CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 29, 1996
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3121
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 3121
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 3122
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3124
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3124
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3124
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3125
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3125
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3125
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3126
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3127
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3129
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3129
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3131
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3131
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3132
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3132
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 3135
Bill C-284. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3140
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3140
Motion for concurrence in first report 3140
Motion for concurrence in 19th report 3141
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3141
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3141
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3141
Bill C-20. Motion for third reading. 3142
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 3153
Division on amendment deferred 3163
3121
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 29, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for Durham.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I call upon all Canadians to recognize and congratulate the
900 million people of India for completing what is the largest
democratic voting exercise in the history of our world.
As a Canadian MP I want to restate the support of Canadians for
the growth and evolution of the democratic electoral process in all
countries. We believe that this is the best way to develop our
political futures.
During the Indian election campaign there were some terrorist
incidents but the people have prevailed. I condemn those who
would offer us bombs and bullets instead of voting ballots and
those responsible for the murders and maiming that occurred in
India.
Of particular interest is the upcoming final balloting day in
Kashmir where there remain many difficult issues to be resolved by
the people of Kashmir. I encourage Kashmiris to reject violence
and adopt the electoral process as the means of achieving their
collective goals. Their future cannot be left exclusively to the
forces that use violence.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we seem to spend a lot of time in this House arguing and
disagreeing about legislation. Later on today I will be introducing a
bill to strengthen property rights in federal law. Debate on this bill
should find more agreement than disagreement between Liberals
and Reformers.
Property rights is an issue which transcends partisan politics.
Property rights were first protected in Canada by John Diefenbaker
with the passage of the Canadian bill of rights. Both Pierre Elliott
Trudeau and our current Prime Minister argued forcefully without
success to have property rights included in the charter of rights and
freedoms. As it now stands there is very little protection of a
person's right to own, use and enjoy property.
My bill strengthens property rights in the Canadian bill of rights
and therefore only applies to the activities and laws passed by the
federal government. My bill does not intrude into areas of
provincial jurisdiction and avoids the concerns raised by some
provinces and interest groups that argued against including
property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms.
This bill should unite us rather than divide us when it comes
before the House for debate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the reform
proposed in the federal budget relating to the old age pension has
upset the plans of those who have been saving for years for their
retirement.
As well, some of the provincial governments are not being too
kind to their seniors. The ones feeling the effects are not the rich
but the middle class, who are finding the substantial sum of $1,000
to $5,000 lopped off their incomes, a considerable blow to their
standard of living. The ones who will pay for this reform are not the
privileged members of society, but the people who have planned
ahead for their retirement.
Can the government make adjustments so as to encourage people
to save, rather than discouraging them? Couples who have made
preparations for retirement, who have put money aside, particularly
in RRSPs, instead of spending it, would lose their pension, while
others with the same income would not.
I do, however, approve of the more well off not receiving the
pension anymore, since they have to pay back what they have
received when they file their income tax return.
3122
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on May 24, Air Canada announced that it would be
opening up a new reservations centre in Saint John, New
Brunswick, by this fall.
This centre would employ some 650 people processing toll free
calls from anywhere in Canada. Montreal will then gradually phase
out its reservations centre except for local callers. The FTQ
estimates that this might mean the loss of about 600 Quebec jobs.
Having pressured ADM for the transfer of international flights to
Dorval from Mirabel, Air Canada is now preparing to move its
services out of Quebec. One might ask serious questions about the
intentions of this air carrier. After the railway sector, is it now the
turn of the airline sector to move lots of jobs out of Quebec?
Quebec is being attacked on all sides: first by the railway
industry, then by the marine industry, now by the airlines.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to join with the colleagues of Dr. Jake O'Connor of
Dartmouth who have bestowed on him the highest award of the
Canadian College of Family Physicians by naming him family
physician of the year for 1996.
(1405 )
Dr. O'Connor has been practising family medicine since 1972.
He is one of the few physicians, in Dartmouth at least, who still
find the time to do home visits for some elderly patients.
In addition to his family practice, Dr. O'Connor teaches a course
in family medicine at Dalhousie University's medical school as
well as being the chief of staff at the Dartmouth General Hospital.
I speak from experience in saying that Jake O'Connor is a
physician par excellence since he is my family physician and
indeed delivered my son Matthew to a proud mom and dad only a
few short years ago.
Congratulations, Doc, on this appropriate recognition of your
commitment to family medicine and the people of your
community. Your colleagues have finally recognized what your
patients have always known, you are one heck of a great doctor.
[Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from June 6 to June 9, the city of Verdun will host its
fourth international kite festival. Over 15 countries will be
represented.
This festival, which won the Montreal small tourism enterprise
award and draws more than 150,000 people, is the pride of all the
people of Verdun, in my riding.
I invite all of you to come with your families to this international
kite festival, which will be held in my beautiful riding of
Verdun-Saint-Paul from June 6 to June 9. We promise you some
good weather and a memorable show.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the Fundy
Gypsum Company located in my riding of Annapolis
Valley-Hants.
In April of this year Fundy Gypsum received the John T. Ryan
regional safety trophy for select mines in eastern Canada. This
award is in recognition of Fundy Gypsum's remarkable low injury
rate.
What makes this achievement even more appealing and
impressive is the fact that this is the third year in a row that Fundy
Gypsum has received this trophy. The commitment to safety and
efficiency shown at Fundy Gypsum is a model for businesses
across Canada.
I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the plant
manager, Terry Davis, and all the employees at Fundy Gypsum for
their commitment to excellence in workplace safety.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for two
people in my riding of Chambly, Félix Patenaude and Marie-Pier
Parent, the daughter of Renée and Pierre Parent, Director of Park
Canada, Montreal District, life came to an abrupt stop on May 27 in
Lake Louise, Alberta, when a drunk driver brutally shattered their
dreams.
That long-awaited trip, a graduation present planned as a journey
of discovery, will always remind their loved ones of a dream that
went unfulfilled.
Once again, death and alcohol, which often go together in such
circumstances, struck indiscriminately.
3123
Because their memory will live longer than the screeching of
tires, the shattering of glass and the clash of metal, it is important
to tighten criminal laws so as to reduce as much as possible the
number of regrettable accidents like the one that killed these
young people, who had their whole lives ahead of them.
On behalf of all my colleagues in this House, I wish to express
my heartfelt condolences to the grieving families.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
is a great country because of the freedom every citizen enjoys. Yet
while we believe and make that statement, some do not enjoy a
highly prized Canadian freedom, that is the freedom to work, to
produce goods and to sell those goods in a free open market.
Canadian grain farmers are forbidden their maximum benefit
because they must market through a government appointed,
producer ignoring board. No western grain farmer can freely
choose where, when and how their product will be sold nor choose
who will buy their product.
Western grain producers want the same freedom and privilege as
others, an end to discrimination and control of their own destiny,
not their destiny controlled by dictatorial government appointed
hacks.
This Liberal government makes criminals of grain farmers who
want the right to market their product as freely as other Canadians.
I call on the minister of agriculture to allow farmers to opt out of
the wheat board if they so choose and to allow them the freedom to
escape government appointed dictatorship.
I speak of freedom for all Canadians. Freedom. Freedom for all.
* * *
(1410 )
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, many
Canadians were shocked to learn that the government had
terminated the Canadian War Museum's contract with the
Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, of which one-third are
Canadian war vets. These war vets did not just provide security
services, they acted as tour guides. What better tour guides to have
in a war museum than ones who actually served in war?
If the government wishes to save $100,000, then all it has to do is
drop one of its patronage appointments off the veterans appeal
board where they earn $85,000 plus expenses to sit three days a
week.
I think 72-year old veteran and former war museum
commissionaire Mabel Ralph said it best when she said: ``It's a slap
in the face to all veterans-.They made such a to-do about us when
they were commemorating the 50th anniversary. Now it's a
different story''.
I urge the government to reconsider this decision and reinstate
the vets.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year Environment Week is being celebrated from June
1 to 9. Next week is our chance to reflect on our successes and
renew our commitment to a healthy environment.
I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the work of the
Cumberland County River Enhancement Association which began
in 1987. Its mission is to protect and enhance the aquatic systems
as well as to raise community awareness of the value of inland
waterways.
The Maccan River will be the focus of a new project including
tree planting, erosion controls and river clean-up. Currently all
along Nova Scotia's vast coastline, natural marshlands are being
used in the purification of waste water.
Nova Scotians recognize the value of their environment. They
are committed to protecting it, making the province of Nova Scotia
a wonderful place to live.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is becoming clearer by the minute that, like bookends,
the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are seeing eye to eye on
the subject of official languages.
They both want to see Canada's Official Languages Act
disappear so that Canada can then be redesigned on a linguistic
basis by confining francophones to Quebec and scattering
anglophones among the other provinces, which leaves
francophones outside Quebec completely out of the picture. This
linguistically segregated Canada advocated by the Reform Party
and the Bloc Quebecois is not the kind of country we want to live
in.
As a Franco-Ontarian MP, let me tell you that we will not let our
country be broken up just to satisfy the territorial ambitions of a
few extremists. Whether the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois
like it or not, we are proud to have French and English as the
official languages of Canada.
3124
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
extraordinary conditions created in 1992-94 by El Nino's warm
water currents and by the movement north of hundreds of millions
of mackerel that devour young chinook salmon have brought a
crisis for west coast sports fishers who contribute $740 million a
year to the B.C. economy and up to 6,000 full time jobs.
A more than 90 per cent loss of production of chinook has
necessitated stringent conservation measures for the 1996 season
with time and area based bans on chinook fishing on the west coast
of Vancouver Island and in the Queen Charlottes. With the
co-operation of the sports fishers, this vital B.C. resource can be
preserved and restored.
The state of Alaska, where 37 per cent of the mortality in
chinook stocks occurs, should try to be a good neighbour and live
up to the letter and spirit of the 1985 Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon
Treaty.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this afternoon, the Speaker of the Senate and yourself unveiled
plaques commemorating the history of Canadian parliamentary
service. These plaques will remind tourists of the names of
parliamentarians who served their country with dedication and
earnestness.
The official opposition takes pride in sharing this historic
moment with our colleagues, past and present. While we are
sovereignists, we nevertheless recognize the intrinsic value of the
British parliamentary system and its underlying traditions and
principles.
