, including terrorizing and trying to
rob a clerk at a gas station. All the police could do was return him
to his mother on each of these occasions.
Reform, with the support of police and victims' groups, strongly
urges the government to lower the age governed by the YOA from
12 to 10, remove the publicity ban on violent young offenders, and
hold parents legally and financially responsible for the crimes of
their children if there is proof parental negligence is a contributing
factor.
Society needs these amendments to protect the lives and the
safety of our children.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Canadians witnessed a closing chapter in the history of
Central America where all but one of the civil conflicts have come
to an end.
Yesterday Central American leaders gathered at the Canadian
peacekeeping monument to pay tribute to those Canadians who
served in UN missions in the region. That the ceremony was
organized at the request of the Central American leaders illustrates
the close relations among our countries.
What we all celebrated was the seed of hope that these UN
missions have helped plant in Central America. It demonstrated the
courage and dedication of ordinary Canadians who have willingly
offered themselves to support Central America.
Canadians and Central Americans will continue to work together
to demonstrate that peace and the protection of human rights are
achievable in all regions of the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is, to say the least, surprising and deplorable to note in the report he
tabled this week that the director of elections in Quebec gives little
importance to the rejection of several thousands of referendum
ballots, even though it compromises our democratic system.
The director of elections even goes on to say: ``In a way, the rally
for Canadian unity compromised Quebec democracy in general
during the referendum''.
Again, it is disturbing and deplorable that Pierre F. Côté did not
focus on the systematic rejection of thousands of ballots, knowing
full well that the right to vote is the most basic, the most crucial
aspect of our democratic system.
In a way, this is a fine example of a double standard.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, filling up
has become a luxury, especially in Abitibi. In the last three weeks
alone, the price of gasoline at the pumps, in my region of Abitibi,
has gone up by an average of 9 cents a litre, a 15 per cent jump.
According to the gas price review board, this increase is the
highest recorded since the Gulf War crisis, which had made prices
rise by 11 cents a litre.
2937
(1110)
The current situation-and it is difficult to predict how long it
will last-is intolerable in regions like mine, where long distances
require us to consume a lot of gasoline.
One thing is clear and revolting for the people of Quebec and
Canada: they are at the mercy of American oil companies and the
government lacks the courage to take the actions needed to protect
us.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at this
hour, His Excellency the Governor General of Canada is awarding
the Medal of Bravery to my constituent RCMP Sergeant Robert
Guthrie of Leduc, Alberta.
While off duty on May 17, 1992, Sergeant Guthrie came upon a
serious traffic accident near the town of Millet. With the help of
Darrell Paul Robertson, he attempted to save three people trapped
in a burning car. As an explosion rocked the vehicle and engulfed it
in flames, they managed to bend the window frame and extricate
the dazed driver.
Heroism is often depicted in movies and on television by famous
actors portraying fictitious characters in unrealistic setting. Real
heroes are everyday people like Robert Guthrie who disregard the
threat to their own safety and risk life and limb in the face of
imminent danger to extend a hand to their fellow man.
I add my personal congratulations to Sergeant Guthrie for his
part in this valiant rescue. I know members of the House join me in
saying thanks for your courageous act.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only
thing on the rise in the PQ's argumentation these days is the level of
abuse they have been trying to outdo one another in hurling.
After Bernard Landry, who, the day before yesterday, described
our government's behaviour as more authoritarian, intolerant and
closed-minded than that of the former totalitarian communist
governments, now we have the ever subtle Jacques Brassard.
At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Brassard called the federal
government's latest initiatives a campaign of political terrorism.
Moreover, he accused our Prime Minister of throwing his weight
around in front of Quebecers.
It is a well known fact that using insult as a weapon is a sign of
weakness. Judging by the imposing arsenal Quebec's separatists
are building up, we are forced to conclude that they do not have
much confidence in their cause.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 23, 1996 in the town of Alexandria in my riding
residents of Glengarry organized a citizens assembly on the future
of Canada. I congratulate the organizers of this event.
Aptly named ``Focus on Canada'', the assembly was aimed as
having its participants voice their concerns over the future of the
country, especially in light of the 1995 referendum.
I was present at the conference to hear my constituents'
comments. I have recently received a copy of the recommendations
of the group, which I intend to present to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
[Translation]
The participation of residents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
in the March 23 assembly as well as in the historic rally held on
October 27 can only lead to one conclusion: we all care deeply
about the future of Canada, a future which includes Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to bring to the attention of the
House the outstanding performance of Christian Bellemare, a
student at the aerospace trades school in Montreal, who, on May 5,
at the Palais des congrès de Montréal, earned the gold medal award
at the Canadian vocational training olympics.
Mr. Bellemare showed remarkable composure and skill in the
machining competition, becoming the first student in his school to
win the top prize in the Canadian olympics.
L'École des métiers de l'aérospatiale de Montréal, which is
located in my riding, opened two years ago already; it has an
enrolment of more than 600 and a teaching staff of 50. Thanks to an
exceptional partnership with the industry, the school offers
specialized training in the aerospace and aeronautical sector.
It is important to draw attention to Mr. Bellemare's
accomplishment, thus underlining the key role played by
vocational schools in producing skilled manpower able to meet the
needs of an ever-changing economy.
2938
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are crying out for justice concerning drunk
drivers who kill, and the Liberal government knows it.
Over and over we see slap on the wrist sentencing given to
people who choose to drink and drive and as a result of their
choices kill people on our highways.
My private member's bill, if the government had the guts to
support it, would ensure that anyone found guilty of impaired
driving causing death would receive a minimum seven year
sentence.
(1115 )
My bill is supported by number of Liberal MPs, but the Minister
of Justice will not let them speak in favour of it. Why is the Liberal
government denying its own members the opportunity to speak in
support of this important bill as their constituents wish?.
How many more innocent Canadians have to die at the hands of
drunk drivers before the government does something? How many
more senseless deaths? How many more?
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when bestowed upon its members
community distinction is always a source of special pride to any
ethnocultural group. The Filipino Canadian community claims this
special pride, as two of its young women were recently honoured in
Manitoba.
Last week Hygia dela Cruz received the Gerrie Hammond
Memorial Award of Promise, the junior equivalent of the YWCA
Women of Distinction Award. Last month Mary Joyce Cabigting
received the Premier's Youth Volunteer Service Award. These
awards assume greater meaning at a time when some Canadian
youth have problems in society.
Both young women were honoured for their personal
achievements and for their excellence in the service of others. They
are role model citizens.
I am honoured to salute them. Please join me in wishing them
continued success.
2938
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
While the minister is busy complaining that there are not enough
rich families and refuses to suspend the decision of Revenue
Canada on taxing capital gains, the precedent set by this decision
could mean the loss of several hundreds of millions of dollars in
Canadian tax revenues, thus putting more pressure on taxpayers.
Is the minister of revenue in her job only to serve the very rich
families in Canada, or is it her responsibility to defend the interests
of all Quebecers and all Canadians, particularly the most
disadvantaged?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my mandate is to ensure the tax system is fair and
equitable to all. The interesting result of the conversations in the
House and in the popular press is there needs to be more
information on how tax rulings work in our system, on how taxable
Canadian property is interpreted and used. The best venue for that
is a public domain like the finance committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday her colleague from Brome-Missiquoi said on
television that people expected the government to act.
So when will the minister suspend the decision of Revenue
Canada until we find a permanent solution to this thorny problem?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are taking direct action. Our view, the best view, is to
ensure Canadians have an opportunity to hear all aspects of this
case, decisions on which were made in 1991 and 1985. We are
taking direct and urgent action. We encourage the committees to
carry on with their work.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister must understand that she ought to suspend the
decision by Revenue Canada. Otherwise, by refusing to act quickly
in this matter she becomes an accomplice in tax evasion worth
several hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which all come
out of the pockets of Canadians, because the rich will have taken
their money elsewhere.
2939
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not refusing to do anything. It is very important for
the community to understand how tax rulings play a significant role
in our tax system and the underpinning they provide to Canadian
taxpayers. Our tax system is very complex. Very often individuals
need an advance ruling from Revenue Canada. That forms the basis
of a fair and equitable process.
These things will be discussed fully and openly in committee. I
encourage the hon. member to ensure her members are part of that
review.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
complexity is not a reason not to act. If she thinks it is, let her step
aside for someone more competent, who can handle it.
Yesterday, the minister of revenue stated in this House, in
connection with tax loopholes, that she was acting ``in a very
public way'', with complete transparency. She also repeated for the
gullible that she was serving and defending the public interest.
(1120)
To what public interest was she referring, that of very rich
Canadian families, or that of the many Quebecers and Canadians
who are being crushed by a tax burden which is constantly
increasing because of her government's inaction?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said at the outset, my job is to ensure fairness and
equity for all Canadians.
As the hon. member participates in these open reviews, and I
understand he is a member of the finance committee, he will come
to understand that this aspect of the law does have implications not
only for rich Canadians but also for Canadians of more modest
means.
I look forward to his response and the report. I encourage him to
continue his participation.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general, who is responsible for monitoring government
actions, has said that a Revenue Canada decision will result in the
loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in the future.
Would acting in the public interest not mean suspending
Revenue Canada's advance decision, revealing the other cases that
may have come up since the decision, and putting in place a
permanent solution to this problem?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member participates in the process where there
is full co-operation and officials from my department and finance
providing advice, outside witnesses perhaps coming to explain the
position as well as chartered accountants who are Canadians and
understand the system and perhaps individual Canadians, we will
have clarity on this topic.
I continue to believe that having the discussion in an open forum
where members of Parliament can listen to witnesses and experts
and then provide advice to the government makes the most sense in
this case.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, recently we
have learned that a 13-year old girl in Toronto was abducted and
raped by a so-called untouchable, an 11-year old who cannot be
charged under the Young Offenders Act.
This 11-year old has a string of robberies under his belt but all
the police could do was hand him over to his mother. What is more,
this child criminal was well aware that he could not be charged and
taunted police with the fact when he was picked up.
Will the government now listen to police officers and victims
groups as well as members of my caucus and lower the minimum
age under the Young Offenders Act to include 10 and 11-year olds?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member is aware, the federal government has already
enacted changes to the Young Offenders Act to stiffen up the
penalties for the most serious crimes.
As the hon. member is also aware, the Minister of Justice has
asked the justice committee to go across the country and gather
input specifically looking at further changes to the Young
Offenders Act. Very specifically, the minister has asked that the
committee look at the age at which a young person could be made
subject to the act. The committee will be reporting and we will be
responding to that report.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during the
latest amendment to the Young Offenders Act, members of our
caucus pressed the government to look into this very question and
include that within Bill C-37 as an amendment so that society could
be protected from the criminal acts committed by 10 and 11-year
olds across the country.
After apprehending the 11-year old repeat offender responsible
for this vicious rape, Toronto police detective Duncan Miller said:
2940
``He is using the Young Offenders Act to protect himself from the
law. He is fully aware of his rights''. The 11-year old offender
warned police that he could not be charged.
My question is for the justice minister's representative. Why
will he not protect our children from these horrible acts? Why will
he not unhandcuff our police forces and provide them with the legal
means to protect our children from these horrible criminal acts?
When will he stop providing the immunity to these violent young
offenders?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
reiterate that the justice committee will be making
recommendations on this very specific point.
No matter at what age the line is drawn, cases will always appear
that would suggest the line should be drawn somewhere else. As all
the evidence and studies indicate, there needs to be more action
taken by the provinces, communities and individuals across the
country to assist young people before they get into trouble with the
criminal justice system. An ounce of prevention is certainly worth
a pound of cure.
(1125 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
absolutely unacceptable that people can knowingly commit crimes
of violence and not be held accountable by our justice system.
Federal justice officials maintain that treatment and community
programs, not prison, is the best way to reform child criminals.
Let us take a look at this 11-year old rapist. He has a thick police
file and is believed to be responsible for a string of auto thefts and
robberies. One week before he raped the young girl he was caught
trying to hold up a gas station with a toy gun. The only thing police
could do was return him to his mother or place him with the
Children's Aid Society.
I ask the government, where was the treatment or community
programs the Liberal government likes to talk about? Why will it
not simply change the system to hold children, and their parents if
negligent, responsible for the crimes they commit?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
have indicated on a number of occasions, the justice committee is
looking at the issue. The Minister of Justice has asked the
committee to look at this very specific issue.
After listening to Canadians and stakeholders within the justice
system from coast to coast, the committee will bring forward a
report. When the government acts on the report we hope the hon.
member will support our actions.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister said on several occasions that the next
Quebec referendum, and the declaration of sovereignty, would
have to comply with the Constitution. However, the Constitution is
silent on the issue.
Does the Prime Minister intend to make a constitutional
amendment to this effect?
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is
very clear on these issues. Our plan is to promote reconciliation.
We are trying to avoid another referendum.
Any discussion on what will happen if another referendum is
held is purely academic. The government said in its speech from
the throne that, as long as the prospect of another Quebec
referendum exists, the government will exercise its responsibility
to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table,
that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear,
and that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say
in the future of their country.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government seems to have a peculiar notion of clarity.
It is getting increasingly bogged down in its clarity. Since the
Prime Minister refuses to recognize a 50 per cent plus one vote in
favour of sovereignty, how can the minister claim that the
federalist status quo side won the 1995 referendum, given that it
only got 50.4 per cent of the votes?
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
refers to the acceptance of a 50 per cent plus one vote. A
referendum is a consultation process and two have already been
held in Quebec in the last 15 years. We accepted the results. The
idea is definitely not to set a specific number. It is clear that the
rights of 30 million citizens are at stake and that Canada will never
be broken up by a 50 per cent plus one result.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
2941
It seems that the sweetheart deals between Liberal governments
did not end with the GST pay-off. Term 29 of Newfoundland's
terms of union granted an annual payment of $8 million from the
federal government. Now we hear that the Liberal government has
changed the rules and will give a lump sum payment of $160
million, a windfall, to Mr. Brian Tobin.
(1130)
Why is the federal government asking Newfoundlanders to pay a
penalty tomorrow for saving Brian Tobin's career today?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows, the annual payment to Newfoundland is some $8 million a
year. It is to be made in perpetuity as part of the original
Constitution.
Newfoundland is facing some exceptional and difficult fiscal
and economic challenges with the fishery and with the phase down
of Hibernia. It has been requested that the payment be moved
forward and we have agreed. It covers an advance of some $50
million this year and further payments later on. It is a fair and
reasonable substitute for the $8 million statutory requirement.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
paying the money up front today means it will cost Canadians
hundreds of millions of dollars more over 20 years than it would if
Newfoundland were receiving $8 million a year. At the same time,
today's sweetheart deal will deprive future Newfoundland
governments of that $8 million in yearly income. In other words,
Brian Tobin is clinging to his credibility by his money grabbing
fingernails on this issue.
Why is the Government of Canada continuing to steal from
Newfoundlanders and other Canadians today just to pull Brian
Tobin's fat out of the fire?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member obviously
does not understand interest. To think that there would be a
payment of $160 million up front instead of $8 million a year for
20 years is entirely wrong. It will be discounted by an appropriate
interest rate. That is exactly what I meant when I said it was a fair
and reasonable substitute, with the discounted factor. That is the
amount we will paying.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In order to make known their dissatisfaction with the crab
fishery plan, deckhands and processing plant workers are still
refusing to go back to work. They are thus protesting the
displacement of part time jobs resulting from the minister's plan.
Today, the minister is allocating crab quotas to ground
fishermen. Does the minister realize that, unless he first resolves
the present conflict with workers, there is a risk that this already
very tense situation will blow up?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a certain sympathy for the-
[Translation]
Mr. Gagnon: Go fish for groundfish.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, could you ask the member
for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to be quiet. It would do
him good to hear this. He, too, has one of these plants in his riding.
Mr. Robichaud: The member for Gaspé could be asked if he-
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, many times we are sitting at a desk
where the microphone is open. I would caution all of you to watch
your words.
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member,
notwithstanding the acting lessons, we really need to look at what
is happening with respect to the crab resource.
The plan was devised in such a way as to break down the 16,100
tonnes between the midshore large crabbers and those many small
inshore fishermen who need a part of the resource. The distribution
was fair. It was done by consultation. There was 77.5 per cent given
to the large midshore crabbers and 22.5 per cent was given to the
inshore smaller fishermen. This was a justifiable, fair and equitable
distribution.
The idea was that everybody would go fishing at the appropriate
time. The time has now arrived. I would suggest that all those who
are interested in the industry release the plant workers and those
who are innocent in this play. Then everybody can get on with the
fishing and the resource can be enjoyed by all those who are
involved in the industry. In particular, the plant workers and all
communities can benefit from the resource of the ocean.
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to be very
certain that the minister understands. This is not a quarrel between
traditional crabbers and ground fishermen at the present time, this
is a problem with plant workers.
What does the minister intend to do in response to the decision
by the president of the Acadian ground fishermen's association,
which is showing its solidarity by giving up 1,520 tonnes of its
crab quota under the plan and handing them over to traditional
2942
crabbers, thus helping to save the jobs of deckhands and processing
plant workers?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me what I intend to do. I
intend to promote the partnership among the fishermen, all crab
fishermen, among the plant workers, among the communities,
among all those who are interested in having a partnership with
those poor innocent crabs. There are 16,100 tonnes of crabs sitting
on the ocean floor just waiting to be caught and distributed for the
benefit of all the communities.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance
committee examined family trusts and tax exemptions last year but
the Minister of Finance chose to keep the committee in the dark
regarding the loopholes for billionaires. It seems obvious that the
Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue only
take action on loopholes when they become a public issue.
Will the Minister of National Revenue commit today to a public
inquiry of this billion dollar loophole or is she content to cut other
secret deals with well connected friends of the Liberal Party?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, in our questions we should not
impute motive of any kind. I was wondering if the hon. member for
St. Albert would simply withdraw that last sentence.
Mr. Williams: I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker, but I would like-
The Speaker: The question as is without that sentence will
stand, if the hon. minister chooses to answer it.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will just say that the laws as they are written apply to all
Canadians. I cannot imagine any more public venue than two
committees of the House of Commons to look at these particularly
important issues.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
becoming quite clear that there was a secret tax ruling which was in
favour of some people in a public tax opinion and denied the same
opportunity to everybody else. We need to get that cleared. We
want to know why it happened. We want to know why this
government is standing behind that ruling as it stands today. Why
will it not close the loophole and act today to prevent this type of
opportunity from happening at the expense of all Canadians?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us set the record straight for the umpteenth time.
The decision was a decision of a former government. It was
drawn to our attention by the auditor general. We acted
immediately, the day of the report, to draw attention to the House
and ask that the matter be put before two public committees, the
public accounts committee and the finance committee, for a full
consideration and review.
I did not get here by defending a former government. I do not
expect to do that in the future, but I sure as heck expect to get
things right for the Canadian public. We have acted with urgency
and have put it in the public domain. The member himself is a
member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and we
look forward to his recommendations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
While the federal government continues to drag its feet in the
matter of Tran Trieu Quan, he continues to languish in a
Vietnamese prison. However, more than a month has passed since
the minister received documents from Paul Morgan proving that
the cotton was indeed delivered to Vietnam. The minister was to
verify the authenticity of these documents.
As more than a month has passed since the government received
the documents, which could hasten Tran Trieu Quan's release,
could the minister tell us what stage this longstanding matter has
reached?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as you know, we created the position of special adviser
and he has Mr. Tran's file. I hope he will act quickly in this matter.
Mr. Tran's case is now the responsibility of the special adviser.
(1140)
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the minister that the appointment of his special adviser has
produced little to date.
Is the minister telling us that he does not intend to take the
initiative in this matter preferring to await the outcome of the
appeal procedure, among other things, and that, in other words,
regardless of the information he has in hand, he will continue to do
nothing while Mr. Tran continues to languish in prison?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, within our jurisdiction everything possible has been done.
2943
Representations have been made by the Prime Minister, the
Minister of Finance, myself and my predecessor directly to the
Government of Vietnam.
We have provided special provision for consular services. We
have ensured that Mr. Quan has full access from relatives, friends
and family. We transmitted all the information we have to the
people in the government of Vietnam. It is their government, not
ours, and we have to be able to work with them.
That is why I had established the post of special adviser, consular
matters who takes on these difficult cases and negotiates directly
with other governments. We do not have the power to tell another
government what to do. We will do everything possible to ensure
that Mr. Quan's rights are fully recognized and fully protected, but
we have to do it within the range of powers and jurisdiction that we
have.
I can assures you that we will continue to work actively on this
case.
* * *
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
With the new mineral exploration in northern Labrador there are
now as many as 230 air vehicles using the air strip each day. This
enormous increase in traffic has resulted in three crashes and many
aborted flights. I have had a close call at Nain when the plane I was
on nearly went down.
Can the minister reassure the people of Nain and Labrador
generally that measures will be taken without delay to ensure the
safety of the travelling public?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the first question by our new colleague, the
hon. member for Labrador. I thank him for the energy he has
displayed and the initiative he has taken with this issue, organizing
as he did in his first weeks in this House meetings with the premier
of Newfoundland, a senior minister from Newfoundland, myself,
the Minister of National Defence, the entire municipal council of
Goose Bay and others.
Aviation staff from my department have been monitoring the
increased aviation traffic around the Nain airport which is a serious
matter of concern. An aviation safety review team, including
officials from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and
from my department visited Nain at the end of April.
The aviation safety review team is finalizing its report and we
are confident that working with the province of Newfoundland and
with the hon. member, we will be able to resolve this issue to
everyone's satisfaction.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Citizens of Hamilton, Ontario are concerned that their city could
soon become a main dumping ground for hazardous waste. The
proposed Taro dump could be home to more than 10 million tonnes
of industrial waste, not to mention being situated right next to the
Niagara escarpment, a UN declared biosphere.
Can the minister tell us whether a federal environmental
assessment panel review will be conducted, or does he plan to
follow the steps of Sheila Copps and sacrifice the good of the
environment for political reasons?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suggest that the question has more to do with the
political reasons of a faltering Reform Party candidate in Hamilton
than it does with the environmental issues that this member
pretends to be genuine.
I do not need to defend the record of the former and future
member of Parliament from Hamilton East. She has promoted and
defended not only the best interests of Hamilton, but the best
interests of the environment.
(1145 )
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Sheila Copps was environment minister and did nothing
on this issue, even when it affected her own riding.
The leachate from the Taro dump will pollute the federal water
of Lake Ontario. The environment is in danger in the Hamilton area
all because Sheila Copps repeatedly ignored the concerns of her
community.
Will the minister use his power and commit to launching a full
environmental assessment of the Taro dump so all sides will be
allowed real influence rather than just the political insiders of a
very questionable deal?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know that the Reform Party candidate fired his campaign
manager. Maybe he has a new candidate right here because the
member is only interested in political partisan gain.
That is the last thing that Canadian citizens want the
environment to be. They do not want it to be a volleyball. They do
not want it to be traded between federal and provincial
governments. They want it to be respected. They want all levels of
government to manage the environment in the best interests of
people today and for those who inherit Canada and the world
tomorrow.
2944
The Speaker: I mentioned earlier about imputing motives. That
would go not only for the questions but also for the answers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Heritage Canada has had three ministers in just under two and a
half years and the new minister is a part time acting minister.
Meanwhile, there are priority issues that require attention, issues
like copyright legislation and the creation of a fund for the
development of cultural products.
Does the latest heritage minister intend to act quickly on these
issues and could she tell us what her priorities are and what time
frames we are looking at?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my
second question will elicit the same response.
The CBC, the NFB and Telefilm Canada are putting high hopes
in the upcoming announcement of the cultural product
development fund, which should be made sometime in the middle
of May. Will the minister act on this commitment or leave these
organizations high and dry?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at present, work on all issues concerning Heritage
Canada is continuing very actively, at all levels, both within the
department and in co-operation with our various client groups and
community partners. The same will hold true for the copyright
legislation.
My colleague, the Minister of Industry, and myself intend to
keep things moving along in this area. There is very clearly a very
strong will to proceed as quickly as possible. As for the cultural
product development fund, work is under way so that a decision
can finally be made in the near future.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1990 when Bao Ngoc Lam, a refugee
claimant and five buddies, were robbing a night club in Toronto,
Lam put his handgun to the head of detective Peter Leung and
threatened to kill him.
After serving a two-year sentence, Lam was held in custody by
immigration. It was trying to deport him back to Vietnam but
Vietnam refused to take him. After declaring that it took too long to
deport Lam, an immigration adjudicator released him. Soon after
being released, Lam disappeared and is now the subject of a
Canada-wide warrant.
How can the minister ensure Canadians that her department puts
public safety first when people like Lam are released?
(1150)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is true that this individual was released as a result of
an adjudicator's decision. As you know, this decision was made by
a quasi-judicial organization, which is totally independent from the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I can assure the members of this House that the department is
doing all it can to deport this individual as soon as possible and in
accordance with Canadian law.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the department does not know where this
individual is right now.
On December 1, 1995 I asked the previous minister of
immigration about the recently signed agreement with Vietnam
that would allow for the return of criminal refugees and immigrants
from that country. At that time, the former minister boasted that the
agreement would permit the removal of: ``individuals who should
not have been here in the first place. And that is being done''.
If the agreement is as great as the previous minister claimed it to
be, why is Lam the subject of a Canada-wide warrant and not back
in Vietnam?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this government's policy is to deport
people who have committed serious offences here in Canada.
We have no intention of giving special treatment to a serious
offender. In this case, everything is being done to deport the
individual in question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
2945
A number of farmers in Oxford have received funding under
the tobacco diversification program to help develop new crops and
other opportunities in the tobacco producing regions of Ontario
and Quebec. For example, Joe Strobel in my riding is
experimenting with industrial hemp.
Could the minister update the House on the performance of the
tobacco diversification program?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the current tobacco diversification
program in Ontario is a joint federal-provincial initiative. It totals
about $5.7 million and has been in place since 1994.
As of March of this year, 88 projects submissions had been
received; 44 had been approved for total of $2.5 million. The
majority of these projects have been associated with commodity
pioneering and value added activities. They have created in excess
of 200 jobs and leveraged $15 million in new investment.
The government is obviously committed to assisting tobacco
growing regions in diversifying through initiatives like the tobacco
diversification program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Canada will host the 11th International AIDS Conference
to be held in Vancouver from July 7 to July 12.
This conference is the largest in the world. It brings together the
greatest scientists from every country, community groups and
people with AIDS. Unlike his predecessor, Brian Mulroney, who
opened the Montreal Conference in 1992, the Prime Minister has
casually declined the organizers' invitation.
My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Since the Prime
Minister attended the Paris AIDS Summit last October, why did he
decline the invitation to participate in the official opening of the
International AIDS Conference in Vancouver, something that is
unacceptable?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric of the member, the
Prime Minister's commitment to the issue of HIV-AIDS, stands
without reproach. He knows quite well that the Minister of Health
will be in attendance. He knows also that the Standing Committee
on Health has commissioned a subcommittee, of which he is a
member, to send two members and he is one of the two.
He knows also that the Prime Minister's commitment will be
translated into over $2 million in contributions from five separate
ministries of the government.
That is an indication that the Prime Minister is not only living up
to the signatory obligations signed in Paris in December 1994, but
that he is going well beyond it. He knows also that there is one
other country which comes close, and that is France.
(1155)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the reality is that, since 1987, all heads of state have
opened the conference, and it is unacceptable for the Prime
Minister to break with this tradition.
My supplementary question is for the parliamentary secretary or
the Acting Prime Minister. Are we to understand from his refusal to
open the Vancouver conference, the largest in the world, that the
Prime Minister is no longer interested in the fate of people living
with AIDS? Shame on him.
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the public will be forgiven for
thinking these kinds of theatrics are shameful. When one takes a
look at the record of the country's and the government's
commitment to solving the problems of HIV-AIDS, the member
will retract his rhetoric.
He will know, as the House knows, that Canada commits in
excess of $40 million per annum toward research and
epidemiological monitoring, $5.5 million is administered through
the national health and research development program, $1.5
million annually in national welfare research grants, an average of
$3 million annually for infrastructure of Canadian HIV trials, the
remainder is allocated through the health protection branch, and a
further $2 million is directed through the medical-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Edmonton women's prison is a well publicized disaster: one inmate
murdered, one-quarter of the prison population on the escape list,
and a rash of attempted suicides, all within a few weeks of opening.
All the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general can say is:
``We believe this model of incarceration represents the best
2946
approach to addressing a very special need that women have''. God
help us if this is the best Corrections Canada can do. One thing
Corrections Canada could do is sell the place to the Holiday Inn
before it is too late and someone else dies.
Is the solicitor general planning to provide room service for the
remaining inmates or is he going to shut the place down and admit
that his gender experiment has failed?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am touched by the
rhetoric that goes on week after week. Shutting the place down will
not solve the problem.
It has to be recognized that female inmates need special
treatment, which is what has been done. There were two task forces
in 1989 as well as the Arbour commission which stipulated that
women's needs in terms of incarceration have to be looked at.
I agree the incidents which occurred in Edmonton were sad and
deplorable. It is an underlying situation which is more
symptomatic of the special needs of women. Often the histories of
incarcerated women reveal abuse, for example, in early childhood.
As a result, we are heeding the recommendation of the task force.
We are opening five regional centres to better serve their needs.
One centre has had problems, while the other two have not. I
would point that out to the member. Truro and Maple Creek,
Saskatchewan have not had any problems.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
that reply is it any wonder that Corrections Canada is in such
disastrous shape?
The Correctional Service of Canada has repeatedly stated that
Warden Jan Fox at the Edmonton prison for women is one of our
best. Yet Warden Fox has refused to take responsibility for a string
of problems at the prison which includes assaults, escapes and
inmate Fayant's death.