I compliment the Speaker on his initiative, which shows how
much regard he has for these men and women who have helped
shape the Canadian Parliament's history and democratic tradition,
regardless of their origins, social condition or political views. Rest
assured that, after achieving sovereignty, we will draw inspiration
from this model.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to welcome all of the former senators and members of Parliament
who have gathered here in Ottawa today to commemorate the
history of parliamentary service in Canada. It is a history they
should be proud of and I am very sure they are.
(1415)
At times public service can be very difficult, trying and
seemingly a thankless task. I am sure every member who has
served in this House has, in a moment of frustration, questioned
whether they were really making a difference. My message is
simple: Your efforts not only made a difference, they made a great
difference for us here in Canada. Just look at what we have
accomplished.
In 129 short years we have grown from a mere colony to a
country that is the envy of the world. We have built a free,
democratic and tolerant society where we dream big dreams and
then live them. We occupy a proud place in the family of nations.
Much of that credit goes to these many men and women who are
here today.
On behalf of my colleagues and the Reform Party of Canada, I
would like to join in paying tribute to all the men and women who
have served in the Parliament of Canada since Confederation.
Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________
3124
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister attempted to make light of
the discriminatory and unacceptable remarks made by his Minister
of Human Resources Development.
In the light of very strong reaction by all political commentators
and by organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress, for
example, who reacted strongly to the minister's remarks, and now
that he has had the time to reread what his minister said, will the
Prime Minister dissociate himself from his minister's
remarks-yes, or no? We await a reply.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, by refusing to condemn his minister, as is his duty and as
all Canadians consider he ought, does the Prime Minister realize
that his entire government is associated with the unacceptable and
discriminatory remarks of the Minister of Human Resources
Development?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I see members of the Bloc Quebecois getting upset
over words considered unacceptable, I hope they in turn will ask
their mother house to apologize for having said a few weeks ago
that Canada was a prison. The ultimate proof that Canada is not a
prison
3125
lies in the fact that a member who came here as an immigrant and a
refugee can support their party in Canada. This is a far cry from a
prison, it is freedom at its finest.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you will understand I am surprised to find the Prime
Minister indignant over the opposition's distress when a new
Canadian member is told to go and find another country.
The opposition's indignation, I remind the Prime Minister, is
echoed unanimously by all commentators in Quebec and
throughout Canada.
The very day of a momentous event in the history of Canada's
Parliament and with this morning's praise of the quality of
democracy and the freedom of expression in Canada, how can the
Prime minister let one of his ministers tarnish, by his unspeakable
remarks, the image of all those who sit or have sat in this
Parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we had to ask the members of the Bloc Quebecois and
of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City to apologize each time they
want to tarnish Canada's reputation, perhaps they could ask
Minister Landry to withdraw his description of Canada as being
``more authoritarian, intolerant and close-minded than the former
totalitarian communist governments''.
We need no lessons from anyone. The member is entitled to
work for the separatist party; we have nothing against that. He is
entitled. The minister said he does not agree with what the member
is doing. Disagreement is permitted in this House.
(1420)
He exercised the right to speak. The member expresses his point
of view. Another member of this House, an Acadian, who belongs
to a minority that stands to lose a lot if Quebec ever separates, is
entitled to express a point of view different from that of the
member who spoke before him.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that, by accepting and
even supporting the comments of his minister, he is sending
immigrants and Canadians by adoption a message unworthy of this
Parliament?
Does the Prime Minister realize that he is telling these men and
women that they do not have the same rights as other Canadians,
that freedom of political expression does not exist for them, unless
they happen to think like him and his minister?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, freedom of expression exists in this House. I could make a
list of completely unacceptable statements that attack the
fundamental values of this nation which have been made by
members on the other side day after day.
For a member who is an Acadian to get up and tell another
member that he is a refugee who is trying to destroy the country
which gave him the freedom that he did not have in the country he
is from is acceptable in a democracy. Mr. Speaker, you felt it was
part of fair debate. A member of Parliament has the right to be a
separatist, but we have the right to combat the separatists in
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister feels that some comments made by
Bloc Quebecois members are unacceptable, it is his duty to
condemn them. Let him do it and let him do it when it is
appropriate to do so.
When the Prime Minister heard the comments made by members
of the Reform Party, he took exception, but the Reform Party leader
did take action. The Prime Minister is right when he says
federalists can oppose separatists, but not at any price, not at the
expense of dignity and democracy.
I call on the Prime Minister's common sense. Will he demand
his minister's resignation, or will he support the unsupportable?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I were to ask for the resignation of all those in this
House who support the unsupportable, there would not be one Bloc
Quebecois member left.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has
been well documented that the defence minister gave his campaign
pals over $150,000 in questionable public contracts out of his
ministerial budget. Stephanos Karabekos, one of his campaigners,
received $100,000 to help soothe feelings in the Greek community
in the minister's Don Valley East riding.
Instead of coming clean with Canadians, the minister and the
Prime Minister have chosen to defend this patronage saying that it
was really good value for the money. It was good value for his
money, but the Canadian taxpayers are paying the bill.
How can the defence minister justify doling out thousands of
dollars in public contracts specifically and explicitly to his former
campaign workers?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad at my
first opportunity to be back in the country to deal with these very
troubling issues which have reflected on my reputation.
Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board outlined the
general response to this question. As members of the House of
3126
Commons we have budgets to hire staff. We hire them either as full
time employees or for project work. That goes for the members of
the Reform Party as well as other parties. Similarly ministers have
budgets that can be used for project work or for exempt staff.
In the case of the arrangements that were referred to in the
House, as the President of Treasury Board has stated, those
arrangements were made within Treasury Board guidelines.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
easy to talk about Treasury Board guidelines, but I want to talk
specifically about project work. A ministerial budget is one thing, a
member of Parliament's budget is another.
(1425 )
The Canadian public that is paying the bill for this wants to know
why in the world this soothing of the Greek community is always
happening in his riding. Surely there are enough communities
across the country from which he can hire people to do the work for
him out of his ministerial budget.
It seems ironic that every time a name comes up it is someone
specifically from his constituency. The Liberals railed against this
when the Mulroney government was in power. Now they are saying
that they are proud of it, that everything is okay.
Will the defence minister admit that he is guilty of the same
Mulroney-like patronage that he and his colleagues criticized while
in opposition? Will he repay the $150,000 spent on these unethical
contracts?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we had better
get our facts straight.
The hon. member accused me of unethical behaviour. I hope she
withdraws that before I give the answer to the question.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate your rulings on these things, not those of the minister.
I grant what we are talking about here is a tender issue for the
minister. It is so tender that every contract more than $30,000 is
literally supposed to go out to tender and this has not happened.
Stephanos Karabekos has received more than three contracts,
every one of which should have gone out to tender. When it is split
up, then it looks okay because it is under $30,000.
Mr. Speaker, you can call that unethical, I can call it unethical, I
know the Canadian public thinks it is unethical. It is deplorable.
Why has the minister allowed this contract splitting to take place?
Why has he allowed this to become such a tender issue?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not a tender
issue. It is a factual issue.
The hon. member says this is unethical. I am surprised that
language is allowed to stay, but I obviously respect your ruling on
that, Mr. Speaker.
What she is saying by extension is that the officials in my
department, the assistant deputy minister of finance who said that
these contracts were within the guidelines, the Treasury Board
officials who said that these arrangements were within guidelines,
are also unethical.
It seems that when the Reform Party casts its net, it casts it
widely. It does not pay attention to the facts. It does not pay
attention to the reputations of individuals.
With respect to the specific contract that the hon. member raises,
I would like to draw her attention to the fact that the Hellenic
Canadian Congress, the umbrella group of all Greek Canadians in
the country, issued a statement last night in support of the work that
was done in this very difficult circumstance-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Collenette: -and in a letter to the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt condemned him for the false
statements that he made in connection with this issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The federal government announced that it was cutting off its
annual $7.2 million contribution to the tokamak project. By
withdrawing from this project, the government is adding to the
huge research and development deficit and jeopardizing the
potential of scientific research in Quebec.
Why is the minister standing by this bad decision to no longer
participate in the Varennes tokamak project?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I believe I have made clear in the House on a
number of occasions, because of the fiscal situation in which the
government found itself, having been placed there by the previous
government, some very difficult choices had to be made. It is not
possible for the government to continue to do everything it had
done.
In relation to the future of AECL and the nuclear research
program, it has been decided to focus on the export sale of Candu
reactors. That export market provides benefits to both Quebec and
other parts of Canada.
3127
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is changing her versions, even if she thinks
she keeps telling us the same thing. This is the first time she has
admitted in this House that CANDU reactors are producing
spinoffs elsewhere than in Quebec, quite a few other places in fact.
She is cutting in Quebec in favour of British Columbia, about
which-
It would be nice if everyone could agree that the federal
contribution to the tokamak project in Quebec is money well spent,
and since she will be saving only $7.2 million, what are the
minister's real motives for-
(1430)
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, we must not question the
motives of our hon. colleagues. If the minister wishes to reply to
the question, she has the floor.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will simply reiterate what I have said before in the
House to the hon. member and others. Government is about making
choices and we have had to make some difficult choices.
I have explained over and over again that one of our choices was
in relation to the future of the nuclear program in this country. We
are going to focus on the export sale of Candu reactors.
Let me remind the hon. member that the sale of one Candu
reactor represents potentially over $100 million to the province of
Quebec and 4,000 person years in jobs.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has been trying to
defend his pork barrel abuse of his budget. He says he saved the
taxpayers millions of dollars. This is bogus. In fact, the minister
and Karabekos cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
According to information I have received directly from Veterans
Affairs, it admits that Karabekos was instrumental in extending
benefits that the government had planned to cut off in the March
1995 budget.
Will the minister not admit that he abused his budget, rewarding
campaign pals with cushy contracts that cost Canadians millions of
dollars?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not
address the specific accusation, the comment the member got from
Veterans Affairs, except to say that what the hon. member said is
absolutely and totally false.
I want to deal with the fact that these particular arrangements,
that is hiring people either on exempt staff or for specific projects,
is open to ministers and is also open to party leaders, the Leader of
the Opposition, for example, the leader of the Reform Party.