What will it take for the government to recognize that Warden
Fox is incompetent? Will the solicitor general make her resign, yes
or no?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we assumed
responsibility immediately. We took almost 14 concrete measures,
which included $400,000 of renovations. We made important
improvements to assure that security would be addressed which
included enhanced surveillance.
We are looking at a review of all the incidents which have
occurred over the past several months to ensure the safety of people
in the region is addressed before we open the other two centres. I
believe that is very responsible action.
(1200)
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I have been hearing many concerns from the processors and
importers of fish in my riding of South Shore with respect to
inspection fees. Now that the 30 day prepublication period is over,
will the minister indicate to the House what kind of reaction was
expressed by the industry and whether he is prepared to consider
making changes based on those expressions of concern to make this
cost recovery program equitable for all sectors?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for the
fantastic support he gives fishermen and other constituents in his
riding.
The hon. member is right. The regulatory amendments were
recently prepublished in Part I of The Canada Gazette and a final
date for comments was May 13.
The department has received many comments and my officials
are now in the process of reviewing them and re-evaluating the
regulatory proposals in light of the comments and the proposals
received.
My instruction to the officials is to make sure the many
comments are reviewed with great care for the institution of these
fees, of which the total has to be collected. The consideration will
be for all plants and in particular for small plants so that smaller
plants are not harmed to the extent possible that we can offer any
relief.
I thank the hon. member for his question. I assure him we will
give this matter great care and attention.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre, Lib.: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of privilege concerning a remark that was made yesterday by
the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata during debate in this
House, around 5.00 p.m., and that can be found on page 2912 of
Hansard. On three occasions, the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata used language that was unparliamentary.
At the time, I rose in my place to point this out to the Chair, but
unfortunately, because of the noise, the Chair was not really able to
hear what was being said. After that, I checked in Hansard, and
with Journals of the House of Commons, and I have now found it in
writing on page 2912 of Hansard for May 16, 1996.
2947
I think that the three words used yesterday were
unparliamentary, and I ask the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouta to take the next opportunity to withdraw
them.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, earlier, the member for
Ottawa Centre showed me the words in yesterday's Hansard. I
would like, if possible, to hear the position of the member we are
speaking about. Can the member come forward and give her point
of view on this matter?
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, this is quite astonishing. In the
presentation we have just heard, the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata is accused of having used
unparliamentary language. The allegation is made, but the words
are not specified. Insinuations are made, but we do not know what
the words were.
The attitude of the member raising this question of privilege is
astonishing, because such a comment could be made about any
remark made by anyone in this House, they could be said to have
shouted out something irrelevant. He has not mentioned the words
in question. I think that discussion of the matter could be deferred
until the member knows what he is talking about.
The Deputy Speaker: I think that it is quite obvious, we have
Hansard here right now. I can perhaps give a copy to the member
and he can speak with his colleague. We could discuss it later at the
convenience of the member. I believe she is still here.
_____________________________________________
2947
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1205)
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8), I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to 20 petitions, 3 from the first session of Parliament and
17 from the present session.
* * *
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure today to draw to the attention of hon.
members that May 17 to 23 has been proclaimed national road
safety week in Canada.
[Translation]
National road safety week, which is sponsored by the Canada
Safety Council, aims to raise awareness of road safety issues and
promote safe driving practices.
[English]
Because 1996 marks the 15th anniversary of operation life saver,
the focus of road safety week this year will be on the need to reduce
the high annual number of grade crossing accidents across the
country.
Operation life saver, sponsored by both the Railway Association
of Canada and Transport Canada, works in co-operation with the
Canada Safety Council and provincial organizations to promote rail
safety.
Operation live saver's mission is to make people aware of the
dangers associated with level crossings, grade crossings and the
dangers of trespassing on railway properties.
[Translation]
Studies show that many drivers are unaware of just how
dangerous railway crossings can be. They do not understand how
fast trains move, or how long it takes them to come to a stop.
[English]
Operation life saver produces printed materials, films and
audio-visual presentations. It assists in driver education activities
and also hosts special events aimed at promoting greater awareness
of rail safety.
Mr. Speaker, like you, many of the hon. members with children
will be encouraged to know that operation life saver targets
educational activities toward youngsters who use railway property
as a short cut to school or to a playground.
[Translation]
Transport Canada has been a proud supporter of operation life
saver for many years, and hon. members will be pleased to hear
that the federal governement intends to contineu supporting this
valuable program well into the future.
[English]
On another related topic, it is also my very great pleasure to
announce the federal government has reached agreements with
eight of the provinces and the two territories to continue the
implementation of the National Safety Code. The last agreements
are with the two remaining provinces for signature.
The National Safety Code was developed in 1987 by the federal,
provincial and territorial governments to encourage trucking
safety. It is to promote efficiency in the motor carrier industry and
to ensure consistent safety standards in this area across the country.
[Translation]
The code covers such topics as commercial vehicle maintenance
and inspection, hours of service, trip inspection reports,
driver-examiner training, and the implementation of a national
driver's license.
2948
[English]
As part of this announcement, the Government of Canada will
provide the provinces and territories with $20 million over five
years to help put the National Safety Code in place.
This funding is a good human and financial investment. The
National Safety Code will help reduce commercial vehicle
accidents. That means fewer deaths and fewer injuries on our
highways.
It will also help to ensure Canadians remain competitive by
applying common standards across the country instead of the
patchwork system of rules and regulations we have had in the past.
[Translation]
I would urge all members of this house to support national road
safety week, specifically the efforts under way by this governement
and others to reduce railway crossing accidents and strangthen
commercial vehicle safety.
(1210 )
[English]
I urge all hon. members to take heed of the message of road
safety week and drive safely.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in this House to bring
attention, as the minister has, to national road safety week, to be
celebrated in Quebec and Canada May 17 through 23, 1996. Since
arriving in Ottawa, the official opposition has always made it its
duty to support and promote issues around highway safety and safe
driving.
I have listened to the federal Minister of Transport's speech with
interest. We share his concerns, and we support his desire to reduce
the number of motor vehicle accidents. We share his belief that
improved safety is an excellent thing.
We were, however, a bit surprised to hear what the minister had
to say on behalf of his government. Today he is trying to blow his
own horn, to pass himself off as the great defender and promoter of
road safety. As recently as last week, however, in response to a
question by my colleague from Lévis on restoration of the Quebec
bridge, he stated as follows: ``The deterioration of the bridge,
including the part on which vehicles drive, is due mainly to car and
truck traffic- Motor traffic in the province of Quebec is the
responsibility of the Quebec transport department; it is not a
federal responsibility''. Now today he is giving us a speech on road
safety. We also need to see what that means in day to day reality.
The decrepit state of the Quebec bridge is beginning to be a
threat to driver safety. The federal minister turns a deaf ear to any
question of accepting his responsibilities and restoring the Quebec
bridge, in conjunction with Canadian National and the
Government of Quebec. We see this as contradictory to the speech
the minister has just finished.
Where road safety is concerned, I would like to raise a
constitutional aspect which is very likely to pose an increasing
threat to the safety of drivers and the general public. As you know,
the Canadian Constitution recognizes rail transportation as a
federal responsibility, while highway safety within each province is
a provincial one.
This somewhat artificial division poses serious problems.
As you know in rail transportation, the government's inaction
has forced many businesses to use trucks rather than trains to ship
their goods.
The same situation could well arise with the new policy of fees
for coast guard services the federal minister of fisheries has just
announced. All transportation sectors interact. The effect of the
policy is to drive many maritime carriers to American ports,
requiring goods destined for Quebec and Canada to be transferred
by truck.
Because the federal government has failed to finance, manage
and develop the rail system properly and because it is proposing an
unfortunate policy of charging for coast guard services, private
firms have found alternate ways to make their deliveries. The
increased number of trucks on the roads of Quebec and Canada is
largely the cause of the deterioration in the state of the roads,
threatening public safety particularly.
The arbitrary division of powers in the transportation sector
therefore prevents our having an integrated national transportation
policy. With intermodality increasingly popular, the obsolescence
of Canada's Constitution may well threaten our road safety. I think
this is the message we must bear in mind during this national road
safety week.
Of course we must support initiatives such as operation life
saver, but we must recognize that, if transportation is to be
modernized, Canadian and Quebec firms will have to acquire
modern equipment and set aside the antiquated aspects of the
Constitution to permit an integrated national standard on
transportation and thus greater road safety.
In closing, I would repeat our support for National Road Safety
Week and encourage everyone to drive carefully.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in response to the minister's
statement and acknowledge the proclamation of national road
safety week in Canada, May 17-23. National road safety week,
2949
which is sponsored by the Canadian Safety Council, is to raise the
awareness of the need to promote safer driving habits. In
particular, this year the national safety week is featuring Operation
Lifesaver, which focuses on grade crossing accidents. It is being
co-sponsored by the Railway Association of Canada, Transport
Canada and the Canadian Safety Council.
(1215)
I could continue to talk about the virtues of national safety week
and, in particular, the minister's statement today regarding the high
annual number of grade crossing accidents. I appreciate what the
minister is doing. Certainly no one could say that it is not an
excellent project. However, I would like to take this opportunity to
speak about my recent parliamentary activities with respect to the
terrible carnage taking place on our highways as a result of
impaired drivers.
I would like to address my remarks, in particular, to the Minister
of Transport. I know he shares the concerns of millions of
Canadians who, on a daily basis, see in their newspapers, in the
electronic media and hear from their friends about this terrible
crime. They are touched every day by crimes committed by people
who choose to drink and drive. They kill over 1,400 people every
year on our streets and highways.
I know the number of accidents that occur on an annual basis at
grade crossings is a huge concern. We have to do everything we can
to decrease those statistics.
This might be a starting point for the government. Perhaps I can
encourage the minister to join with this side of the House in
supporting Bill C-201. The government could join with Mothers
Against Drunk Drivers, Canadian Students Against Impaired
Drivers in Canada and Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving
in supporting Bill C-201. Locally there is the Nepean community
council against impaired driving. The Canadian Police Association
and other groups are crying out for the government to implement
measures that express zero tolerance to people who even think of
getting into their cars when they are impaired.
That would not be hard to do. It could be reflected easily in our
criminal justice system. Penalties could be brought in like those in
Sweden. Sweden has very liberal drinking laws, but its criminal
justice system says that if a person drinks, gets behind the wheel of
a vehicle and is caught, his or her driver's licence is suspended for
life and the vehicle seized. Why cannot we reflect zero tolerance
such as that?
The tragedies that occur at the hands of drunken drivers make the
accidents that occur at grade crossings pale by comparison. If the
government can take the initiative to proclaim May 17 to 23 as
national road safety week and pay special attention to accidents
which occur at grade crossings, why does the Minister of Justice
stand speaker after speaker in the House to oppose Bill C-201?
I will close by saying that I appreciate what the minister and the
government is trying to do but, for God's sake, let us go further to
address the impaired drivers who kill in this country.
* * *
(1220)
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the
Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages regarding its
order of reference of March 7, 1996 concerning the main estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
[English]
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the
17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, regarding the selection of votable items in accordance with
Standing Order 92. This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
Mr. Speaker, also I have the honour to present the 18th report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
regarding the membership and associate membership of various
standing committees.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in
the 18th report later this day.
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an act to amend the Income
Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age Security
Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Finance) asked
for leave to table Bill C-37, an act to implement an agreement
between Canada and the Russian Federation, a convention between
Canada and the Republic of South Africa, an agreement between
Canada and the United Republic of Tanzania, an agreement be-
2950
tween Canada and the Republic of India and a convention between
Canada and Ukraine, for the avoidance of double taxation and the
prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an act to
provide for mediation between insolvent farmers and their
creditors, to amend the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative
Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Farm Debt Review Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that
in accordance with Standing Order 73(1), it is the intention of the
government that this bill be referred to a committee before second
reading.
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-39, an act respecting the York Factory First Nation and the
settlement of matters arising from an agreement relating to the
flooding of land.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development) asked for leave to table Bill C-40, an
act respecting the Nelson House First Nation and the settlement of
matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of land.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
(1225 )
[English]
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move that the 18th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the House gives its consent, I move:
That the following change be made to the membership of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: the hon. member for Fraser Valley
East for the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week my
colleagues and I presented 15,000 petitions from every Canadian
province on the illness ME/FM. Unfortunately, Saskatchewan was
missed. Today I present petitions with 279 signatures from the
province of Saskatchewan.
The petitioners call on Parliament to establish national policies
to control and contain instances of myalgic encephalomyelitis,
fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivities in Canada and to
ensure care, treatment, comfort and dignity for persons afflicted
with these diseases.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, it is my honour to present a petition bearing 290
signatures mostly from residents of my riding.
The petitioners state that everyone who counsels a person to
commit suicide or who aids or abets a person to commit suicide is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 14 years.
2951
They ask Parliament not to repeal or amend section 241 of the
Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme Court of
Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted
suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a
petition from the residents of the township of West Lincoln in my
riding of Erie.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the Canadian
Constitution to remove the rights of denomination classes of
persons to operate their own schools and to refer the problem of
educational reform back to the Government of Newfoundland.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to
present two petitions. The first is with regard to Bill C-33.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to
present a second petition with regard to the tax on gasoline.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I present a petition bearing 371 signatures,
mainly from Canadians of Sri Lankan origin.
(1230 )
The petitioners call on Parliament to prohibit the raising of funds
within Canada for supporting the war against the democratically
elected government of Sri Lanka by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam, already declared a terrorist organization; to ensure adequate
surveillance and prosecution of members of the LTTE front
organization and other supporters in Canada who are engaged in
fund raising, extortion, passport racketeering, smuggling of
narcotics and all other forms of criminal activity.
Also, to investigate LTTE front organizations and support groups
in order to bar them from operating in Canada; to fully live up to
the international legal obligations imposed on states in combating
international terrorism; to fully co-operate with the legally elected
government of Sri Lanka, which maintains the most cordial
relations with Canada, in eradicating the Tamil Tigers terrorist
network in Canada.
I am pleased on their behalf to present this petition to Parliament
in the hope Parliament will do something to assist them.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 50 or
so of my constituents from communities including Grand Beach,
Grand Bank, Fortune and Salt Pond. The petition has to do with the
merchant navy.
The petitioners call on Parliament to consider the advisability of
extending benefits or compensation to veterans of the wartime
merchant navy equal to that enjoyed by veterans of Canada's World
War II armed services.
I have much pleasure in presenting this petition and ask that it be
referred to the appropriate department.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I have the honour to present on behalf of British
Columbians in the lower mainland two petitions.
In the first the petitioners pray that the government proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that will
ensure the punishment given to anyone convicted of causing death
by driving while impaired carries a minimum sentence of seven
years and a maximum of fourteen years as outlined in private
member's Bill C-201 sponsored by the member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley.
This issue is of such consequence in the country today that we all
must take it seriously.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of my own riding and a
neighbouring one in the Vancouver area. It asks the government to
consider seriously that Parliament ensure that all transgenic foods
and food products be clearly labelled that they are transgenic foods
so that the public is aware of what it is purchasing and all food
products are thereby safe to consume.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question No. 32, standing in the
name of the member for Lisgar-Marquette, will be answered
today.
[Text]
Question No. 32-Mr. Hoeppner:
Regarding the 1992 Deloitte & Touche special examination and subsequent
report on the Canadian Wheat Board, how exactly has the Canadian Wheat Board
addressed the criticisms contained in that report alleging that: (a) there is no
evidence of an ongoing formal Corporate strategic plan or process; (b)
departmental planning resulting in annual operational plans generally does not
exist; (c) senior management job descriptions are out of date, incomplete or
non-existent; (d) no formal budgeting process does not exist for the Finance and
Accounting expenditures department; (e) no formal strategic marketing plan
exists; (f) the marketing function lacks focus and coordination; and (g) agents
2952
emphasize that their relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board are not
sound/positive business relationships?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): In 1991 the Canadian Wheat Board initiated a formal
process to ensure it is properly structured and staffed to meet future
challenges, demands, opportunities and threats. It engaged Deloitte
& Touche Management Consultants to conduct a comprehensive
operational review, the findings of which suggested there were
considerable areas of strength in the CWB at that time. The report
also recommended that management undertake and implement a
number of initiatives to address the identified deficiencies and
concerns.
The CWB has initiated a formal strategic planning process with
a view to provide a greater focus on its long term activities and to
ensure the organization is equipped to respond to change and
opportunities. An external consulting firm has facilitated this
annual planning process since that time.
The CWB has also developed an extensive quarterly planning
and reporting process by the management of the organization's four
directorates. This process is proving invaluable from both a
management and performance measurement perspective.
To complement this planning process, the CWB in 1993
conducted a detailed environmental scan, which included a survey
of employees, customers and producers. These activities have
placed the CWB in a position to define areas needing change,
particularly those pertaining to the CWB's interface with its
employees, its customers, and with farmers. It has also since
developed an action plan of strategic initiatives in three key areas.
The first is relationship with farmers. The pool return outlooks,
estimated pool returns, farmer delivery contracts, farmer focus
sessions, toll free telephone access to the CWB, and proposed
flexible pricing options have all emanated from the strategic
planning process.
The second is relationship with customers. The CWB has
developed a number of value added, market service and market
development initiatives. For example, the introduction of basis
contracts for customers, for example in Japan, the U.S., the United
Kingdom and Canada, resulted form the CWB strategy of
increasing its focus on the customer. Infomation and findings from
a comprehensive customer survey findings assisted the CWB in
other customer services initiatives.
The third is relationship with employees. The CWB has
established a formal human resources department and has
introduced several related initiatives which focus on the employee,
including a review of job descriptions at all levels.
Along with these strategic undertakings the CWB has
undertaken to develop and implement a number of key corporate
governance procedures and policy guidelines, some of which
relulted from the Deloitte & Touche recommendations.
Since 1992 the CWB has established a formal audit committee.
The audit committee's primary responsibilities are to oversee
internal financial reporting and to review the objectivity of the
annual external audit. The committee also determines whether
management and auditors are responding appropriately to current
business risks and allocating their efforts optimally. Special
comprehensive auditing examinations are critical in ensuring that
business practices are benchmarked against best practices of other
corporations. The CWB audit committee performs a central role in
strengthening communications between external auditors and
CWB management responsible for the organizations's financial
reporting.
The CWB has also implemented a comprehensive department by
department audit process, which assesses department structure and
procedures in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Deloitte &
Touche, which has previous experience with the federal auditor
general's department and with government audit procedures, has
assisted the CWB's internal audit department in this area. The
integrity and effectiveness of the CWB audit committee is
enhanced by the inclusion of the chairman of the CWB advisory
committee as a member.
The CWB also developed a formal budgeting process, which is
continually improved when and as necessary. This is priving to be a
valuable management tool.
The CWB has historically developed an annual marketing plan
which is updated throughout the crop year. In recent years this
planning process has been enhanced by an expanded sales and
market development division, which has an increased focus on the
strategic planning aspects of grain sales. CWB sales plans, which
include extensive detail pertaining to grain classes, grades, protein
levels, projected selling prices and sales volume by destination, are
updated on a continual basis in response to changing market
conditions.
The CWB market development department has been expanded
since 1992 and works closely with farmers, the CWB sales
department, customers and other organizations such as the
Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian International
Grains Institute. In addition to the co-ordination afforded by the
above linkages, CWB market development efforts are increasingly
guided by the development internally of long term grain import
projections. These projections provide an indication of country
specific and aggregate import requirements in terms of volume and
quality, as well as the prospective Canadian share in each market.
All this has enhanced the overall effectiveness of the CWB
marketing effort.
In 1993 the CWB conducted a comprehensive review of its
relationship with accredited exporters, which included individual
exporters and the Shippers and Exporters Association. This review
generated a number of recommendations and action items to
improve the CWB's relationship with exporters, all of which have
2953
been subsequently implemented. The CWB meets annually with
the Shippers and Exporters Association to discuss a wide variety of
subjects, including any concers. The CWB also meets annually
with each accredited exporter for the same purpose.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I want to inform the House that, due to
the ministerial statement and the response from other parties,
government orders will be extended by 14 minutes.
_____________________________________________
2953
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-20, an act respecting
the commercialization of civil air navigation services, as reported
(with amendments) from the committee, and of motions in Group
No. 2.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The division will also apply to Motions Nos. 5 to
12 and 16 to 24.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-20, in Clause 23, be amended in the French version by replacing
lines 17 to 21, on page 14, with the following:
``par écrit qu'une majorité des usagers qui seront touchés de façon
significative par la fourniture de services supplémentaires est favorable à ce
projet.''
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-20, in Clause 23, be amended in the English version by replacing
line 23, on page 14, with the following:
``(6) For the purpose of subsection (5), a''.
(1235)
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this group of motions has within it
two motions.
Motion No. 13 is necessary to correct two differences between
the French and English language versions of Bill C-20. The French
version in the reprinted Bill C-20 of May 8 contains the
requirement that a person requesting additional services from Nav
Canada must agree in writing to pay all incremental costs
associated with the provision of the additional services, and the
standing committee agree to eliminate this requirement, and the
English language version of the legislation reflects this agreement.
The French version of Bill C-20 does not include the
requirement which is contained in the English version that the
person demonstrate, through written evidence, that a majority of
affected users agree to the provision of the additional services.
Motion No. 14 is a consequential amendment to a motion that
carried at the Standing Committee on Transport. At this time I call
for the question on the third group of motions.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 13. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 and therefore
Motion No. 14 agreed to.
[Translation]
We now move on to Group No. 4.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 15
2954
That Bill C-20, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 37, on page 16,
with the following
``(2) A charge authorized by the Minister of National Defence may be
imposed under subsection (1)
(a) on a user; or
(b) on a user in respect of a state aircraft of a foreign country.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, in this bill that will commercialize air
navigation services, the motions in Group No. 4 are aimed at
ensuring that the Department of National Defence will do its part in
funding and running Nav Canada.
This bill currently provides that the Department of National
Defence will not be subject to the charges that other carriers will
have to pay. In our opinion, this distorts the real assessment of
DND's operating costs, of the budget funds allocated to national
defence, and may have a negative impact on some airports when
services are shared by DND and all private air service users.
Why should DND be exempt? The easing of international
tensions in recent years has led to perhaps insufficient but still
significant cuts to DND. Further cuts are needed, but DND should
still be held accountable for all its spending.
If DND is exempted from paying air service charges, its annual
estimates will give the impression that it costs less than it really
does.
Military flights still mean something in Canada. Our training
bases are used by Canadian soldiers, but some of our flight training
areas, notably in Labrador, are also used by other countries. Why
should DND not pay its share? This would also help us determine
what parts of the country benefit from this kind of spending.
If DND generated significant revenues for a special purpose
airport, this would allow us to consider the economic impact of this
bill on air navigation activities.
(1240)
Ultimately, what we would like to see prevail, and this is the
principle found everywhere else in the bill, that is why we are
somewhat surprised at the government's position and we think it
would be a good idea to correct the situation, is the user pay
principle.
Would there not be a benefit today in ensuring that the real
expenses incurred by a department are paid by that department?
There are other sectors of government activity that will have to
defray these costs directly or indirectly. For example, if we take the
health sector, ambulance airplanes are used in Canada to reach
remote areas. These people will have to cover the planned charges.
Why would this kind of charge be picked up by the health sector
and not by the national defence sector? It applies in the health
sector, but it could also apply in the tourist sector.
The tourist industry in Canada is very important. It has grown
considerably and is expected to grow even more in future. With the
new charges, many small carriers may see their economic activities
jeopardized. They will have to change their method of operating
accordingly. This is not required of a huge department like defence,
which spends enormous amounts on protection, but, at the same
time, it would not be charged the portion of air navigation costs that
apply in its case.
It strikes us as most surprising that, in sectors like health,
tourism, businesses, they are trying to justify fee scales for private
sector flights but there none for defence flights. Is that not a double
standard? Is that not a mistake, in fact?
This seems to be perpetuating, in relation to the defence sector,
practices which existed in the government some 15, 20, 25 or 30
years ago. People became aware that these practices were having
devastating effects, a loss of control over the cost of operations. If
defence does not have to bear its part of the costs, does this not lead
to a tendency to use available services more, and to put increased
pressure on the system? Finally, there can be no real assessment of
what the costs of air navigation for the defence sector are. Are there
not facilities in certain parts of Canada which will need to be put
into place specifically for defence purposes, without there being
any corresponding charges levied?
All of these questions lead us to wish to see an amendment to the
bill, one ensuring that this department assumes its share, as other
departments must, and as the private sector is required to do,
paying its way in the reconfiguration resulting from the creation of
Nav Canada and the commercialization of air navigation services.
Reference is also made to foreign government aircraft, which
whould also be made to pay. I think it is important, from the safety
and security points of view, to know what is going on with these
flights, what costs they will generate, what sort of protection we
can provide them.
Just imagine something which I certainly do not wish to ever see
happen: a collision between a defence or military aircraft and one
belonging to a private carrier. This would create a somewhat
artificial situation in which one of the parties involved in the
accident had never been required to contribute to the quality of
safety services. This would surely contribute to a poor opinion of
the defence sector. These days I do not think there is anything to be
gained by adding to the negative image of a department described
yesterday by its minister as in a ``painful situation'', when serious
questions are already being asked about its efficiency and
transparency.
The purpose of our amendments is to ensure greater
transparency, to make sure that the exact air navigation costs of
department of defence activities will be known. This will, I believe,
be worthwhile both to the House and to those concerned with
costs, in these
2955
times when people are questioning whether money is being used
properly. It will be one way of knowing what the real costs are.
(1245)
Also, private air carriers and Canadian taxpayers should not
necessarily be the ones paying for national defence. Why should
they have to foot the bill in this case? This is tantamount to giving
additional importance to the defence sector. As I said earlier, if I
could favour certain sectors by granting them such an exemption,
flying ambulances would definitely take precedence over military
flights. Let military aviation officials know exactly how much it
really costs to fly their aircraft. This is important and it should be
taken into account. This is the purpose of our amendment, and we
hope the government will support it.
Small carriers really wonder about the additional pressure put on
their activities through the new tariff structure. They are justified in
saying there should not be a double standard in Canada but, rather,
a level playing field. Whether it is the military or the private sector,
everyone must bear the overall costs. Under the user pay principle,
everyone must make an adequate contribution, so that when the
time comes to determine the real costs of defence activities, these
costs will be based on actual figures, not incomplete data that does
not allow us to know the overall government costs in this sector.
I hope the government will seriously consider our proposal. It is
based on sound arguments and it is fully justified. In the middle
term, the government's decision to exempt DND from having to
pay these costs would certainly not prove efficient from an
administrative point of view, or in terms of the follow up of air
navigation costs, which is the very basis of the legislation.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the argument being put forward
by the Bloc member were as simple as he stated, I might even
support this motion when it came to a vote.
We discussed this at the Standing Committee on Transport. It
was made very clear why the government would reject this motion.
Motion No. 15, the only motion within this grouping, demonstrates
again a total lack of understanding of the charging aspects of Bill
C-20, in particular the charging aspect as it relates to DND
services.
The Bloc motion tries to eliminate the exemption for Nav
Canada's charges for aircraft operated under the authority of the
Minister of Transport and for aircraft of a foreign state. Let us deal
with the foreign state issue first. The exemption for foreign state
aircraft is the least significant of the two. Bill C-20 reflects the fact
that many states do not levy charges on state aircraft and in the
interests of reciprocity, in the interests of symmetry the state
aircraft of such countries should not be charged for Canadian air
navigation services.
The Bloc should take great comfort in the fact that the bill leaves
the door open for the governor in council to authorize charges on
state aircraft of countries coming into Canada that charge Canadian
state aircraft at the present time or in the future when they fly to
those countries. I hope that would satisfy members opposite.
The more significant exemption being asked for is the one in
respect of aircraft operated by the Minister of National Defence.
Rather than an outright exemption, this is just an element of an
arrangement between Nav Canada and the Minister of National
Defence.
The arrangement recognizes that the minister is both a user and a
provider of air navigation services. As a provider of services, the
minister operates the air navigation services in designated military
air space which includes the air space around military bases such as
Comox, Cold Lake, Moose Jaw, Trenton, Bagotville, Goose Bay
and others. At present the Minister of National Defence does not
charge for any of these services.
(1250)
The arrangement is for Nav Canada not to charge the Minister of
National Defence's aircraft for the use of Nav Canada's services. In
return, as compensation, the Minister of National Defence would
allow Nav Canada to charge civilian users for air navigation
services provided by the military. That means Nav Canada gives up
some of its revenue in respect of services it provides and it gains
some revenue from services provided by the Minister of National
Defence.
Because the two amounts for all intents and purposes are just
about the same, it is a good arrangement for both parties. In
addition, the Department of National Defence avoids having to
establish a whole separate billing and collection system for charges
it would otherwise likely have to introduce for air navigation
services provided by the military.
Because the two amounts are roughly equal, it is not correct to
say that the exemption burdens civilian users with costs that should
be borne by the Minister of National Defence, as outlined by
members opposite. Users will also benefit from this arrangement
by receiving only one invoice from Nav Canada, even when they
use services provided by both the Minister of National Defence and
Nav Canada.
This motion would completely destroy this arrangement. For the
same reasons that we stated last week at the Standing Committee
on Transport, we would reject this suggestion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like my
hon. colleagues, I am pleased to participate in this debate today on
Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air
navigation services. Among other things, this bill establishes a
business corporation called Nav Canada, or NAVCAN.
2956
We are now at report stage, at Group No. 4, to be more precise,
Motion No. 15 put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. This motion is
to amend clause 32 of the bill to ensure that DND and state aircraft
of a foreign country are not exempt from paying charges.