I would like to know if the hon. member has asked his party
leader how he hires and retains the services of people. Does he have
people just as full time employees or does he have people who are
hired on project work.
As to the propriety of this, the fact is that these particular
arrangements are within Treasury Board guidelines. It was stated
by the President of the Treasury Board, gone over by the various
officials. I think the facts speak for themselves.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the questions. The minister's job is to
answer them.
I have the contracts, I have the guidelines. The minister has
broken the guidelines. Canadians can see that there is no value for
money in these contracts. The minister hired a musical conductor
to do partisan work in the minister's riding. Karabekos is not the
only political hack that the minister has rewarded with cushy
contracts. There have been three others as well.
Will the minister tell the House if the pork barrel contracts end
here, or does he plan to hire every campaign worker on his team?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, far be it for me
to defend the people he has described as political hacks. Perhaps he
would refer the term political hack to the former Reform candidate
for Ottawa-Vanier who is an employee in his office.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
On top of the withdrawal from the tokamak project in Varennes,
now this Monday the parliamentary secretary has confirmed that
Atomic Energy of Canada is looking at the possibility of moving its
offices from Montreal to Toronto, which would mean a direct loss
of 120 jobs to the Montreal region.
Can the Minister commit at this time to maintaining AECL's
activities in Montreal?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, AECL is going through a process of restructuring and
rethinking its main lines of work and its main objectives. That
process is ongoing. At this time no final decisions have been made.
3128
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
why is the minister concentrating on systematically destroying
Quebec's scientific potential all the time, always in favour of
Ontario?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I have just heard from the hon.
member. He should consider the hundreds of millions of dollars
that are spent in the province of Quebec by the federal government
in relation to science and technology.
In my department alone, some of our best research facilities
presently exist in the province of Quebec and will continue to exist
in the province of Quebec. I suggest that the hon. member get his
facts straight.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Justice acknowledged that a senior official of his
department inappropriately tried to influence a chief judge of the
Federal Court. What the minister did not reveal was that the
meeting between his assistant deputy minister, Ted Thompson, and
the chief justice took place on March 1.
Who within his department authorized the meeting and why has
it taken him three months to acknowledge and respond to this
obvious violation of judicial independence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the meeting was held, according to
the chief justice, at the request of the chief justice. The meeting
was for the purpose initially of discussing concerns with the pace
of litigation generally in the Federal Court.
As I said yesterday, we have also acknowledged that it was
inappropriate for the meeting to discuss specific cases without
notice being given to counsel in those cases and an opportunity for
those counsel to participate.
In specific response to the point raised by the hon. member about
the timing, I can tell him that it was Mr. Ted Thompson who
brought to the attention of the department the fact that the meeting
had taken place. He brought the correspondence to the attention of
the department. We then brought that to the attention of counsel in
those cases.
In the weeks since March 1 our focus has been on the litigation.
Lawyers for the parties involved in the three litigation cases have
brought a motion, to which we have responded. We have been in
the courtroom resisting their application for stay.
At this point it is appropriate for me to make a statement. I
propose to do that. I will address in that statement the response,
internally, of the department to these circumstances.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice
Isaac of the Federal Court, in my opinion, should never have met
with Mr. Thompson to discuss this matter in the first place.
In 1990 the current Tory leader resigned as minister of fitness
and amateur sport after it was revealed he had called a judge. That
particular judge was not implicated in that case because he had the
integrity to hang up on the minister.
(1440 )
I ask the Minister of Justice if he has laid a complaint before the
Canadian Judicial Council to have Chief Justice Isaac's
participation in this matter dealt with.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. Our focus has been on the
litigation and now internally with respect to the appropriate
response to Ted Thompson's conduct.
The instances to which the hon. member has referred involved
either ministers or members of government communicating with
judges directly, and that is not what happened in this case.
What happened in this case is an instance of a long serving and
excellent lawyer with the department who at the request of the
chief justice participated in a meeting which eventually turned to
subjects that were more appropriately dealt with on notice to
counsel involved in those cases and with their involvement.
We acknowledge that was inappropriate. Our focus has been on
resisting motions to stay those cases in the court and now on how to
deal with Mr. Ted Thompson internally in the department. That has
been the focus of our attention.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
On May 9, 1994, the Prime Minister made a commitment in this
House not to modify C-91 on drug patents before its 1997 revision.
Last week, however, the Minister of Industry announced his
intention to modify the link regulations, thus affecting the C-91
regulations and therefore decreasing protection for drug patents.
Can the Minister of Industry indicate to us whether it is his
intention to respect the Prime Minister's commitment and to not
revise C-91 before 1997, or is he preparing to make unilateral
3129
modifications in the link regulations before the 1997 revision date,
without any public consultation whatsoever?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will always respect the Prime Minister's commitments.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we
to understand from the minister's response that there will be no
changes to the link regulations before the act is revised in 1997?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we have said on a number of occasions is that we
will respect our international commitments concerning drug
patents.
I believe that even the hon. member asking the question wishes
us to respect the 20 year principle, that is the lifetime of a drug
patent. The question with the link regulations is to ensure that, as
soon as a patent runs out, the generic companies have the
opportunity to manufacture the product.
This is the reason the regulations are a means of balancing the
life of a patent and access to an expired patent. Moreover, we are
going to continually ensure that court rulings actually confirm the
hon. member's opinion, that these regulations are working well.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury
Board.
Some municipalities in my riding of
Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle are concerned about not yet having
filed their applications under the infrastructure program and their
projects not being approved before the deadline.
Could the minister tell us whether this program will be extended
to allow these municipalities to complete their projects?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to announce that the federal government and the Quebec
government have agreed on the changes required to extend the time
frames provided for in the Canada-Quebec agreement on the
infrastructure program.
Details will be announced shortly and I encourage Quebec
municipalities to fill in their applications as quickly as possible. I
am also pleased to announce that more than 12,000 infrastructure
projects were approved during the first two years of the program,
including 2,400 projects in Quebec, which represents a $1.8 billion
investment and accounts for the creation of thousands of jobs in
Quebec.
* * *
(1445 )
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
weeks now the government has piously proclaimed it is very
concerned about the price of gasoline, so much so that it has struck
another committee to look into gas prices.
The government does not really need a committee. What it needs
is a calculator. Out of every litre of gasoline 3.5 cents is GST, all of
it hidden. Under the minister's new harmonization agreement he is
adding another 4 cents per litre to the price of gas.
My question is very simple. Is a 100 per cent increase in the GST
charged on gasoline his idea of no new taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
given that the GST harmonization agreement has not gone into
effect yet, it is very hard to place the blame for the increase in
gasoline prices on the GST.
My colleague, the Minister of Industry, has explained a number
of times in the House the reasons for the increase in the price of
gasoline. He has also expressed his concern and his desire to take
action where necessary.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, $84
million in new taxes for the province of Nova Scotia and a 4 cent
per litre increase in the price of gasoline repudiate the minister's
promise of the budget just two months ago when he said there were
not to be any new taxes.
My question again is will the minister admit today his promise
of no new taxes is bogus and that once again Canadians were
misled by the government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity once again to
point out to the House that in our first budget we did not increase
personal taxes. In our second budget we did not increase personal
taxes. In case it has escaped the member's attention, in our latest
budget we did not increase corporate taxes, excise taxes or personal
taxes. Mr. Speaker, we did not increase taxes.
3130
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
For months now, the minister has been making excuses for
Aéroports de Montréal's failure to release all studies on the transfer
of international flights from Mirabel to Dorval by saying that this
firm is not subject to the Access to Information Act. However, the
contract between ADM and the Government of Canada does
specifically state that ADM shall co-operate with the minister in
responding to any questions, complaints or comments from the
public regarding the airport.
How is the minister ensuring that the terms of an agreement
entered into by his own department are being complied with?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the airport authority in
Montreal has complied with all agreements with this department. If
the hon. member has evidence of anything other than that I would
be happy to receive it and examine it in due course.
However, an allegation totally unsupported by evidence of
misbehaviour by a regional organization which involves municipal
governments of the city of Montreal and most of the outlying
regional governments is thoroughly improper in the House.
We trust regional and municipal governments to act properly. We
trust provincial governments to do the same. An allegation that
they are acting improperly is quite out of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the minister suggesting that the people of Quebec, to
whom the transfer of operations from Mirabel to Dorval will cost in
excess of $200 million, have no business knowing what the studies
supporting this transfer say?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the information about the very difficult decision made by
the airport authority at Montreal has been made public. There are
21 members of the authority and seven municipalities involved.
They make the information public.
The hon. member must remember these are extremely difficult
decisions for that authority involving the future and what we hope
will be the restoration of economic health to the city of Montreal.
We cannot continue to ignore what is happening in international
aviation in terms of companies getting together. We cannot
continue to ignore that because if we or the ADM did so it would be
to the detriment of the citizens and the future of the city of
Montreal. We will not do that.
* * *
(1450 )
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
week in Hamilton two local teenagers have been charged with
murder. On Monday, May 27 six teens wielding baseball bats
fatally beat Roberto Oliviera, an 18-year-old, while his younger
brother looked on. Yesterday Roberto died and a 15-year old youth
has been charged with second degree murder. This vicious
murderer will be eligible for parole in seven short years if
convicted.
Can the justice minister explain why he reduced the parole
eligibility for these young offenders from a maximum of 10 to a
mere 7 years, forcing judges across the country to hand out pathetic
penalties for such horrendous crimes?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the facts of the sad cases recounted
by the hon. member are dreadful. Without commenting on the
liability of cases to be before the court, all of us of course share the
grief of the families of the victims involved in those cases.
The hon. member also knows that in Bill C-37 we changed the
Young Offenders Act to increase substantially the penalties for
murder to make it easier to transfer 16 and 17-years-olds to adult
court for adult trial in crimes of serious violence.
His party is working actively on the justice committee reviewing
the act in its entirety. We have already made it clear we will listen
carefully to the recommendations the committee makes later this
year and we shall make whatever other changes in the act are
required to meet the needs of public safety.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I did
not really get an answer to my question. I am curious to know why
so many of these things are not working the way they are supposed
to, according to the minister.
As I stated before, there has not been only one murder of a youth
in Hamilton but two in one week alone. On May 23 a 14-year old
youth appeared in court charged with the first degree murder of Lee
James Doherty, who was bludgeoned to death with a crowbar. This
youth charged with first degree murder will serve a mere seven
years. It is nothing more than the failure of the minister's approach
to youth violence which is causing it.
3131
Will the minister finally listen to the Reform Party now and
tighten up the Young Offenders Act so that vicious criminals like
this get the sentence they deserve?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I shall do better than that. I shall
listen to the justice committee on which the Reform Party is well
represented. The hon. member for Crowfoot and his colleagues
from that party on that committee are at work on the very issues the
hon. member has referred to. When those recommendations are
received, we shall pay very close attention to what they
recommend.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while Canada has made progress in reducing toxins and air
pollutants much more remains to be done. Concerns about UV
radiation, toxins and smog become more acute as the summer
months approach.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment tell the House what specific action is being taken to
address the changes affecting the earth's atmosphere?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member from Mississauga West for her question. She has
repeatedly demonstrated a concern for and commitment to
environmental issues.
I am pleased to say that on Monday the Minister of the
Environment announced that in partnership with two private sector
partners and the University of Toronto we are committing $1.9
million for a research chair that will look at the complex issues of
atmospheric pollution.
A world leader in his field, Professor Jim Drummond will chair
the program. The program will develop and use space based
instruments to measure and track air pollutants on a global scale.
Crucial information for addressing global environmental issues
such as climate change, smog-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Chicoutimi.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Two days ago, the minister was roundly criticized for allowing
the gliding school to move from Saint-Honoré to
Saint-Jean-de-Richelieu. The department refused to hold a public
hearing on this project despite its highly controversial nature.
How can the minister justify his authorizing this move without a
public hearing, when this project, which is already causing a fierce
public controversy, will have a significant environmental impact?
(1455)
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon..
member will realize that in the last two budgets there have been
many closures of national defence facilities and the transfer of
many activities across the country, all in the name of saving money.
In this case we are saving $300,000 by moving the gliding school
from St. Honorié to St. Jean, Quebec. The environmental
assessment has been done. I realize some people in St. Honorié are
not very happy but there were a lot of unhappy people when we
closed bases throughout Atlantic Canada, in Calgary and in
Chilliwack. We are consolidating our operations to make them
more efficient. The bottom line is we are saving the taxpayers
money.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.
The department has never succeeded in proving that it could
achieve substantial savings. If he has nothing to hide, will the
minister promise to release all the studies prepared in this matter,
including the additional costs taxpayers will have to bear to
effectively lower the noise level of tug aircraft?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be
pleased to furnish any information that would allay the hon.
member's fears.
Two weeks ago I appeared before the defence committee on the
estimates, and the critics for his party never asked one question
about this. If they had, I would have given them more details.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for a month now
Reform has urged the government to reverse the current policy on
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and grant immediate
diplomatic recognition to this country.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he is now willing to grant
diplomatic recognition.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, about three or four weeks ago
I was in the Balkans area and we had a number of discussions. We
3132
are holding similar discussions in Canada with affected groups. I
hope to be making some decision on that matter within the next
month or so.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the decision to
grant diplomatic recognition to the former Yugoslav Republic is
long overdue.
In 1995 Greece recognized its independence and yet last month
the Minister of Foreign Affairs was still writing letters saying
Canada could not recognize it because of its dispute with Greece. It
seems the minister does not really know what is happening in this
case.
The UN also recognized this country. Still the government
delays and evades the issue. I would like the minister to give me
one reason why Canada cannot now recognize and give diplomatic
recognition to this country.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows there were some very major
complications. We are dealing with two very important allies in the
NATO system. It had to do with names of countries and the nature
of the recognition that would be taking place.
I just told the hon. member we are not ignoring it, we are not
delaying it. We are actively pursuing it. We have been talking to the
parties involved. We will be looking at the options we have. I just
told the hon. member we will be making a decision within the next
month. I think that shows quick and ready action.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the Prime Minister.
Canadians are quite amazed that the federal government has
stood by and allowed Hollinger Incorporated to acquire over 53 per
cent of all Canadian newspapers.
The 1981 Kent commission recommended that no one company
should control more than 20 per cent of Canadian circulation, as it
threatens freedom and democracy. Yet Hollinger now controls over
42 per cent. By any definition this is an alarming development.
My question to the Prime Minister is what further threats to
freedom and democracy will there have to be before the
government takes action to ensure competition, freedom of speech
and the public's right to know?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a little hard to follow the premise of the member's
question and connect it to the conclusion he has drawn.
When freedom of speech prevails in Canada in very clear and
legal ways he criticizes the ownership of newspapers at a time
when we are surrounded not only by newspapers but by other
media and means of exchanging information.
(1500 )
Mr. Blaikie: What are you going to do about it?
Mr. Manley: The member for Winnipeg Transcona seems to
think he has lost his voice in this House, largely because they did
not elect enough members in the last election. That is why he does
not get his chance to make those comments.
The competition law deals with the economic impact of
acquisitions, such as that which is proposed by Hollinger, that will
be reviewed by the director of investigations and research as to
whether there are anti-competitive reasons that the director should
intervene in the transaction. He has done that. He has concluded
that is not the case. But that does not deal with future behaviour. He
will continue to monitor the behaviour as a result of this
acquisition. If it is anti-competitive, he will act.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
In the last two budgets the government has implemented big
changes to Canadian agriculture, including the reduction or
elimination of previous subsidy programs. The government has
also committed itself to adaptation measures to ease the process
away from subsidization.
What is the government going to implement to commit itself to
help farmers adapt to the new reality?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct to say
that for fiscal, trade, diversification, innovation and efficiency
reasons a number of former subsidy programs have been brought to
an end. In every case appropriate transitional measures or gradual
phase out measures or other adaptation measures have been put in
place to smooth the process of transition equitably all across the
country.
The hon. gentleman comes from Saskatchewan and might refer
specifically to the end of the WGTA subsidy. Part of the adaptation
in that case is the WGTA adaptation fund with $300 million over
the next couple of years to help smooth out the process of changing
the freight pooling system, to assist the alfalfa dehydration and
compressed hay industries and also to help enhance rural
infrastructure like rural roads which are of critical importance in
the prairie region.
3133
The Speaker: In keeping with the program which we have
established here over the last two and one-half years, it is our
custom to recognize distinguished Canadians in our gallery.
Today is a very historic day for us as parliamentarians and for us
as Canadians. I would like you to join with me in welcoming home
some of the men and women who have served this Parliament and
who have served Canada so well.
My Canadian parliamentarians you have served Canada well and
you honour us by being here today. Would you please stand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
3133
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have the honour to inform the
House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
May 29, 1996
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Roméo LeBlanc,
Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the
29th day of May, 1996 at 3.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to
certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque,
Secretary to the Governor General
(1505 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, in the last short while one of our
former parliamentarians has passed away. I refer to the former
member for Burlington, Mr. Bill Kempling. His wife is with us
today.
We are going to have tributes. I will recognize the hon. member
for Sherbrooke, the leader of the Conservative Party.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my colleagues in the Senate and the hon. member for
Saint John, as well as a colleague who worked with him, the hon.
member for Beauce, I rise to pay tribute to Hon. William
Kempling, an esteemed parliamentarian and a member of the
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Bill Kempling, as we knew him, was an outstanding
parliamentarian. He was an exceptional Canadian and a great man.
As I rise today I cannot help but think that the timing of our
tribute could not have been better planned. This is the day the
House has chosen to commemorate the memory of the men and
women who have served in this place from its very beginning in
1867 to this day. If we had to choose one person, one single
outstanding example of a member who had served his country, we
could not have chosen a better example, a better person than Mr.
Bill Kempling.
Mr. Kempling was tested early on in his life. This is not known
by a number of people. Very early on in his life he was affected by
polio, as were a number of Canadians of his generation. This was a
great challenge for him.
I learned last week at the religious service in his honour that he
had come to know his present wife Muriel, who is honouring us
with her presence in the gallery today, by being introduced by a
young boy on the street next to his who equally was suffering from
polio. I will refer to this later. However, this would be, as we can
imagine, one of the first great tests of this young man's life.
At the age of 19, Mr. Kempling went on to serve as a flight
lieutenant in World War II with the Royal Canadian Air Force. He
served in Burma in an exceptional capacity. He was part of a group
of soldiers who were flown behind enemy lines to raid the
installations of the enemy. He flew on these exceptional and very
dangerous missions.
He was among a group of soldiers who not only fulfilled the
mandate they were given, but also had a great deal of difficulty
surviving. One of these encounters resulted in a six month trek
through jungles and across mountains before he would finally
reach peaceful territory and rejoin forces with the allies. This
exceptional and outstanding service in Burma was only a prelude to
what he would offer to Canadians in his later life.
In 1964 Mr. Kempling founded a business in Hamilton, Ontario.
As a businessman he was also concerned about government, the
way it operated and its accountability. He went on to found a truck
body equipment association to lobby government so that he could
bring about some changes. As his experience increased, so did his
dealings with government.
Mr. Kempling had a fervent desire to represent the interests of
small business and of the constituents of Burlington. In 1972 he
successfully ran as a Progressive Conservative candidate. As a
parliamentarian he spent over two decades in the House of
Commons. He was considered by many as a father figure in this
House.
3134
(1510 )
I first ran into Bill Kempling in 1984 as a member of the
Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Association. I have a very fond
memory of Mr. Kempling carrying the brief on steel and steel
issues at a meeting of this association. In my first experiences, I
was faced with exceptional parliamentarians from both countries,
on the American side very experienced congressmen and senators.
I remember being very, very proud of the performance, of the
arguments and of the force of knowledge Bill Kempling brought to
this file as he defended the interests of Canada's steel industry with
our American counterparts. In fact I would venture today that Bill
Kempling, with regard to the steel caucus that he formed in this
House, has not been replaced since 1993.
His lengthy parliamentary service included chief government
whip in 1979 and the chief opposition whip from 1980 to 1983. He
was appointed deputy finance critic in 1983. He also served as
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and
Immigration. He served as Parliamentary Secretary to the President
of Treasury Board until his retirement in 1993.