To listen to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Transport, you would think that the Bloc Quebecois never
understands a thing and always introduces useless motions. He
claims this is a good arrangement between the Department of
National Defence and Nav Canada, which will apparently split the
costs about 50-50. I would be curious to see the parliamentary
secretary's figures in this.
At any rate, I should point out that a proposal has already been
tabled by small air carriers, suggesting that DND should have to
pay for its use of services at airports in Quebec and Canada.
The problem, then, comes from the need not to make taxpayers,
passengers and air carriers pay for military aircraft, and there is no
guarantee whatsoever that it will not be the case.
The Bloc Quebecois feels it is unfair to have private users pay
for services required by national defence. If clause 32(2) is not
amended, defence expenditures will once again be hidden. We have
always demanded a reduction in military spending. For this to
happen, we first have to know the actual costs. However, in its
present form, clause 32(2) will not enable us to know these costs.
Again, it is not up to private air carriers and Canadian taxpayers
to pay for DND's flying activities until the minister tables the
figures relating to such activities.
(1255)
Our motion is based on the notion of transparency. It seeks to
avoid an artificial reduction of the national defence budget, so as to
ensure that actual costs and expenditures relating to such activities
are accounted for.
Taxpayers living in remote regions-including those represented
by the hon. members for Abitibi, Lac-Saint-Jean, Gaspé and
others-must sometimes pay two or three times more per kilometre
to go to Montreal or Quebec City than people who travel between
Montreal and Toronto. Therefore, I do not see why national defence
should be exempted from having to pay the costs associated with
its flying activities.
Since the Liberal government is cutting social programs,
programs helping the handicapped, old age pensions and women's
support programs, I wonder what could possibly justify keeping
clause 32(2).
If there is such a thing as natural justice, the Liberal government
has definitely missed the boat in this case and forgotten about the
principles of fairness which underlie our laws.
I ask all members of this House to support Motion No. 15 moved
by the Bloc Quebecois, so that national defence, for the reasons I
mentioned, will not be exempt from paying fees to Nav Canada.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will raise
a few points at report stage of Bill C-20, which is to privatize
NavCan, and on the group of motions we are currently speaking on.
I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport just a few minutes ago. He explained the tradeoffs
between the Minister of National Defence and NavCan: I will not
charge you for your services if you do not charge me for the
services I provide to you. This is a wonderful way to do business.
Perhaps that is why NavCan is being created to be one of these
not for profit organizations. Perhaps profit and efficiency are not
the operative points which are trying to be achieved with this
exercise. It is only an exercise to move the civil servants who work
in the air navigation industry off the government payroll into some
other organization which is far enough removed that there is no
accountability. It will not be part of the normal operation of
government and therefore will be removed from the scrutiny of the
House. That is the point I will speak to.
If NavCan is to be a privatized organization, why would it
provide services for free and expect services for free when there
seems to be no real relationship between the services being
provided, other than to have a gentleman's agreement to ignore
them? Is that privatization? Does that seem to be the way the
private sector does business? The Income Tax Act calls that barter
and it is taxable.
The government is saying again that the rules that operate in the
private sector do not apply to the government because the
government makes the rules. The fundamental problem with much
that comes out of the government is that it creates its own little
environment by saying it makes the rules and it will say how the
game is played.
The government is going to call this privatization. NavCan is a
not for profit organization. It is not designed to make a profit. It is a
cost plus organization. It is going to remove 6,500 people from the
civil service and put them into this organization which will be
removed from parliamentary scrutiny.
As well there will be no scrutiny by the Auditor General of
Canada. It is not a crown corporation as defined in the Financial
Administration Act. The government has come up with a new
2957
hybrid. Therefore the auditor general has not been given the
mandate to scrutinize NavCan, as he has with other crown
corporations.
(1300 )
What is the government trying to achieve? When it set up Nav
Canada, it had all these assets, computer equipment, buildings and
goodness knows what else paid for by the taxpayer. What did it
say? It told NavCan to go out into the money markets and borrow
$1.5 billion. It is going to sell the assets to NavCan for cash. That is
fine for the Minister of Finance because it helps him to meet his
deficit reduction targets this year.
I come back to the very point that the parliamentary secretary
made. These trade-offs and these gentlemen's agreements which
are made are totally and absolutely banned by the Income Tax Act
and not allowed in the private sector, yet he openly admits that it is
the trade-off made. The government does not want to figure out
how these services are to be valued. The parliamentary secretary
thinks it is a good deal for Canadian taxpayers. I doubt it.
This organization, Nav Canada, is far removed from public
scrutiny yet it has been given a monopoly. It has been given virtual
taxing powers. There is absolutely no constraint on the way it
spends its money. There is no constraint on what it says it needs
and is going to pass on to the consumer, the airlines and so on. It
will pass on costs through tickets to the Canadian consumer.
The government tells us that this is good for Canadians. The
President of the Treasury Board admitted in committee the other
day that the 6,500 civil servants did not lose their jobs but just got a
new name on their pay cheques. This is part of his civil service
reduction package. That way Canadians think the government is
being downsized. Not one of these 6,500 people lost his or her job.
On Friday night, they were working for the government and on
Monday morning they were working for Nav Canada. We gave
them $200 million cash because they got laid off.
These are the types of things that should be debated in the House.
The government should be telling Canadians how it is spending
their money. It should also be forthright with Canadians that this
organization is far enough removed from public scrutiny that it
does not have to worry about its financial statements.
I have already said that the Minister of Finance will take a $1.5
billion credit on deficit reduction courtesy of Nav Canada because
Nav Canada will borrow the money from the private sector.
This organization is not going to be accountable according to the
normal rules of the private sector. The parliamentary secretary has
already admitted that the normal rules of the Income Tax Act and
barter do not apply in this situation. How can he call it a private
sector organization?
Everything the government is doing is obfuscation and deceit as
far as this deal is concerned. If it wants to have a true private sector
type of organization, it should have said so. If that is not what it
wanted, it should at least have given the Auditor General of Canada
the power of scrutiny over Nav Canada. That is why we have these
problems.
In 5, 10, 15 years from now, people will find out that this
organization has runaway costs. Canadian consumers are finally
going to rebel and say it is too much. The government is not doing
its job today.
Accountability is the number one issue in the private sector. If
the government builds in competitiveness and if it expects and
demands that Nav Canada work according to the same rules as the
private sector, it may have something.
The government has removed NavCan far enough away that it
has been swept under the carpet. The government is taking credit.
There are 6,500 fewer civil servants. These people are still paid by
the Canadian consumer: $1.5 billion deficit reduction claimed by
the Minister of Finance courtesy of this equipment that is being
used by Nav Canada, but there is no accountability.
Mark my words. If an organization has no accountability, it leads
down a very difficult path that usually is the wrong path. I ask the
government to think very seriously about that.
(1305)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 15. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
2958
[English]
We will now go to Group No. 5, Motions Nos. 25 and 26.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 96.1.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved:
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 21, on page 50, the following
new Clause:
``
Privacy Act
106.1 The Schedule to the Privacy Act is amended by adding the following in
alphabetical order under the heading ``Other Government Institutions'':
NAV CANADA CORPORATION
Société NAV CANADA''.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the remarks of the hon.
member for St. Albert go without reminding him that he did not
spend a single moment in the transport committee when we dealt
with this bill.
We addressed concerns between NavCan and ANS. He did not
spend a second in committee, but he made a speech saying things
that completely contradict the critic of his party. Can anyone
imagine? The critic of his party is charged with the responsibility to
go to committee to put forward the position of the Reform Party.
Yet the member for St. Albert made his statement. Yesterday the
member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, the Reform Party critic,
made the position of the Reform Party very clear. Then his
colleague from St. Albert got up and talked about something he
obviously knows nothing about and contradicts the critic in his
party. You have to wonder where these guys are coming from.
However, let us move on to the last group of motions. We are
talking about the Privacy Act.
The hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke yesterday
made some remarks with regard to the Privacy Act. He said he
called NavCan, the not for profit corporation which we would like
to move this to. He said he had talked to NavCan and it has no
problem with the Privacy Act being brought forward to this bill.
NavCan wrote a letter to the government on May 9 and also
appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport. It is clear in
the letter to the Minister of Transport and I quote:
First, the Privacy Act currently applies only to certain federal government
institutions, including federal government departments and certain agencies and
Crown Corporations. It does not apply to all Crown Corporations. It does not apply
to corporations that have been privatized such as CN or Air Canada. It does not
apply to any private sector corporations or organizations whatsoever.
The extension of the Privacy Act to any part of the private sector would
represent a significant change in policy of the Government of Canada. It would
bring with it to the private sector not only the necessity to substantively
guarantee the protection of personal information (which is not in itself
objectionable) but also the processes designed to apply to the federal
government for correcting and amending records containing personal
information and the requirement that a private sector corporation be subject to a
complaint and investigative procedure by a Federal government officer, namely
the Privacy Commissioner with, ultimately, decisions on the collection,
retention and administration of records containing personal information being
subject to review in the Federal Court of Canada. This degree of bureaucracy
and administration would be inconsistent with the imperatives of the private
sector and, certainly, with the rationale for the commercialization of the ANS.
(1310 )
Government could not agree more. We had discussions in the
Standing Committee on Transport. In the government's
reassessment of whether the Privacy Act should apply to Nav
Canada, it became increasingly clear that the application of the
Privacy Act to Nav Canada is completely unnecessary and
inappropriate. The Privacy Act deals with the protection of
personal information held by government and the rights of an
individual to access that information.
As I said at the outset, it was interesting to hear the member for
Kootenay West-Revelstoke yesterday saying that Nav Canada did
not have a problem with this. Mr. Speaker, I must put this
diplomatically because I do not want you to intercede. The hon.
member was incorrect in that statement. The proof of the pudding
is the letter dated May 9. If the Reform critic for transport wants
more evidence of that he is invited to phone the officials at Nav
Canada any time for a very clear explanation of why Nav Canada
does not agree that the Privacy Act should apply in this not for
profit corporation. I hope he does that.
We are wrapping up discussions at report stage and second
reading of the bill. When we come back after working hard in our
ridings next week, we will be discussing third reading of the bill. I
hope the hon. member will retract his remarks.
As outlined by its letter to the minister, Nav Canada would be the
only private sector entity subject to the Privacy Act. The act does
not apply to previous government commercializations like CN and
Air Canada. It does not apply to other regulated monopolies, not
even those in key economic sectors like telecommunications.
When the privacy commissioner, Mr. Phillips, came before the
Standing Committee on Transport, I suggested that if there was a
need to extend the application of the Privacy Act to private sector
2959
entities, it should be considered in the context of a comprehensive
review of the fundamentals of the Privacy Act, not Bill C-20.
Why decide to pick on one area, one bill, one of the four major
modes of transportation to apply an act against a not for profit
corporation? That kind of review should provide an opportunity, if
Mr. Phillips were to examine his own backyard on the Privacy Act
in which all interested parties could express their views.
When all is said and done it must be remembered that the
privacy commissioner can at any time investigate complaints and
initiate investigations.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there is an amusing story behind clause 96.1 of the bill we
are considering. As amusing stories are rare in this House, I will
relate it briefly. Clause 96.1 does not appear in the text of the bill
we passed at first reading. It appears now, because the bill before us
was amended by the Standing Committee on Transport. It added
this clause under the amendment proposed by our party.
(1315)
No need to remind the House that the majority of members
sitting on the Standing Committee on Transport are Liberal and
therefore, with the government's motion to delete this clause,
which was added by the Standing Committee on Transport, we
have the minister rejecting a proposal from his own committee
with a majority of its members from his own party. At the very
least, we can say this is a different approach.
And what does clause 96.1 say? It says:
96.1 The Privacy Act applies to the Corporation as if it were a federal institution.
The purpose of the amendment we proposed, which the
committee accepted, was to ensure that Nav Canada would protect
personal information on personnel and clients, just as if the
government were still responsible for all air navigation services.
My colleague on the other side says there are other corporations,
such as the CN, that are not subject to the Privacy Act; but by
saying this, he is giving me other arguments. He says there are
entities created by the government which no longer have the same
obligations as before privatization. These government creations are
now private sector corporations. Yes, but they took on
responsibilities for public services and, as such, they should give
the public the same services the government was providing before.
It is clear, it is only logical. But they have forgotten all about that
on the other side.
The fundamental principle is this: it is unacceptable for a
government creation to reduce services to the public when this
creation is a private corporation serving the public. It is
inappropriate to create such screens.
My colleague, the member for Argenteuil-Papineau, said it
again this morning, there is a stunning parallel between ADM,
another government creation which manages the Montreal airports,
and this corporation which is being created so that the public will
not have access to information concerning the studies on which
ADM based its decision. You can be for or against the decision, that
is not the point. The point is that the public has the right to know
about the studies used by ADM. Our offices requested those
studies, but the request was turned down because this organization
is under no obligation to provide them.
What we have here is a deliberate attempt, on the part of the
government, to hide behind corporations which act as screens,
allowing it to dodge responsibilities it had before they were
created.
I now come to the argument that, as Mr. Philips is reported to
have said, what should be changed is the Privacy Act. If this
argument was logical, Liberals would have applied it in the bill we
are discussing today. Yet, in that bill, what do we see? We see a
section that we agree with, but that contradicts the principle just
mentioned.
Section 96 says:
96. The Official Languages Act applies to the Corporation as if it were a
federal institution.
This is excellent but, if it is valid for the Official Languages Act,
why is not valid for the Privacy Act? Why do we not say: ``The
Official Languages Act will not apply to Nav Canada, so we are
going to amend the Official Languages Act''. That is not what the
bill says.
All of the sudden, we are told: ``As for the protection of privacy,
it is not the same, it is the Privacy Act that has to be amended''.
This does not make any sense.
(1320)
The result of all this, and I will conclude here, is that we
understand perfectly what the federal government is up to. It is
transferring public property currently under the management of the
federal Minister of Transport to Nav Canada, and then will hide
behind Nav Canada in order to withhold important information
from the public.
Such an approach goes against the transparency the government
as a whole is bragging about, and its effort to defeat our
amendment, which was accepted by the committee and rejected by
the minister, shows I am not making a case based on assumptions,
but on facts.
The Liberals want to use their majority in the House to defeat an
amendment that was passed in committee, because they know a
majority of Liberal members will vote as the government tells them
to, without even knowing what this is about. And they call that
democracy.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thought
my colleague opposite was getting ready to speak, but he was
getting ready to leave.
2960
Since this is both the report and second reading stage, I would
like to broaden the debate and deal with a point which seems to
be well covered in a clause, but which is nevertheless a cause for
great concern. That point is whether the Official Languages Act
will apply to the new air navigation services corporation, Nav
Canada.
Air navigation services have been under the
jurisdiction-actually, they still are, as long as Nav Canada is not
operational-of Transport Canada, a government department.
Despite this direct link between air navigation services and the
government, Quebecers working in the air transportation industry
had to put up a great big fight to be able to use French in planes,
control towers, and air control services.
This is a cause for great concern. If they had to fight so hard
when air navigation services were under the government, how can
we be sure Nav Canada will abide by the Official Languages Act?