Just recently I had the pleasure of meeting with Bill. He reflected
upon how satisfied and proud he was with the more than 20 years
he had dedicated to serving the people of Canada. His integrity,
generosity and honesty are benchmarks that Canadians will strive
to uphold. As a fellow parliamentarian and an upstanding Canadian
citizen, Mr. Kempling was a true friend and also true to his word in
his forthrightness.
He will be missed by a number of us but we are honoured today
by the presence of his wife Muriel who was, in every true sense of
the word, his partner through his political career. Everywhere Bill
went Muriel would accompany him serving the people of
Burlington and the people of Canada. I also want to recognize the
service of his sons Angus and Bruce and his daughter Jane who also
made a great contribution to his public life.
In my opening remarks I referred to Bill's bout with polio and
what a challenge that must have been for this young boy. At his
funeral service his brother-in-law told a story of how Bill had been
challenged by his parents to walk to the end of their backyard
where there were animals. They hoped that this young boy, who
they were told may never walk again, could learn how to walk and
survive this bout with polio. We can all imagine the young man
walking a step and falling, getting up and walking another step and
falling and getting up and walking, until the day he reached his
objective and his destination.
There was in that episode of his life a great metaphor for all of
our lives. Bill Kempling represented the best that this House of
Commons has to offer. In the end, I think he offers the best that
Canada has to offer to the world.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
join in the tribute that was so eloquently given by the member for
Sherbrooke, the leader of the Conservative Party, for our old friend
and colleague, Bill Kempling.
Bill served in this House for 21 years. I was privileged to serve
with him for 10 of those years. He was chief government whip from
1980 to 1983. I really got to know him well because at that time we
were going through the very emotional debates on the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I know you remember them as well. They were
difficult, they were emotional, they were very partisan but Bill
Kempling, despite being partisan in the Chamber, as most of us are
when we feel very strongly about issues, was the perfect gentleman
and a friendly colleague in the lobby.
Bill was well prepared for the rough and tumble world of politics
because he enjoyed a successful career as a businessman. Other
than overcoming the physical challenge that has been mentioned,
the real test for him came as a member of the Royal Canadian Air
Force during the second world war.
Bill Kempling's distinguished wartime career is one that should
be remembered. He joined the RCAF in 1941 at the age of 20 and
went on to fly in virtually every theatre of war, from England and
northwest Europe to the Mediterranean and southeast Asia. He
showed enormous courage and determination in the face of danger.
(1515)
On one occasion, he took part in a daring mission in which allied
forces landed behind enemy lines in Burma to blow up bridges and
railways. It took six months before the men returned to India and
freedom. The region's dense jungle and rugged mountains were
formidable obstacles, but that did not mean much to Bill Kempling
and his determination.
The campaign in southeast Asia was tough by any standard. Mr.
Kempling was one of the many Canadians who had to face not only
a battle-hardened enemy but also the natural elements that showed
little mercy. The climate was harsh and the living conditions were
often appalling but the Canadians persevered.
Bill left the air force in 1945, having achieved the very
distinguished rank of flight lieutenant.
Bill Kempling served his country with pride and commitment in
the second world war. He overcame numerous challenges and
hardships and for nearly four years performed this duty whenever
he was called on. Because of men and women like Bill Kempling,
Canada and the Royal Canadian Air Force made an important
contribution to allied victory in the second world war. His wartime
record reflects the skill and bravery of all RCAF personnel during
that long and bitter conflict.
3135
Bill Kempling knew the meaning of sacrifice. He risked his life,
like thousands of others, so that future generations could live in
peace and freedom. Not content to serve his country once in the
field of war, he offered himself for public life.
For many in public life, we often feel that it is war because it is a
fight for ideals, for values and for the essence of being Canadian. It
is our perspective in being a Canadian. Bill Kempling certainly had
his views on what Canada meant.
He was strongly partisan. He had a love for this country. He was
an active small businessman. He was a man who was
knowledgeable about economic policy, but I remember him as a
man with a hearty laugh that could enjoy some fun once we left the
intense confines of the Chamber.
On behalf of the Prime Minister and the members of my party, I
would like to offer my condolences to Muriel and to the other
members of his family along with his friends at this difficult time.
All members of the House share in their sorrow.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on my own
behalf and on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I
would like to say a few words in memory of Bill Kempling, the
former Conservative member for the riding of Burlington, Ontario.
Mr. Kempling was already an experienced parliamentarian when
I met him in 1984. He first became a member of the House of
Commons in 1972 and was re-elected without interruption until
1993, when he took well deserved retirement.
He was the chief whip of the government under the Right Hon.
Joe Clark, who was Prime Minister at the time. He was also a
parliamentary secretary under the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.
Despite this distinguished career in politics, we would be remiss
in not mentioning his achievements in the Royal Air Force in
southeast Asia during the World War II, where he was a Japanese
prisoner of war. Despite this event, which marked his life, he was
never bitter toward his former enemies.
Bill Kempling told us that one Japanese died in his arms during
the war. He said he gathered up some of the man's personal effects
thinking that one day, perhaps, he could return them to his family.
He told us that he had had the opportunity as a parliamentarian to
travel to Japan and had managed to reach the young man's family.
He gave them the young man's effects personally. He was very
moved by this.
He always encouraged young people to join and take part in the
world of politics. He was also an inveterate collector of old books,
which he adored and he liked to read in his leisure time.
I offer my sincere condolences and those of the Bloc Quebecois
to his family, his friends and his former colleagues.
(1520 )
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too
rise for a few moments on behalf of my caucus to pay tribute to the
memory of the late Bill Kempling. It is appropriate that today we
are honouring former parliamentarians because he was one of
them.
Mr. Kempling's military accomplishments and his
accomplishments here in the House of Commons as parliamentary
secretary and government whip have already been mentioned.
One young man, who is now working for our caucus, worked for
Bill Kempling some years ago in the House. He has this memory of
Bill: ``The only thing he told me when he hired me was `this is hard
ball we are playing here and don't forget it'''. I believe that is good
advice for anybody who comes here as an MP or works on the Hill.
Bill Kempling was the Conservative whip who refused to come
down the aisle, causing the famous 14-day bell ringing incident.
The Table is nodding. I am sure they remember that all too well.
Charles Turner, the government whip at the time, was reported to
have camped out in the government lobby. He had his pillow and
blanket there waiting for Bill to come to the House. He eventually
did show up brandishing his whip. Those are just some really
personal memories.
It was mentioned earlier that he won six elections. It is just
incredible that anyone would sit in this House for that length of
time.
I want to quote the Toronto Star of May 2, 1993 when Bill
Kempling announced that he would not be seeking re-election. He
said: ``I have so many other things in my life and I am going to do
them with all the strength and vigour that I have''. He was 72 at the
time.
It is one thing to run in six elections and win them but it is
another thing to know when to go out gracefully. He did that in
May 1993. I am sure his family members were very grateful when
he retired from politics because they had two and a half years to
enjoy his company. I am sure those are memories they will treasure
forever.
I extend our sympathy to his family, Mrs. Muriel Kempling, her
children and grandchildren. I believe she is here today in the
gallery. We want to pay tribute and thank her and her family for the
sacrifice they gave. God bless you.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the NDP, I would like to join with other members of the
House who have already paid tribute to the Bill Kempling. I served
3136
in the House with Mr. Kempling for 14 of the 21 years that he was
here. I certainly have very vivid memories of Bill in the House,
particularly as the whip. I see him in my mind's eye proceeding to
the Table.
I also remember the time, as the member for Beaver River just
mentioned, when Bill did not come in and we were subjected to 16
days, I believe, of bell ringing.
I remember Bill as a partisan member of Parliament. He could be
very direct and even harsh. He was impatient with things that he
did not agree with. However, like the minister of defence said, he
also had the ability to put all that aside and to be a good colleague
all at the same time outside of the Chamber and in various other
joint pursuits that members of Parliament are called on to
participate in.
This may say something about the humility of Mr. Kempling, but
I knew nothing of the struggle he had with polio in his early life. He
was not the kind of fellow to talk about those kinds of things, I
presume, although I never worked with him directly.
However, I did know about his war record and we all honour him
for that. We also honour him for his personal struggles with disease
in his youth, particularly polio. We honour him for his service here
in the House of Commons. We extend our condolences to his
family.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to rise and pay tribute to William Kempling, the former
member of Parliament for Burlington and the former riding of
Halton-Wentworth.
Bill Kempling passed away on May 27 at the age of 75 and will
be remembered by all as a dedicated public servant. I think it is
interesting, on this day of tribute and at the funeral service on
Friday, that we learn so much about all of the work that he has
done, the people he mentored, some of whom are here today,
Shirley Martin and Barbara McDougall, and how great he was for
newly elected members. It is unfortunate that all of us work so hard
and constituents and the general public do not hear about that work
and so it is terrific to be here to pay tribute to Mr. Kempling.
(1525)
The Kempling family sacrificed a lot of their time with Bill so
that he could serve Canadians. And serve he did. Together the team
of Muriel and Bill Kempling worked hard from 1972 to 1993.
A true survivor, as we have heard, Bill Kempling survived
childhood polio to serve as an officer in the RCAF and was a
successful business person prior to his election. As a
parliamentarian he served as the party whip to Prime Minister
Clark and as parliamentary secretary to several ministers. He
inspired loyalty and dedication among his staff and I have heard
nothing but terrific stories from them.
Mr. Kempling worked hard for the Canadian steel industry as
chair of the all party steel caucus. He was very active in the
Canada-Japan interparliamentary group. He was a history buff and
he left me very large shoes to fill.
In their retirement Muriel and Bill Kempling faced another
challenge which they survived with strength and dignity but they
could not beat. Post-polio syndrome claimed a true parliamentarian
on May 27. It also claimed a husband, father, grandfather and a
friend to many.
My prayers and thoughts are with you, Muriel, Jane, Bruce and
Angus. God bless.
The Speaker: My colleagues, rather than going into the business
of the day I understand that the hon. Minister of Justice and the
critics from the other parties are going to be making statements. I
wonder if we might suspend for a few moments while we wait for
the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod so that we can go for royal
assent to a bill.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am sorry to keep harping on this, but when we came to the House
today we had this publication on our desks.
I have raised a point of order before about it. I do not know who
is doing this. I know it was not the pages but I do not think-
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for raising the matter
again. I notice that I have one here in front of me, as the Speaker. I
do not know where it came from. I will inform myself and as much
as possible see that these publications are cleared through the
Speaker before they are put on any desks.
I will get back to the House more specifically later on.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the same
matter, I want to say that I personally distributed this leaflet, as did
someone else regarding the Stratford festival, which is a cultural
event in Ontario.
I thought that, since this was a cultural event in Quebec, it might
also be of interest to members from western Canada and the rest of
the country. The intention was the same. There is no partisan idea
expressed in this leaflet and I take this opportunity to cordially
invite you to attend our festival.
The Speaker: I thank you for providing this information. I was
asked to take the matter under advisement. I want to find out what
the policy was in months and years passed. The Chair will make a
decision if necessary.
3137
[English]
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, while we are sitting around waiting for
the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to come, I wonder what the
chances are of me presenting a couple of petitions? Is there time?
The Speaker: Right now they wouldn't be so hot.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We only have 45 seconds and, hark, I think I hear
somebody coming.
_____________________________________________
3137
ROYAL ASSENT
(1535)
[Translation]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black
Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate
attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
[English]
And being returned:
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that when
the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General of
Canada in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give,
in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (nuclear undertakings) and
to make a related amendment to another act-Chapter No. 12.
Bill C-9, an act an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada-Chapter
No. 9.
Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts-Chapter No. 11.
Bill C-14, an act to continue the National Transportation Agency as the
Canadian Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the National
Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act and to amend or repeal other acts
as a consequence-Chapter No. 10.
Bill C-15, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial
institutions-Chapter No. 6.
Bill C-16, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts-Chapter No. 7.
Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and
repeal certain acts-Chapter No. 8.
Bill C-275, an act establishing the Canadian Association of Former
Parliamentarians-Chapter No. 13.
3137
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1545)
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to eight
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report to the House
on a matter that involves the management of the Department of
Justice for which of course I am responsible.
My reference is to the communications that took place recently
between Assistant Deputy Attorney General Ted Thompson and
Chief Justice Julius Isaac of the Federal Court of Canada.
The communications related to a number of citizenship
revocation cases that are pending before the Federal Court. The
circumstances in which those communications took place have
raised concerns that require an appropriate response.
Canada has one of the finest judicial systems in the world. Its
strength is derived in great part from the principle of judicial
independence and from the confidence of the public in the integrity
of those who administer the system.
Canada's Department of Justice has a special responsibility to
ensure that judicial independence and the integrity of the system
are maintained. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, I, in turn, am answerable for the department and for its
officers.
I can tell the House that in its dealings with the courts and with
other counsel, the Department of Justice takes its responsibility in
this regard very seriously. And so do I.
[Translation]
This brings me to the particular matter. I want to note at the
outset that as soon as the department became aware that Mr.
Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac had met, and as soon as the
correspondence between the two came to light, the department
provided copies of that correspondence to the lawyers acting for
the three persons involved in the revocation cases pending before
the Federal Court.
The communications in question are now the subject of litigation
before the honourable Mr. Justice Cullen of the Federal Court. The
3138
Court must now decide whether the communications between
Chief Justice Isaac and Mr. Thompson justify staying the
proceedings in the three revocation cases.
[English]
Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for me to argue the
details of that issue in the House but hon. members should know
that justice counsel are opposing the motion for a stay. Our counsel
have formally acknowledged in court that this meeting between
Ted Thompson and the chief justice ought not to have taken place
without other counsel being present.
Counsel are arguing that staying the proceedings is not the
appropriate response. Quite apart from the court proceedings, I
have a larger responsibility to ensure that appropriate steps are
being taken internally to evaluate the conduct of my own officials
in the matter and to respond as required.
In that regard, I want to inform the House of three developments.
First, Mr. Ted Thompson has, on his own initiative, written to the
Law Society of Upper Canada to inform them of this incident. He
has asked the Law Society, which is the governing body for lawyers
in this province, to decide whether his actions constitute
professional misconduct.
He has agreed to make himself available to the Law Society to
answer all questions and to produce any documents that relate to
these events. This is the right thing to do. I would have expected no
less from Ted Thompson, who is an excellent and an experienced
lawyer and has served the Department of Justice long and very
well.
Second, the deputy minister of justice has retained the services
of the Hon. Charles Dubin, the former chief justice of Ontario who
has particular expertise in these matters to review the facts
surrounding Ted Thompson's communications with the court and
to determine whether his conduct or that of any others in the
department departed from the standards expected of a departmental
employee.
(1550)
I believe that within the Department of Justice the principles
governing the relationship between the courts and judges on the
one hand, and justice officials on the other, are well known and are
broadly understood.
Notwithstanding that, we have also asked Mr. Dubin to suggest
any steps that he thinks I should take, or that my officials should
take, to ensure that in our dealings with the court, the department
does nothing to harm the independence of the judiciary, or to
reduce the public's confidence in the integrity of the justice system.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubin has been asked to provide his advice as soon as
possible. Once Mr. Dubin's advice is in hand, the deputy minister
will discharge his responsibility to decide what steps, if any, should
be taken as a result of it.
I will advise the House of the deputy minister's actions and the
reasons for them at an appropriate time, having regard to the
proceedings that are pending.
[English]
Third, I should tell the House that Ted Thompson has decided to
take leave of his current position as assistant deputy attorney
general until Mr. Dubin reports to the deputy minister.
I conclude by emphasizing that I take this matter seriously.
Allegations of impropriety against officials of the Department of
Justice are quite exceptional. It is precisely because the department
has a deserved reputation for understanding and maintaining the
principles of judicial independence and impartiality, and for
respecting the highest standards in its dealings with other parties in
the courts, that I have felt it necessary to address the House today.
I will, of course, keep the House informed as to the ultimate
resolution of the matter.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
outraged at the way the Minister of Justice is dealing with the Ted
Thompson issue.
This is a case of a senior official from the federal justice
department interfering with the judicial process. An assistant
deputy attorney general, Ted Thompson, tried to influence the
Chief Justice of the federal court to speed up the proceedings of a
case involving the federal Department of Justice. This is why I am
outraged.
Even more disturbing is the fact that Mr. Thompson threatened
to make a reference to the Supreme Court if proceedings were not
accelerated. Threats were made. Given such a blatant case of undue
interference on the part of one of his senior officials, we expected
the Minister of Justice to take quick, energetic and decisive action.
However, the minister is doing just the opposite.
First, he sets up a non public inquiry which must report at the
earliest opportunity, but with no specific date set. Given the
seriousness of the incident, the public has a right to quickly know
all the circumstances surrounding this matter. It is unacceptable
that such a serious incident be investigated behind closed doors.
The minister must pledge to release the full report of the inquiry
that will be conducted by Mr. Justice Dubin, a report that will
3139
undoubtedly condemn the action taken in this case. Let us hope that
the Minister of Justice will have the decency to make the results of
this report public when the House is sitting, and not at some quiet
moment, as the government has unfortunately taken to doing
recently.
Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the minister can fail to
address in his statement the threat made by his assistant deputy
minister to take a reference to the Supreme Court. It is completely
unacceptable that the Department of Justice of Canada can hold
this authority as a threat over courts of first instance.
(1555)
The minister has a responsibility to reassure the public about the
integrity of his department and to state clearly that the threat to
exercise authority to take a reference to the Supreme Court is
completely intolerable, and instead of trying to cover for his
official, he should have expressed his disapproval and dismissed
him immediately.
Of course, Mr. Thompson has decided to take leave of his
position while awaiting the results of the investigation. However,
the minister cannot shirk his responsibilities by hiding behind his
investigation. Furthermore, he himself admits in the statement he
has just made that he is answerable for the actions of his
department and its officials.
In addition, before the court, lawyers from his own department
admitted that Mr. Thompson had approached the chief justice. So
what more is the minister waiting for? On the very face of it, it is
clear that the deputy attorney general has committed a serious error
that the minister must indicate his disapproval of through an
immediate dismissal. This he refuses to do, instead singing the
praises of Mr. Thompson in his statement.
Another fundamental point is completely absent from the justice
minister's statement. Two Federal Court judges, one of them the
chief justice, have demonstrated a flagrant lack of impartiality and
integrity in their task as guardians of justice. In fact, instead of
showing Mr. Thompson the door, the judges complied with these
requests, thus violating their duty to remain neutral and impartial.
The presiding judge, Mr. Justice Jerome, even had to remove
himself from the case as a result of this incident.
I would remind the minister that, as he himself pointed out in his
statement, responsibility for ensuring the independence of the
judiciary rests with him. The two judges in this case, Chief Justice
Isaac and Associate Chief Justice Jerome, have obviously not
fulfilled their duty of integrity. What is the minister waiting for to
refer these two cases to the Canadian Judicial Council?
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is outraged by the
insignificant and not very convincing actions taken by the justice
minister in response to such a serious case of undue interference in
the judicial system. The minister is clearly shirking his
responsibilities as watchdog of the integrity of the judicial system.
We are asking the minister to launch a public inquiry, to take
immediate action against Mr. Thompson, and, in particular, to file
complaints about the actions of the judges in this matter.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I respond
today to the statement made by the justice minister regarding the
communications which took place between Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Ted Thompson and Chief Justice Julius Isaac of
the Federal Court.
This is an extremely serious matter. Many questions have not
been answered and we must get to the bottom of this whole
situation before we can rest assured that the independent integrity
of the justice system is in place and working.
I agree with the statement of the Minister of Justice that
Canada's Department of Justice has a special responsibility to
ensure that judicial independence and the integrity of the system
are maintained. We must have a very distinct line between those
who create the law and those who enforce it. That is a very firm
principle on which we all stand, including the Reform Party of
Canada.
The minister said that the justice department provided the
defence attorneys acting for the three persons involved in the
revocation cases with copies of the correspondence between Mr.
Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac as soon as it was aware of the
situation.
The minister did not disclose today when the information
regarding this judicial interference was brought to his attention.