The former minister told us Nav Canada would be covered by the
act, and that the bill says so, but how can we trust him?
Even after the Official Languages Act was put in force, we had to
wage a great fight. I remember the part the late Roger Demers
played in this fight for the right to work in French in the air
transportation industry in Quebec. It took years, even if the Official
Languages Act was in force and if we were dealing with the
government.
Those opposed claimed that disasters would result if French was
used in air navigation services. As if as soon as they entered
Quebec air space, all the planes would have crashed simply
because French could be used to communicate.
Roger Demers and the Association des gens de l'air fought some
very important battles over this issue and the use of French in the
air, and that battle is far from over.
(1325)
This was such a major event in the history of Quebec that the
Association des gens de l'air has created two awards to
commemorate the battle French speaking Canadians had to fight.
Every year, the Association des gens de l'air presents to an
individual who has distinguished himself or herself in the air
industry the Roger Demers Award and the BILCOM, which is short
for ``bilingualism communication''.
These people remember perfectly the battle they had to fight and
that is still going on.
At this point in my speech, I would like to read part of a letter my
colleague from Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and I wrote to
the Minister of Transport in April, 1994. Part of this letter
concerned the issue of services in French, and I quote: ``After
Canadian air control is centralized, only one of the nine air control
centres, the Montreal regional air control centre, will be French,
that is, one centre for 7 million people, while the ratio for English
speaking persons will be one for 2.6 million''. How can Quebecers
accept these figures?
The letter goes on: ``It is not surprising, then, that the
Îles-de-la-Madeleine are served by the Moncton regional control
centre, usually in English unless a pilot demands to be served in
French, in which case the control tower leaves him on standby at
the end of the runway. He will sometimes have to wait up to ten
minutes to get his instructions in French.
``It is in this context also that we should look into why Transport
Canada is so offensively slow to bilingualize the Ottawa terminal
control unit''. We are, of coure, talking about the Ottawa airport
here.
``Indeed, for the last five years-this letter was written in
1994-Transport Canada has been trying to make this terminal
control unit bilingual, but in vain. For the umpteenth time, it has
been announced that this service will be available as of May 1,
1994''. It was still not to be on that day, since it was postponed to
May 26, 1994, that is, more than five years after it was promised.
I will continue with the letter, and I am talking here about the use
of French: ``It also relevant that, in this part of our discussion on
French services, we take a look at the airports that you, Transport
Canada, have decided to exempt from centralization, namely
Ottawa and Calgary''. These two airports have kept their terminal
control units, whereas many cities lost theirs, including Quebec
City.
``Until now, in justifying these two exceptions, you always
referred to the traffic density and complexity of the Ottawa and
Calgary airports''.
Traffic density and complexity are just excuses. We believe the
real reason is totally different. Ottawa being the capital of Canada,
Transport Canada knew that, some day, air traffic control in Ottawa
would have to become bilingual. However, to think that the Toronto
area control centre could become bilingual was an aberration. And
to think that air traffic control for the Ottawa airport could be done
from Montreal was hardly more acceptable for Transport Canada
officials.
So Transport Canada used another kind of logic to solve the
problem. It was determined that the Calgary airport was busy
enough and complex enough to warrant the maintenance of its
terminal control unit. Then, Transport Canada concluded that
Ottawa was similar to Calgary in this sense. Therefore, it had just
found a way to justify its decision. But, in reality, it is the old battle
of French in the air that justified the maintenance of the terminal
control units in Ottawa and Calgary.
If you look at-and this is something that is even more insulting
to francophones-Order No. 4 from Transport Canada and read
section 3 of that document, you will see that the title of section 3 is
``Interdiction''. Not tolerance, but ``Interdiction''.
2961
(1330)
The section reads as follows: ``Unless otherwise provided in
section 4, 5 or 6, anyone operating an aeronautical radio station in
Canada shall not exchange advisory services or air traffic control
services in a language other than English''.
This order was issued on May 29, 1980, therefore after the battle
fought by the Association des gens de l'air, after nearly 10 years of
applying the Official Languages Act, and it is still not allowed.
Obviously, the exceptions in section 4 apply to airports located in
Quebec. This means that, outside Quebec, francophones wishing to
speak French with other francophones, a francophone pilot wishing
to speak with a francophone air traffic controller in Toronto,
Moncton or Halifax, is not entitled to do so. And that was by
authority of Transport Canada, in other words the government.
Just because Bill C-20 says that the Official Languages Act will
be applied, how can we be sure that French will be protected in the
air? That seems to me to be an extremely important point. I have
the impression that workers in the aviation sector in Quebec will
have to remain extremely vigilant. However, as the responsibilities
are being transferred to a non-profit agency, I think that future
battles will be all the more difficult. They will require even greater
effort.
I will conclude on this note. There was one nice thing in Order
No. 4. It said that, in the event of an emergency, two francophone
pilots could perhaps speak to each other in French in Canada's air
space, but only in an emergency.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as several
of my colleagues have said, the Bloc Quebecois subscribes to the
principles of Bill C-20 concerning the commercialization of civil
air navigation services. Its objectives of efficiency, cost
effectiveness, lowered operating costs, are praiseworthy ones, and
we acknowledge them as such.
The reason we have reached the report stage, which is moreover
the purpose of the exercise, is that we want to improve this bill. If
we listen to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport, however, it would appear that all of the amendments
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois are useless. He has said that ten
times or more since the beginning of the debate. I hope he has not
reached the stage of considering the official opposition useless. My
purpose in speaking will, therefore, be to convince him that Group
No. 5 of our amendments is not useless.
Motion No. 25 introduced by the Liberal government aims at
removing section 96.1 of the bill as amended by the transport
committee. This provision was added on the recommendation of
the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. Members will recall that
members from the three political parties, The Bloc, the Reform
Party and the Liberal Party voted for this amendment in committee.
I find the Liberals' about-face at the report stage rather
astounding, because they are trying to exclude Nav Canada from
the application of the Privacy Act. The Liberal government may
claim that the Privacy Act has to be amended so that it can apply to
Nav Canada.
Yet, Liberals thought it was important to include the following
provision in section 96 of Bill C-20:
The Official Languages Act applies to the Corporation as if it were a federal
institution.
Then why, in that case, did the government not consider it
necessary to amend the Official Languages Act instead? This is a
double standard.
This government is acting contrary to the spirit of openness it so
often brags about.
(1335)
It is transferring to Nav Canada public assets under the
responsibility of the federal Department of Transports, in order to
escape its obligation to inform the public, claimming that this
corporation is a private service. This government is not acting
properly by using an agency as a screen to avoid providing
information that the public has a right to expect from a public
agency.
The attitude of the Liberal government on this issue is
disappointing, disconcerting and even demoralizing. As I said
earlier, members of all parties supported this provision in
committee. Today, the Liberals intend to use their majority in the
House to defeat an amendment carried in committee. It is a pity
that a majority of Liberal members will vote with the government,
without being aware of the whys and therefores of Motion No. 25.
One has to wonder why committee members bother.
Simply put, with Motion No. 25, the federal government is
shirking its responsibilities with regard to openness, integrity and
respect for the public it must inform. Needless to say, the Bloc
Quebecois is firmly opposed to this motion.
In conclusion, I would like to say a couple of words regarding
the comments made a little while ago by the parliamentary
secretary, who would like to avoid putting the privatization process
on hold because other corporations such as the CN and the CBC are
not subject to the Privacy Act, so Nav Canada should not be subject
to it either. This is the same as saying that it is important for this
government to repeat past errors. This is a strange way to govern.
Finally, Motion No. 26, in Group 5, is presented by the Bloc
Quebecois for the sake of consistency with clause 96.1. It amends
the Schedule to the Privacy Act so that Nav Canada is added to the
list of institutions covered by the act.
2962
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 25. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on Motion No. 25
stands deferred.
Normally at this point the House would proceed to the taking of
the deferred divisions of the report stage of the bill. However, the
recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, May 27 at the
ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
* * *
[
Translation]
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.) moved
that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act,
be now read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the main motion.
(1340)
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, you are calling Bill C-4 at second
reading stage, when there is only five minutes left to debate this
issue. I think that, with the unanimous consent of the House to
recognize that the time for consideration of government orders has
expired, we could move on to private members' business. We
would not want to vote on this matter today.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Private Members' Business begins in five
minutes, as the hon. member pointed out.
[Translation]
I asked if anyone wanted to participate in this debate and no one
stood up.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we would like to rise on debate but,
since there is only five minutes left to start a speech to be
completed in 10 days, do you not think this would make for a lack
of continuity between the two parts of the speech?
That is why I request the consent of the House to postpone this
debate until our return.
The Deputy Speaker: I did put the question. I asked if anyone
wished to speak and no one stood up. The question has been put and
it is too late for debate now, unless the government side gives
consent. I therefore refer to the government whip.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to challenge,
nor could I, the Chair in its ruling. I understand you have made a
decision. Let me confer with my colleague across the way. If on the
day we come back we decide something on our own we can always,
by unanimous consent, change that which is already decided by Mr.
Speaker today. However, Mr. Speaker has made a ruling and I do
not think it is appropriate for us to change it at this point. If
anything different is to occur we certainly can confer among
ourselves as members of Parliament and seek that unanimous
consent if it is in order.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I was and am prepared to speak on this
bill. However, when you were asking for speakers I was fumbling
for my ear piece to get the translation and I did not understand what
you were saying. By the time I got it in you had acknowledged
there was no speakers.
I apologize for that and I ask if you might seek unanimous
consent of the House for me to speak on this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, we do not dispute the fact that the
debate on Bill C-20 has been concluded. Unlike my friend from the
Reform Party, I think that you have called the vote and that the
matter is closed. What we are seeking is the unanimous consent of
this House to debate the next bill on the agenda upon our return
from the parliamentary break.
2963
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think upon brief consultations you
will realize that those were occurring while others were speaking
and also as the Chair was deliberating.
However, I think you would find unanimous consent that the
second bill be deemed not to have been dealt with at all today. We
will revert to it. We hope at that point our colleagues across will
give us the usual co-operation perhaps not to have a very lengthy
debate, recognizing that we have provided this gesture.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is consent for it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree to give unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I thank all hon. members for their
co-operation on this issue. It was a delicate one. I am grateful to
everyone for being helpful.
It being 1.44 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration
of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2963
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 21 consideration of the motion.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the motion of my friend from St. Albert would have us
introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act to
require all departments and agencies to table in the House a
specific response to the auditor general's report.
Mr. Forseth: That is a good idea.
Mr. Simmons: It is a good idea. My friend from New
Westminster-Burnaby says that it is a good idea and he is right
again.
I had a marvellous speech here, somewhere. It was beautifully
typed, marvellously prepared but I cannot seem to find it. Let me
see what I can do. I know the essence of what the member has in
mind.
I am a great believer in the dictum that if it ain't broke, don't fix
it. We should first look at what is behind the motion. Knowing the
member for St. Albert as I do, I am not suggesting there is anything
nefarious or suspicious behind it. He must have had a reason. He is
a member of the public accounts committee and has been for a
couple of years. For most of that time he has been his party's
spokesman on these matters. Before coming here my good friend
was an accountant. He has a specific interest in and knowledge of
these matters.
Accountants are people who, when they are sent a Christmas
card, before they check the signature, they flip to the back of the
card to see how much it cost. Accountants are particular people.
They are very meticulous. They watch the buck. We need some
accountant parliamentarians. We have one such person in the
member for St. Albert, a good accountant-parliamentarian.
One would expect that there would be a good motion from him
and we were not disappointed. He says that departments ought to be
required to table their responses to the auditor general's report. As I
said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The corollary to that is if
something is broken, only fix the broken part.
I am not an accountant. I must apologize for that. The fact that I
am not an accountant has gotten me into all kinds of problems over
the years. I am a parliamentarian. I used to wear another hat too. In
the Newfoundland House of Assembly from 1975 to 1979, I had the
honour of being the chairman of the public accounts committee.
After coming here, I was briefly the chairman of the public
accounts committee of this House as well. I want to talk about an
incident during my experience with the public accounts committee
in Newfoundland.
I have to apologize to all concerned because the dentist got at me
and said he wanted to stitch up the inside of both sides of my face.
If I am mumbling more than usual today, it is partly because I-
Ms. Meredith: You are on Novocain.
Mr. Simmons: Exactly. Novocain can do some wonderful things
to you.
(1350 )
There was a situation in the Newfoundland house in which the
auditor was reporting every year. He reported on a particular set of
events in the Department of Public Works. We on the committee
kept asking enough questions, kept probing enough that we found
the smoking gun. A job which the fire commissioner after a fire at
the fisheries college estimated to cost $35,000 to fix wound up
costing $576,000.
The interesting coincidence was that despite the fact the Tory
government at the time had made much of its new public tender
legislation in which no amount over $10,000 would be awarded
without tender, the government had found a way to give out
$576,000 without tender. It was simple the way the government did
it. There were some accountants on staff. They always awarded an
amount less than $10,000. They got around the act with over 60
2964
work orders. What was even more interesting was that all the work
orders had gone to the same firm.
The public accounts committee and I as the chairman did enough
probing that we got to the root of that one. The result was the
following: a public inquiry into the spending practices of the
Department of Public Works in Newfoundland; the resignation of
the two ministers who had been in the portfolio during the period
under investigation; and criminal charges laid in which an
individual was convicted of fraud and sentenced to a prison term of
three years as I remember.
I cite this example to show that if we are going to have
accountability in this Chamber, it is not enough to dicker, to
change, to amend, to perfect the rules. We have to fix the part that
is broken. We have to see to it that the public accounts committee
and the members on that committee, including my friend from St.
Albert, do the necessary probing.
Before we get to that, before we begin to point fingers, we have
to ask ourselves whether the public accounts committee and the
House have the tools to do the job. In other words, is there
something else that is broken that needs fixing. That is the
allegation, the premise in the motion of my friend from St. Albert.
The hon. member wants the agencies and departments of
government to bring specific responses to this House. Let us
look at what the case is right now and has been the case under the
Financial Administration Act for many years. The case is that
when the auditor general reports, each department, each agency
of government or as the act says, the government itself, is
required within 150 days to give a specific response on the
criticism in the auditor general's report and what that
department or agency is doing about it.
There is another point. In 1994 we amended the Financial
Administration Act to allow the auditor general to make more than
one report to Parliament a year. Before that he made only one
report a year. Since the auditor general has had the legislative
authority or permission to report more often than once a year he has
done so. In 1995, the year after the change in the act came in, he
reported three times. In 1996 he can be expected to do likewise.
My point is that the tools are there. The auditor general reports
quite frequently but his report, and I gave the example of the
Newfoundland House of Assembly, in itself is not enough. We can
swamp this place with paper and reports and we do.
Mr. Williams: Do you listen to them?
Mr. Simmons: My friend from St. Albert asks if we listen to
them. I am going to pass the buck right back to him. He, together
with others-and I do not see any of them in the House-including
his friend from Calgary Centre, are on the public accounts
committee. The gentleman from
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans is the chairman, my friend
from London West is on the committee and my friend from Kent is
a member of the public accounts committee. I believe those are the
only members of the public accounts committee in the Chamber
right now. These are the people who must take the pieces of paper
that come here and follow them up, as we did in the Newfoundland
house.
(1355)
If there is a smoking gun, if there is some lack of accountability
they are the people who, having a good relationship with the
auditor general, will see that these matters are ferreted out.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the arguments from
the other side. I find it confusing that somebody could even
question accountability to the House of Commons and Parliament.
My colleague's motion merely asks that government
departments be accountable for the money they spend, particularly
when the auditor general's report indicates instances in which there
might be some question of whether it could have been spent in a
better way. My hon. colleague's motion is only suggesting that all
departments be required to table responses to the auditor general's
report when it brings into question some of the activities within the
departments.
The reason my hon. colleague suggests that the departments
should table responses is that the public accounts committee cannot
handle all the issues raised by the auditor general. If it were only
the public accounts committee that would deal with these issues in
an effort to bring resolution to the concerns in the auditor general's
report, it would have no opportunity to do the necessary follow-up.
We spend $50 million a year for the auditor general to audit
some government department accounts. All my hon. colleague is
suggesting is that if we are going to invest that kind of capital for
the auditor general's department to do checks on government
spending, then the government departments that are found to be
somewhat in question as to whether they are operating with the best
value for the dollar for Canadian taxpayers should be accountable.
This is something that should have the support of every single
member in the House of Commons.
The House of Commons is accountable to the Canadian taxpayer
and to the Canadian public. Members of the House of Commons
are voted in by the Canadian taxpayers to make sure their interests
are being looked after, considered and protected.
What Canadians feel, rightly or wrongly, is that government
bureaucracies, the departments, tend to remove themselves from
accountability to the House of Commons. Canadians think the
bureaucracy is running the show. If Parliament wants to regain
some control and some accountability of government departments
2965
that administer the policies established in the House of Commons,
then something like this is needed.
What is needed is a report which gives the department's
explanation and what it will do about the auditor general's concerns
and the time frame within which it will address the issues brought
up by the auditor general. We are only asking that these
departments table a report acknowledging the auditor general's
comments, giving an explanation of why it occurred and giving
some indication of how much time it will take the department to
rectify the concerns of the auditor general.
It is almost impossible to understand how an hon. member
across the way could find fault with this request. The hon. member
for St. Albert is asking for the government bureaucracies and
departments to be accountable and to answer to the House of
Commons.
(1400)
The auditor general is an officer of the House of Commons. He is
acting our behalf to investigate, to audit public accounts and to
make sure Parliament is aware of where the government is
spending money. It makes sense to me and hopefully to everybody
else here that Parliament should be holding the departments
accountable for responding to the auditor general's report; not just
a parliamentary committee which has not the personnel, the
members, to address all of these concerns.
If I remember correctly, in 1994 the report had 34 chapters of
detailed information on selected government programs in a dozen
departments and agencies. Only four of these chapters received a
response from the government in last year's budget. That does not
indicate to me and to Canadians that government departments take
seriously the concerns raised in the auditor general's report. If we
are to invest the kind of money we do, if we are to invest the
opportunity for somebody to audit government accounts, we should
also make sure their suggestions and concerns are given serious
consideration.
This year, of 27 chapters in the auditor general's report only 1
was addressed in the budget plan, annex I. One has to ask how
seriously the government takes the concerns raised by the auditor
general. How seriously does the government take those situations
in which the auditor general is pointing out taxpayer money is not
being well spent, or that the return on that investment of taxpayer
dollars is not just justified and not enough?
I suggest all members in the House of Commons, if they believe
it is the House of Commons that is in control of the country and not
the government departments and not the bureaucracy, should fully
support Motion No. 166 to see that control and accountability are
returned through the House of Commons and not through the
government departments.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for St. Albert for his motion to introduce amendments to
the Financial Administration Act, a motion that will require all
departments and agencies to table in the House responses to the
recommendations of the auditor general. I am honoured to have the
opportunity to express my views as we resume debate on this
motion.
In March, when we last debated this motion, many interesting
points were raised. Several comments were made about the lack of
adequate government response to both the auditor general and the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts. As these comments have
become part of the public record, I feel it is my duty to provide
some defence.
The role of the auditor general is to call attention to anything he
considers to be of significance and of a nature that should be
brought to the attention of the House of Commons. The auditor
general is an officer appointed by Parliament. He tells
parliamentarians and all Canadians what he has found as he
investigates the workings of government. He has tabled three
reports on government in the past year.
Each report is automatically referred to the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts. This committee is chaired by a member of the
official opposition and investigates in depth many of the issues the
auditor general has identified. The committee also contacts each
and every department mentioned in the reports and requests a
response outlining actions taken.
It was suggested on March 21 that unless the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts calls witnesses and tables a report
the government ignores the recommendations of the auditor
general. This is not true.
The government is continually making improvements to its
programs and policies based not only on the recommendations of
the auditor general and the public accounts committee but on
recommendations from program managers, from its own internal
review groups and from its clients.
To take the second of these, I cannot think why any department
would continue to employ and pay these internal audit evaluation
and review shops if it were not interested in learning how
effectively and efficiently it does business and how it can improve.
It is part of being a good manager.
It was suggested that in cases where the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts did investigate there was a lackadaisical attitude
on behalf of the government in addressing these issues. I do not
think I would consider, for example, that the President of the
Treasury Board tabled the first annual report to Parliament on
review an indication of a lackadaisical attitude
2966
(1405)
Allow me to elaborate a little to show the government's
dedication to improvement. This report tabled in Parliament in
November 1995 was titled ``Strengthening Government Review''.
It was a snapshot of the state of review in the federal government
and the kind of performance information available. It also included
an action plan to address the opportunities for improvements
identified.
This report was produced in response to concerns raised in the
1993 auditor general's government-wide audit of program
evaluation and internal audit and to follow up a report by the public
accounts committee. It was and continues to be by no means a
small or lackadaisical effort.
In response to the 1993 auditor general's call for strengthening
government evaluation and internal audit, the Treasury Board
issued a new review policy. The policy encourages departments
and agencies to develop better information. It asked that they use
performance information in business planning processes and that
they make this performance information accessible to the public. In
short, the Treasury Board asked for greater accountability for the
use of public funds.
In 1995 Treasury Board developed a revised expenditure
management system. This system requires departments to
articulate goals, targets and measures in key expenditure areas.
Over the years the auditor general has been asking government
to become more accountable by providing better information on
results and costs. The government has responded in no small way.
Departments and agencies must demonstrate to parliament and to
all Canadians whether goals set have been met and if not, why not.
What better example of accountability is there?
It was also suggested the government sometimes appears to be
not interested in being accountable. Sometimes in our busy day in
the whirlwind of issues we forget the amount of progress that has
been made. We are so busy focusing on the trees we sometimes
miss the forest. It is important we consider what has been
happening in the widest sense before we focus on specifics.
The auditor general notes that for over 65 per cent of of his
recommendations there has been full implementation or else
satisfactory progress has been demonstrated.
Specific examples cited by the auditor general include
significant improvements in the layout and presentation of the
government's annual financial statements that have been made in
response to recommendations by the auditor general.
Another example is the significant improvements in the quality
of information in crown corporation corporate plan summaries and
annual reports provided to Parliament.
These responses illustrate the dedication of government to
continuous improvement and reflect its emphasis on
accountability.
That these criticisms were uttered suggests a disturbing
misperception that government does not listen to the auditor
general. Even more disturbing is the misperception that the
government does not care to listen. It is important to hear these
comments. It seems the government has been too quiet about its
success stories. In our drive to improve we sometimes forget to
celebrate our accomplishments.
Believing these misperception might very well lead one to
suggest departments and agencies should table in the House of
Commons action plans in response to the auditor general's
findings.
If it were true that nothing happened in response to the auditor
general's reports, it would make sense. However, this is clearly not
true. As we have seen and heard both today and on March 21, quite
a lot happens to remedy shortcomings noted by the auditor general.
Not only does the government address the specific items noted
by the auditor general, it has been working diligently
government-wide to address the underlying themes present in the
auditor general's reports. This diligence is visible in a concerted
effort to improve the quality of its programs and services to make
them effective, efficient, affordable, accessible and fair.
How has the government been achieving this? On March 7 we all
saw the progress report on getting government right. Perhaps we
should remind ourselves of the efforts in using information
technology better, being more responsive and flexible, changing
the way government makes decisions, and focusing on results
based management to achieve our goals.
For example, the government has been harnessing information
technology innovatively to make services more accessible and
affordable for Canadians. Canadians can now receive at a single
location a range of government services from several departments
and levels of government. Some of this is possible from home or
through an automated kiosk.
New approaches provide new solutions to old problems. The
government is exploring new ways to deliver programs and
services that offer the best value for taxpayer dollars. Some of
these ideas include partnerships, integration of departmental
responsibilities and employee takeovers.
I think these changes reflect a fundamental shift in the way
government manages itself. For example, the move to accrual
2967
accounting allows government to report more accurately the cost
of its activities on an annual basis. This increases public and
parliamentary accountability. Better information means better
decisions.
(1410)
This shift is also reflected in the government emphasis on
results. The quality service initiative is designed to provide
accessible, affordable, relevant and responsive services to
Canadians. Most departments have published performance
objectives for the delivery of government products and services.
These standards act as benchmarks against which Canadians can
measure the timeliness, accessibility, reliability and accuracy of
services to which they are entitled.
I could go on at length. However, I think these examples more
than adequately show the dedication of the government to getting
government right by improving and becoming more accountable.
I certainly hope I have begun to remedy the misperceptions that
government does not want to change. The government is
committed to improvement. The government has recognized a deep
and enduring public demand for better governance. In response, the
government launched major reviews of its overall policy
frameworks, co-operated with the provinces and territories to make
all levels of government work better, initiated program review
which examined all federal programs and activities to rethink not
only what the federal government does but how it does it. This
includes reducing areas where costly overlap and duplication had
previously occurred.
I call it progress. It is undeniable. Progress in reducing spending
levels is also progress in restoring financial health. Progress in
making government work better is progress in restoring public
faith in government.
If the government were not listening to the auditor general, to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts, to the citizens of Canada,
this motion would be a welcome initiative to get us back on track.
However, we must consider the facts. When the auditor general
thinks change is occurring to a large extent in a timely and
satisfactory manner, we must stop and think. I do not think
members can disagree. It is becoming increasingly clear that if we
were to implement the motion suggested by my fellow member we
would be to a large extent duplicating much of the effort that
currently exists.
I am sure none of us would want to ask the citizens of Canada to
pay more for something that is already provided. I am sure fellow
members would not want to show the Canadian public an attempt
to create a larger and more expensive bureaucracy, flying in the
face of all we have been trying to accomplish.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I sit here in utter amazement listening to the hon. member,
particular his last statement that he would not expect that anyone
would want the government to spend money for something that is
already provided.
This party would because the extra money this may cost, which
has not been verified yet, would save the government untold
millions of dollars by increasing the efficiency of its departments.
We would be prepared to see this motion passed.
I am pleased to support the motion put forward by my colleague
from St. Albert. The member for Burin-St. George's mentioned a
couple of times in his speech that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Let
me assure the House it is broke, contrary to his opinion.
Let me give an example of how broke it is. It is interesting that
no Bloc members are in the House today speaking on this bill.
After all, why would they? They could only speak in opposition to
this bill because they have not demonstrated in one instance since
they have been in the House that they have any intention of
bringing the government to accountability. They have no desire to
see accountability in any of the spending departments because it
does not work with their agenda.
The motion our member has brought forward would strengthen
the role of the auditor general and provide much more
accountability with respect to taxpayer dollars by the government.
Where have we heard that phrase before? Have we ever heard it by
the government? No. Have we ever heard it by the Bloc? No. Have
we heard it from Reformers over here? Yes. We have heard it for
years from Reformers that governments have to become
accountable to the taxpayers. Governments must begin to regard
taxpayer money as a sacred trust. That is what we are trying to get
to.
It would also ensure all departments and agencies would table a
response to the auditor general's report. That is not rocket science.
That means reporting to the House of Commons, to Parliament, on
what someone is doing since the last report which said they were
doing a pretty lousy job. When going through the auditor general's
reports, at least the ones I have seen since I have been in the House,
he has not exactly given a glowing report to any government
department.
(1415)
This motion would ensure that timeframes would be laid out by
departments with respect to taking corrective actions as a result of
the findings of the auditor general. Timeframes is a foreign word to
this Liberal government. This word is used in private business all
the time. There is a timeframe for getting this done and there is a
timeframe for getting that done. That is why business operates so
efficiently. Businesses operate on their own money. The
government is operating on taxpayers' money. The money does not
belong to the government, so why be efficient?
Last, it would ensure that the public accounts committee and any
other relevant standing committee would be involved in the
2968
process. That is not rocket science. Why not? Why would the
government be opposed to that?
As the House knows, the auditor general and his department
provide an invaluable service. The department is charged with the
responsibility of overseeing how government operates. It makes
criticisms and gives praise where it is due, although praise has been
absent in the last number of years.
The auditor general reports annually to the House on improper
money management, improper records maintenance, non-approved
expenditures and program efficiency. These are matters with which
all of us should be concerned. All Canadians are concerned. The
government should be concerned.
The auditor general receives about $50 million annually to fulfil
his mandate but many of his findings and recommendations go
unanswered. That goes right to the heart of accountability within
government and contributes to the cynicism with which the public
views how the government is using their money. If we asked the
average taxpayer what is the one thing government could do to
make him or her happy, I bet that nine times out of ten the answer
would be: Spend my money a little more wisely. That is what we
are talking about here. We are talking about implementing a
mechanism which will force departments to spend the taxpayers'
money more wisely.
The attitude within departments appears to be that it is
taxpayers' money and there is a lot more where that came from.
The auditor general's follow-up findings to past recommendations
would seem to confirm this type of attitude within the departments.
If we watch the Letterman show on late night television, every
night he has a top 10 list of something or other. The auditor general
has a top four list. I would like to read them to the House. Here is
today's top four list. As a matter of fact, these items have probably
been the top four for as long as the auditor general has been
reporting.
Number four: varied, though mostly limited response to our
recommendations.
Number three: lack of action on many recommendations.
Number two: measures undertaken are not sufficient.
Number one: progress is slow.
These types of statements are common in the follow-up findings
of the auditor general. We can find them year after year. Why?
Because there is no demand for the departments to become
accountable.
These are the complaints which the auditor general has of the
corrective actions which are supposed to have been taking place.
Obviously many of the departments are not concerned with
responding quickly and effectively to the concerns of the auditor
general.
On March 21 the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Treasury Board stated that Motion No. 166 was not necessary since
the government is highly motivated to respond to the concerns
raised in each of the reports.