The meeting between Mr. Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac took
place three months ago. Did the minister just recently learn of the
March 1 meeting, or has he had knowledge of it for months? This
question remains unanswered. If the minister wishes to clear this
matter up we must know who knew about Mr. Thompson's
intervention and when. This must include the minister. We must
know when he first became aware of this matter.
(1600)
Editorials appeared in both the Globe and Mail and the Ottawa
Citizen on May 23. The Globe and Mail made this observation:
``Nobody seems to be paying much attention to the attempt by a
senior justice department official to influence a judge''.
The Citizen stated: ``Allan Rock and Federal Court Chief Justice
Julius Isaac owe the public an explanation about the latest and
potentially worst official blunders, and they owe it right away,
because the independence of Canada's courts has been
jeopardized''.
In view of these recent editorials it is rather suspect that the
minister has just now, three months after the fact, publicly stated an
internal departmental investigation is taking place.
3140
Many other questions remain unanswered, questions the
minister has not made reference to today. It must be determined
who authorized Mr. Thompson's private meeting with the chief
justice. If the Minister of Justice did not authorize this meeting,
nor did the deputy minister, was Mr. Thompson acting on his own?
If it is determined that Mr. Thompson was acting on his own, on
how many other occasions that have not been made public has the
assistant deputy attorney general interfered in judicial
proceedings?
The minister said he has the responsibility of ensuring that
appropriate steps are being taken to evaluate internally the conduct
of officials in the matter and to respond as required. In my opinion
the only appropriate response is for the minister to ask for the
immediate resignation of Mr. Thompson. The evidence is quite
clear. Mr. Thompson crossed the line, which is absolutely
unacceptable. Chief Justice Isaac crossed the line as well.
The minister made absolutely no mention today that any action
be taken against the chief justice of the federal court in this regard.
The minister has not laid a complaint with the Canadian Judicial
Council, which is the only appropriate course of action.
I leave the House with the 1986 landmark decision of then Chief
Justice Brian Dickson: ``No outsider, be it government, pressure
group, individual or even another judge, should interfere in fact or
attempt to interfere with the way in which a judge conducts his or
her case or makes his or her decision. This core continues to be
central to the principle of judicial independence''.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 19th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 19th report later today.
I also have the honour to present the 20th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of
reference from the House of Commons on Thursday, March 7,
1996 in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1997 with regard to vote No. 20 under the privy council
chief electoral officer. The committee reports the same.
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report of
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration relating
to settlement renewal.
* * *
(1605 )
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-284, an act to amend an act for the
recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this has taken over a year of research and
effort on behalf of my own staff, my lawyer in legislative counsel
and the diligent staff of the Library of Parliament. I thank all of
them for their hard work and expert assistance. I also thank those
members of Parliament who jointly seconded my bill.
My property rights bill amends the Canadian bill of rights and
adds two new sections to the Constitution Act of 1867, thereby
strengthening property rights in federal law.
If passed, the bill would specifically guarantee that every person
has the right to the enjoyment of that person's property and the
right not to be deprived of their property unless the person is
accorded a fair hearing, is paid fair compensation, the amount of
that compensation is fixed impartially, and that the compensation is
paid within a reasonable amount of time.
Every person's property rights would be guaranteed in every law
of Canada unless it is expressly declared by an act of Parliament
that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights. An
adoption of a notwithstanding would require the votes of at least
two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been consultations among parties and groups in
the House and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the
adoption of the following motion. I move that the first report of the
3141
Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, presented
Wednesday, April 24, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 19th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present two petitions which have
been circulating all across Canada.
The first comes from Calgary, Alberta. The petitioners draw to
the attention of the House that managing the family home and
caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which
has not been recognized for its value to our society. They also state
the Income Tax Act discriminates against traditional families that
make the choice to provide care in the home for preschool children,
the chronically ill, the disabled or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition comes from South Porcupine, Ontario.
The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or
impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome
and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable
by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by approximately 100 residents of the city of
Burlington, Ontario. They are praying that Parliament act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending
the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born
human beings to unborn human beings.
(1610 )
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a large number of petitions and I have grouped
them into three groups.
I present two petitions signed by 48 Canadians who ask
Parliament to enact legislation that would prevent criminals from
profiting financially from their crimes. Currently there is no
Canadian law that prohibits convicted criminals from selling their
stories for publication through books, movies or video tapes.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the second group of petitions I have the honour of
presenting there are 16 petitions signed by 375 concerned
Canadians primarily from the provinces of Saskatchewan and
Ontario who draw to the attention of Parliament that there are over
100,000 therapeutic abortions performed each year in Canada at a
cost of over $50 million. Since Canadians deserve a say in how
their scarce health dollars are spent and which health care
procedures they consider essential, these petitions call on
Parliament to support a binding national referendum to be held at
the time of the next general election to determine whether
Canadians are in favour of federal government funding for abortion
on demand.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I also have 30 petitions signed by 697 Canadians from
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario who are opposed to
the inclusion of the term of sexual orientation in the Canadian
Human Rights Act. These petitioners feel homosexuals are already
protected by law and that the inclusion of the term of sexual
orientation would only lead to special rights for homosexuals.
These special rights would in turn infringe on the fundamental
rights of Canadians such as freedom of religion, conscience and
belief. I am pleased to present these petitions.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions signed by approximately 200
residents of Scarborough, Markham and North York.
The petitioners call Parliament's attention to the difficulties
associated with the inclusion of the term sexual orientation in the
human rights act and the possible effect that may have on other
Canadians' rights and freedoms and they ask Parliament not to
further proceed with any such legislative amendment.
3142
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to ask the government House leader when I
can expect to receive answers to my questions on the Order Paper
Nos. 2 and 4.
I requested an answer within 45 days. As of today 93 days have
already passed. Also, before the House prorogued they were on the
Order Paper for 71 days. That is a total of 164 days. The answers to
these questions are a matter of public safety and include
government liability for injuries suffered by prisoners under its
care and the unsafe storage of firearms in police and military
armouries.
The government keeps assuring me there is to be an answer but
so far none has come forward. When can I expect and answer?
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
patience and endurance. We expect to provide him with some
information very soon.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed
to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the House
that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will
be extended by 18 minutes.
_____________________________________________
3142
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air
navigation services, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to rise
today to speak at third reading of Bill C-20, the act which will
provide the legal means to transfer the air navigation system
currently operated by Transport Canada to a private not for profit
corporation, Nav Canada.
(1615 )
As members know, the bill carries out the decision which was
taken by this government to commercialize the air navigation
system announced back in February 1995 in the federal budget. In
December 1995 an agreement in principle was reached for the sale
of ANS to Nav Canada for the purchase price of $1.5 billion. Now
that is a very significant contribution to the government's deficit
reduction efforts.
I am pleased to highlight that on April 1, 1996 the Minister of
Transport along with Nav Canada representatives signed the
agreement to transfer which will allow this transaction to proceed
to closing, subject to a number of conditions of course. Key among
them are the approval of this legislation by Parliament and Nav
Canada's ability to raise the required $1.5 billion purchase price for
this not for profit entity.
Bill C-20 has received the benefit of thoughtful consideration by
the members of the Standing Committee on Transport who, in
addition to carrying out their own review and analysis of the
legislation, also heard from a number of important national and
regional witnesses representing, among others, industry, labour,
government and community groups. A number of written briefs
were also submitted. For all of these efforts we want to extend our
appreciation.
A number of the witnesses demonstrated strong, unconditional
support of the bill, recognizing the desirability and necessity of
commercialization. Some of these were the Air Transport
Association of Canada, the Aerospace Industries Association and
Air Canada, the Nav Canada Bargaining Agents Association,
including the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association and the
Canadian Airline Pilots Association.
Other witnesses expressed a range of concerns, some of which
were outside the scope of the legislation. However, I believe the
government was well able to address many of these concerns.
There was a concern that Nav Canada might not continue to
operate the ANS in a bilingual environment. In fact, the bill is very
clear that the Official Languages Act will apply to Nav Canada as if
it were a federal institution. It ensures the use of both official
languages in communications with the public and the language of
work. This is entirely consistent with established practice and is
reflective of the national nature of Nav Canada activities. In the
same context, Nav Canada has already enacted bilingual bylaws.
Another concern involved what some believed was an absence of
regional representation. I want to reassure the House that this is
simply an unfounded concern. In fact, the make-up of Nav
Canada's board of directors and its newly appointed advisory
committee, about which I will speak in a minute, have been
3143
designed to bring a wide range of regional and other perspectives to
the Nav Canada decision making process.
What is more, the two national trade associations, the Air
Transport Association of Canada and the Canadian Business
Aviation Association, have member groups of all sizes appointing
directors to the Nav Canada board. They are drawn from all
provinces and territories. These members are likely to account for
more than 90 per cent of the current ANS revenues to be generated
by Canadian operators.
The testimony of all the witnesses who appeared before the
Standing Committee on Transport provided a very useful and
timely perspective on their diverse interests. This has been helpful
in setting the broadest possible context, moving the legislation
forward in support of the further streamlining and modernizing of
Canada's transportation industry.
Before going further, I would like to take the opportunity to
commend the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, of
which I am also a member, for their judicious handling of the
legislation and the whole legislative review process to date, and for
enabling this precedent setting bill to progress to this stage in the
parliamentary process.
Let us look at the legislation for what it is. The bill represents a
careful balancing of the commercial interests of the new ANS
entity and the interests of the Canadian public. The bill will give
Nav Canada the commercial freedoms it needs to develop and
maintain a safe, efficient, cost effective and technologically
advanced air navigation system while at the same time looking
after the public interest by imposing certain operating conditions
on Nav Canada and establishing a regulatory framework. For
example, the bill ensures a continued high level of system safety by
clearly establishing the supremacy of the Aeronautics Act and
regulations made pursuant to the act.
(1620)
Canada, perhaps more than any other country in the world, with
its geographical uniqueness is dependent on air transportation that
must be reliable, safe and competitive. The network of air traffic
control services, flight information services, aviation weather
services and navigational aids which comprise the ANS provide for
this necessary safe and expeditious movement of aircraft in
Canada.
For over 50 years Transport Canada has managed the safe
provision of these air navigation services to the industry and to
meet the needs of the travelling public. However, government
realized that it does not need to own or operate the air navigation
service to ensure that the public interest is met. Legislation,
regulation and other means can accomplish this.