(1420)
While the government may be highly motivated to respond, this
does not mean that it is actually responding or going to respond, but
only that it is highly motivated. As an example, I might be highly
motivated to go swimming in the Rideau Canal but I do not think I
will be diving in just yet because I might be a bit afraid of what I
am going to find. By comparison the government departments,
although they may be highly motivated into digging into the
auditor general's recommendations, are not responding. They are
not quite ready to go in there. They may be afraid themselves of
what they will find in their own departments. Being highly
motivated does not automatically translate into taking action.
Motion 166 goes a long way to addressing this concern. Quite
frankly, any member of the House who is concerned about how the
government spends taxpayers' money should be supporting this
motion. By comparison I would imagine that any member who is
not concerned with the way the government spends the money is
going to oppose this motion. That is very clear. We have had two
Liberal members today oppose the motion. Obviously they do not
have any concern about how the taxpayers' money is spent. They
are not concerned about accountability.
Two speakers from the Reform Party today spoke in favour of
this motion. Obviously they are concerned about how the
government spends taxpayers' money. It is as simple as that.
The red ink book, the document of promises, promises, promises
which have been broken, broken, broken states that committees are
to be given greater influence over government expenditures. That
is what the red book says. The infamous red book of the Liberal
Party promises openness, transparency, accountability and every
other nice thing that one could ever imagine which has never come
true actually says that government has to be more accountable.
Here is the opportunity for the government. Instead of breaking
red book promises, it could live up to one of them: accountability.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure
to address the House as we resume debate on Motion 166.
This motion was introduced by the member for St. Albert. As the
House will recall the proposed motion calls for an amendment to
the Financial Administration Act. This amendment would require
all departments and agencies to present to the House action plans.
2969
These action plans would set out planned activities and timeframes
for acting on corrective actions required by the auditor general's
reports.
We have had time since the debate began in March to consider
what was said. Today it is important that we recognize that the
member for St. Albert, the mover of this motion, put it forward in
the pursuit of good governance. It is the spirit of this motion which
I applaud. It is something on which we all agree.
The pursuit of good governance and accountability were
substantive themes. They are the reasons why we have to make
certain that all dollars are spent properly. I say substantively
because it is easy to sidetrack certain things, look at debates in the
House, finger point and so on. However, when I see an honest and
open debate on issues as important as getting government right it
makes me proud as a Canadian to serve this House, proud to serve
people.
Today we have the opportunity to continue the debate and
refocus our thoughts on this motion. I would like to pick up on
some of the points that were raised on March 21 when it was last
discussed and refocus the discussion on what we are really talking
about: accountability and good government.
Sometimes it is easy to forget all of the key checkpoints in our
loop as we currently have it existing. I will try to revisit some of the
elements of this circle while we consider this motion.
(1425)
The auditor general is an officer of Parliament. He is not a civil
servant. He does not work for the government. The auditor
general's job is to call attention to anything that he considers to be
of significance about the workings of the government. He provides
us with an independent assessment of how things are working. He
takes his job very seriously. The auditor general is committed to
making a difference for the Canadian people by promoting in all his
work for Parliament, answerable, honest and productive
government.
As members will recall, the auditor general has tabled three
reports this year. In total, he audits about 200 organizations each
year. In his part III of the estimates, he points out that he audits
departments and agencies, crown corporations and other
organizations from large ones such as the Governments of the
Yukon and the Northwest Territories to small organizations such as
the Army Benevolent Fund. Canadian taxpayers collectively pay
about $50 million each year for this service.
With each report, members of this House, the media and citizens
alike focus their attention on the performance of the government.
They listen to the auditor general. They question the government
and, as a consequence, the government is highly motivated to
respond to the concerns raised in each of the reports. There exists,
as a fellow member aptly described it, a circle of accountability.
Each department and agency has the opportunity to respond to
the comments made by the auditor general directly in the published
report. This is the first opportunity the government has to indicate
what it will do to respond to the auditor general's concerns and
findings.
Daily question period provides an opportunity for members to
question ministers further about the operations of government. As
members will have noted from May 7 when the auditor general
tabled his latest report, question period can become an important
forum for challenging the government on the points raised through
the auditor general's reports. Canadians, through their
representatives, call government to account for its activities and
can and do ask what will be done to remedy any shortcomings.
The auditor general follows up every two years on his
recommendations. He measures the progress that the government
has made in responding to his concerns. He reports his findings in
his annual report. This reflects the diligence of his office.
During our debate of March 21, one of the members suggested
that Motion 166 would legitimize the auditor general's work. The
work of the auditor general is valuable in every respect and is very
much respected in this House. I cannot imagine why a member felt
that the reports of the auditor general somehow needed to be
legitimized. I am sure that the member was not suggesting that we
collectively pay $50 million for something that requires a motion
like this to legitimize its existence. The auditor general has the full
confidence of Canadians. His reports do not need to be legitimized.
In his part III of the estimates, the auditor general noted that he
had followed up 572 of his 786 recommendations made between
1989 and 1993. His review indicated that 23 per cent of his
recommendations had been fully implemented, and that
satisfactory progress was being made on an additional 41 per cent
of the cases. Keeping in mind that a number of recommendations
were rendered no longer relevant, these findings mean that a
significant percentage of the auditor general's work is acted on in a
significant, timely, satisfactory manner.
As a member said, it is important that we have some production
out of criticism. I think the numbers more than adequately speak
for themselves. The numbers are a testament to the legitimacy of
the auditor general. They are also a testament to the effort that the
department and agencies put into ensuring problems pointed out by
the auditor general are properly addressed.
2970
(1430 )
The number of recommendations implemented is not a sufficient
indicator of the success of this office. One must look at the
individual success stories. The auditor general can and does in part
III of the estimates offer plenty of examples to show how
government has successfully acted to follow up on opportunities he
has identified for improvement.
One of the auditor general's priority areas in recent years has
been revenue collection. In his 1996-97 part III of the estimates, he
outlines several areas where Revenue Canada was responsible and
responded well to his suggestions. This is one of many examples.
As the member for St. Albert, the mover of this motion, can
attest, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts also plays a key
role in the circle of accountability. The committee is chaired by a
member of the official opposition. One of its more important jobs
is to review the findings of the auditor general's report with
departmental officials. I would like to publicly commend the
efforts of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
As the mover of this motion can attest, it is a very busy team. As
a result of the hearings, I believe the committee presented to the
House 15 reports in 1995. Each report, based on the findings of the
auditor general, called for and received a formal response from the
government. Follow-up as careful and extensive as this should not
be underestimated.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts does not have the
time to call all departments and agencies mentioned in the auditor
general's reports. This does not mean we let the departments off the
hook. Each summer the committee contacts each and every
department that was not called to testify and requests an update on
actions taken. If it not satisfied with the progress achieved, the
committee may call the department at a later date.
I hope I have provided an adequate snapshot of the explicit
points in the current circle of accountability as it relates to auditor
general's reports. The circle exists. It is well defined and working
well.
We must ask ourselves how much value this motion is to the
circle. Will the proposed legislation simply be adding further
process, which is something we must avoid? This is where I would
like to pick up on the other theme that ran through our last debate
on this motion, the pursuit of good government.
On March 7 the government released its progress report-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
an honour to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member
for St. Albert, a member of the public accounts committee. He has
gone to some considerable work since his election to bring forth a
series of bills and motions to improve the process of accountability
with respect to money in government, specifically accountability
of government departments and agencies to the House of
Commons. This is one example.
Last year I had the pleasure to debate another rejected idea he put
out, to have a more established system of program evaluation. I
will read the motion before the House today:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce
amendments to the Financial Administration Act requiring all departments and
agencies to table in the House of Commons a specific response to the auditor
general's report on their activities, including time frames within which
corrective action will be taken regarding any shortcomings or failures of
administration identified by the auditor general; and such reports should be
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and to any other
relevant standing committees.
This sounds like something we would want to endorse. The
auditor general is an officer of the House of Commons. He must
report annually to the House on improper money management,
improper records maintenance, non-approved expenditure and
program inefficiency.
(1435)
Every year we spend $50 million so the auditor general can fulfil
this mandate. However, when the report of the auditor general is
tabled in the House, every chapter is automatically referred to the
public accounts committee. If the public accounts committee
cannot pursue the matter specifically the chapter is often
overlooked.
As has already been pointed out, in the 1994 report of the auditor
general there were 34 chapters, but only 4 received a response from
the government in last year's budget. This year, of 27 chapters in
the auditor general's report, only 1 was addressed in annex 1 of the
budget plan. It would seem there is some reasonable need to assure
this process is being followed and followed up.
We all suffer our various purgatories here. The hon. member for
St. Albert's is to be a Scotsman and an accountant, a deadly
combination at the best of times but particularly deadly when
dealing with issues of Canadian politics and government spending.
Obviously that combination goes in an entirely different direction.
When I listened to the debate today it is one of those days where
I wonder why we are here, specifically what I am doing here.
Before I spoke today I looked at the comments of the Parliamentary
Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board on this motion,
who is normally a very competent and genial member of
Parliament representing the constituency of Bruce-Grey where
most of my maternal relatives reside.
2971
He made the following observations. I quote selectively from
his speech because I think it summarizes the position of various
government members:
I do not need to remind my fellow members that the auditor general himself
follows up every two years on the progress and recommendations. I am positive
that all members would agree the office of the auditor general must be diligent
in reporting on the efficiency of the Canadian government operations. Do we
want to undermine the efforts of his office by attempting to duplicate this work?
During this time of fiscal restraint, while we are trying to achieve maximum
efficiency with a modicum of resources, we should consider as we debate this
motion whether it will be cost effective.
It does not matter whether it is the government, a business, a municipal
government or any organization that handles funds, it is the way in which one
does business. It is the efficient way in which one does business and not the
amount of paper and the reporting that makes the business function or makes it
efficient.
In other words, we have this process, we know what it is, we
have heard some descriptions today. The auditor general makes a
report on inefficiency. The public accounts committee can study it
and return its report to the auditor general or to the House. The
auditor general will follow his own recommendations.
We can bring it up in question period when we get these erudite
explanations of government management and administration. We
are to believe that all this is getting directly to the government
department itself, which is the one thing left out of all this process I
am describing. It was called by the previous Liberal speaker the
circle of accountability, whether we want to put more elements in
the circle.
Is it a circle of accountability or is it the run around? Is it the
non-circle or is it the circle of non-accountability and never getting
any answers?
I know hon. members come in and read canned speeches the
government provides them, all with the same lines but with some
different quotes to justify non-action.
One hon. member said the auditor general's report must be fully
followed and must be given all the legitimacy it requires because
after all we do spend $50 million; the very fact we spend money
must mean we are spending right.
(1440 )
In going on with these canned speeches, the hon. member said
that worrying about these kinds of details and worrying about
whether or not the departments actually have a report and have
taken action themselves that they can demonstrate, we are really
unable to see the forest for the trees.
Since we are all in the habit of making silly quotes for the sake of
making a point, let me make one which brings together the whole
issue of the forest and the trees: ``It looks more like a sycamore to
me''. That is a quote about the forests and the trees. It comes from
Yogi Bear who said that as the sycamore fell on his head. The
reason I raise that is if we want to talk about losing the forests for
the trees and we want to talk about too much paper, maybe there is
too much paper in some of these canned speeches.
More important, there is too much paper out there as we float
$450 billion in federal government bonds in international and
national bond markets. That is the too much paper we should be
worrying about around here; $450 billion which we are now only
increasing at the rate of $25 billion to $30 billion a year in paper,
enough to cut down several of Yogi's forests without any doubt.
That is $25 billion to $30 billion a year plus, I will add just so
nobody thinks that I am understating the problem, the other $100
billion in various specified purpose account liabilities, plus another
$500 billion in the unfunded liability of the Canada pension plan,
which the hon. member for St. Albert has tried unsuccessfully to
get the government to account for in its formal document.
I hear comments that they are trying to get a specific answer to a
specific problem; that they are trying to get a report; that the
agency affected is to report directly on what it did wrong; and that
they are trying to add that element of accountability. I hear the
comment that it is adding too much bureaucracy. This reminds me
of several instances in life.
It is the same as taking my car into the mechanic because it is not
running properly. The mechanic gives me a report stating what is
wrong. I ask him exactly what it is he will do to fix it and how
much it will cost and he tells me not to bother him with all that
bureaucracy.
It is the same as if I were to tell a doctor that I think I have some
terrible illness. My arm, my leg or whatever hurts. I ask him to tell
me what is wrong. The doctor runs all kinds of tests. I ask him what
he is going to do and he tells me not to bother him with all that
bureaucracy.
We are suggesting that there is a purpose here. We are not
suggesting that there be reports for the sake of having reports. We
have already spent $50 million to find out what is wrong, now let us
find out if anything was done about it. That is the point we are
trying to make. I will add a couple of topical illustrations where
this would help.
Various changes are needed in Revenue Canada to capital gains
legislation relating to family trusts. In the last few days in this
House there have been discussions that some prominent Canadians
have managed to shift billions of dollars out of the country in their
family trusts. In other words they have avoided taxes and
specifically capital gains taxes. There were lots of questions on
whether that was fair in the way it was done.
We were told by the minister of revenue, who seems terribly
flustered by all this, that the government will act quickly on the
auditor general's recommendations but it really all occurred under
the previous government. The problems were known for years but
the government was never actually sure whether anything was done
about them. That is precisely why the member for St. Albert is
proposing this motion.
2972
Another example is that in the past the auditor general has
specifically called for discussions not just on deficit targets, as the
government has no long term deficit targets, but that there be
discussions on debt levels and appropriate debt to GDP ratios and
what can be sustained in the medium and long term. This happens
to be one of the few areas where I do have some expertise. This is a
very important question. It is the critical question in terms of the
long term financial health of the country. However, the last budget
contained virtually no mention whatsoever of our enormous debt
levels, let alone long term and medium term debt targets.
I say all these things to point out that there is a need for it. There
is a need to add this additional reporting requirement to ensure that
the $50 million we spend on the auditor general office is followed
up and that we know specifically what has happened.
I would also point out, in spite of my frustration and sarcasm
today, that this is a non-partisan motion. It does not aim at any
specific government department or agency. It is something every
member should be supporting. I hope the government members
will put away their canned speeches, send them back to Yogi in the
forest, so that we can get on with having some accountability for
government money.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate my colleague on a fine speech. I notice that the
member for Calgary West wants to replace the member for Calgary
Southwest as leader.
In terms of the motion before us, I am the vice-chair of the
public accounts committee and I see merit in the motion. In many
cases too many reports come before the public accounts committee.
I believe this year there are some 35 chapters and we will be
fortunate enough if we get to examine seven of them. Clearly it
would be useful to make sure that issues raised by the auditor
general got back to the relevant standing committees and then
ultimately reported to the House.
There is no question we want the auditor general and the public
accounts committee to be certain that the bureaucracy has taken the
suggestions into account and has made the relevant changes to
make government operations more efficient.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.45 p.m., the time provided for
Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped
to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
The House stands adjourned until Monday, May 27 at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.47 p.m.)