ANS commercialization is therefore a very visible
demonstration of this commitment. It is yet another example, along
with a host of others such as the commercialization of federal
airports, ports and harbours and Canadian National, of initiatives
that will move Canadian transportation into the 21st century. It will
also move Transport Canada away from being the operator of the
system toward a more policy and regulatory role, but I stress with a
continued priority on safety. This government remains committed
to streamlining and moving away from activities that can be
operated more efficiently by the private sector unfettered by
government processes.
Although internationally, commercialization of aviation
facilities and services is progressing steadily, Canada is the first
country to establish a commercial air navigation system entity
without government ownership. This is an important precedent
setting milestone.
A few words about Nav Canada's not for profit organization
model are in order at this point to provide another context for
understanding the uniqueness of this particular transaction. This
model was the choice of an advisory committee of users, unions
and other stakeholders who, over the course of several months,
studied various commercialization options.
Since the time of its incorporation in May 1995, Nav Canada has
carried out the necessary extensive due diligence process
associated with purchasing the entity, and which contemplated the
overall negotiation process leading to the $1.5 billion agreement in
principle with Transport Canada in December 1995, and the
signing of the larger agreement to transfer on April 1, 1996.
Nav Canada is also proceeding to establish itself as a responsible
corporate citizen such as with the appointment of a board of
directors, the naming of a president and chief executive officer and
in other tangible ways that will ensure prudent corporate
governance, including the articulation of a code of conduct and
conflict of interest guidelines. Its unique structure with board
members appointed by user associations, unions, government, as
well as independents, will ensure that the corporation receives the
benefit of a wide range of stakeholder views to guide its operations.
At its first annual meeting held in Ottawa in April 1996, which
was open to and very well attended by the public, it announced the
appointment of an advisory committee of 15 members from a broad
range of groups, including Quebec, B.C. and Saskatchewan
regional associations. This, along with the broad representation of
the board of directors, should provide a further measure of
reassurance regarding the opportunity for the inclusion of
Canadians regionally and nationally in Nav Canada decision
making.
3144
Nav Canada through its annual report has highlighted four
corporate priorities it will pursue as the operator of the ANS:
people, safety, technology and service. Of particular importance to
the government and public interest of course is Nav Canada's
commitment to safety as the core of every operating policy,
procedure and activity performed by Nav Canada. Nav Canada also
recognizes the role which Transport Canada will continue to play in
the establishment and monitoring of safety regulations and
standards.
(1625)
The point here is that Nav Canada is demonstrating that it
understands only too well the critical mandate it will have as the
operator of the system and the priority it is placing on successfully
meeting these challenges.
I will now very briefly reiterate some of the key provisions of
Bill C-20 which continue to be the cornerstones of this legislation.
Safety will continue to have the highest priority for Transport
Canada. Safety regulations will be in place before ANS is
transferred. Transport Canada will monitor and enforce compliance
with these regulations as it does now in the case of airlines. The
Aeronautics Act which sets out the regulatory framework to
maintain the safety and integrity of the aviation industry will
prevail. I point out to members of the Bloc that it will prevail over
the ANS Act.
The transfer will see approximately 6,400 public servants being
offered positions with Nav Canada with equivalent working
conditions and benefits. During the transition period until Nav
Canada reaches its own agreements with the employees, the current
collective agreements will continue to apply and bargaining agents
will be granted successor rights. This tripartite employment
agreement reached in support of this transfer was a major
accomplishment in that Nav Canada, Transport Canada and the
bargaining agents worked together very successfully. We are
pleased that the bargaining agents and the employees themselves
continue to be strong supporters of Bill C-20.
All of the assets used by Transport Canada in the provision of air
navigation services will form part of the transfer, including land,
equipment and other items required to ensure its continued
effective and safe operation.
The act grants certain powers to Nav Canada as well as imposes
certain operating obligations on the corporation. For example, it
obliges Nav Canada to provide public notice of any contemplated
changes in services or facilities that are likely to affect a significant
group of users in a material way. In addition, a process has also
been established in the legislation to ensure public input to
decisions by Nav Canada in respect of the introduction, increase,
termination or even reduction of services and of course the closure
of facilities.
The government must also monitor the performance of Nav
Canada as a monopolist. There are many safeguards against
possible use of arbitrary power. These start with the nature of Nav
Canada itself which, as a not for profit entity without share capital,
does not have a financial incentive to abuse its monopoly position.
The act establishes an economic regulatory framework in respect
of user charges based on requirements for public notice and
consultation. A set of charging principles is established in the
legislation and there is an opportunity for users to appeal new or
revised charges.
The charging principles address issues such as transparency,
safety, impact, equity and international obligations. The act also
provides an opportunity for users to appeal new or revised charges
to the National Transportation Agency. The legislation prohibits
Nav Canada from generating revenues reasonably and prudently
projected from exceeding Nav Canada's current and future
financial requirements for the provision of civil air navigation
services.
Through the board of directors and advisory committee, users of
the system will now have more opportunity to determine their
future in the way the corporation and the system will operate. For
example, stakeholders in the industry will have meaningful input
into the use of ANS revenues, setting of fees, long term
expenditures and service standards.
The government also ensured that the special transportation
needs of isolated communities would continue to be recognized in
a commercial environment. This act preserves air navigation
services to northern and remote communities, including a process
which will involve provincial and territorial governments should
possible service reductions be proposed by Nav Canada at any time
in the future.
(1630 )
In summary, here are the highlights of Bill C-20, which will
allow the air navigation systems transaction, one of the largest and
most precedent setting commercialization initiatives which the
federal government has undertaken to proceed for the benefit of all
Canadians.
For taxpayers, it will make a $1.5 billion contribution to
reducing the federal deficit.
For the industry, it will maintain safety while increasing the
system's ability to respond to changing demands and new
technologies.
For the users, it will provide more efficient and cost effective
operations.
For the air navigation service employees, it offers the
opportunity to continue to contribute in a new and challenging
work environment.
For Nav Canada, it sets the stage for it to operate one of the best
run and safest air navigation systems in the world.
3145
Bill C-20 is yet another initiative by the government to ensure
that the Canadian transportation industry meets the demands of
our ever changing economy. This legislation, once passed, will be
a milestone not only for Canadians but internationally, and
something in which we should all take enormous pride.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Lévis-Quebec bridge.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill
at the third reading stage.
I became a member of the Standing Committee on Transport
when we were at the final stages of the bill. We looked at the bill as
a whole, and the amendments moved. I could see that the
committee members had put a lot of work into it, and that there was
a desire to correct a situation that had existed in the past, namely
the problem of controlling the costs of air navigation.
The Bloc Quebecois also saw, however, that the situation was a
bit like a pendulum, having gone from one extreme to the other
with no stop in the middle. The bill could, in our opinion, have
turned into something worthwhile and acceptable. Its purpose was
to create a not-for-profit organization in an attempt to involve
representatives of the entire industry, with everyone having the
opportunity to sit on the board. It seems, however, that the small
carriers will not have a say, despite their expectations.
This is one of the negative aspects of the bill, and one which has
not been corrected along the way since it was introduced. No
amendment in this connection has been made, despite the
numerous representations made about it.
Today, however, at the third reading stage, what I would like to
tell the government is that, if it were to agree to modify the bill to
give precedence to air safety instead of the financial stability of
Nav Canada, this bill would have the potential of becoming an
acceptable one, in our opinion.
That is what is missing from the bill at present, and our concerns
have grown because of the government's refusal at other points, for
example, to add a preamble to the bill which would satisfy the need
for giving precedence to air safety. This is a very important aspect
because of its considerable human impact. We have just had an
example of this with the recent U.S. crash, with the loss of many
lives, and all of the personal and economic aspects of it.
Canada has, in the past, acquired a reputation for air safety, since
we have not had an undue number of accidents. From that point of
view we have had a good reputation; our problem lay more, as I
have said, with controlling costs.
By trying to settle the problem of controlling costs, we are
leaving the door open to the creation of a new air navigation
problem: safety. In its present form, the bill does not address that
aspect satisfactorily.
(1635)
This is why we want to ask the government once again to
consider the question and, if possible, accept an amendment from
us that would make the bill acceptable to the official opposition.
Why does so much importance need to be given to safety? Well,
this is an area where mistakes are fatal. Newspapers regularly carry
reports of events that have taken place. In this area, for both
equipment and people, the most important thing in getting the job
done is safety.
We were told in committee, particularly by the spokespersons
for the Air Canada pilots' association, by those who came to talk
about the use of French in the air and by representatives of the
general population, the users of air services, that this was an
important consideration and that the government's responsibility
should be carried out by Transport Canada.
This distinction is not in the bill. Why is the government not
agreeing to include this request on safety in Nav Canada's
mandate? The question arises when we look at the make-up of the
board of directors. All the representatives of the industry are there,
people who are obviously in an industry aimed at making money.
The major carriers, like Air Canada and Canadian International and
others, are in the air transport business to make money, obviously,
and this is perfectly normal.
These people are on the board of Nav Canada and will have to
ensure the services they receive from Nav Canada are charged at an
acceptable level and that they, after calculating their own costs,
will be able to declare a profit.
So when they arrive on the board of directors, their first concern
will be to look at the effect of the decisions on their own
companies. As for public protection, as it appears in the legislation
establishing Nav Canada and in the mandate defined there, we will
see whether the members of the board of directors in fact do abide
by acceptable standards of safety.
Except that the mandate establishes no such requirement. There
is no provision for anyone in Canada to refer to, in the event of an
accident or for prevention purposes, saying: ``In a certain airport,
in a certain situation, Nav Canada decided not to provide a certain
sort of equipment or service, and we would like it to do so for
safety reasons''.
3146
The legislation as it stands contains no provision for appeal or
consultation and certainly no legal clout making such arguments
possible. So, as far as safety is concerned, there is some anxiety.
The method of financing Nav Canada is also worrisome. Let us
take a brief look at how it will work. There are some very large
carriers who will bring in a significant amount, who will provide a
lot of money to finance Nav Canada, because of the frequency of
use of equipment and of Canadian air space, while use by others
will be considerably less.
Accordingly, when the time comes for the board of directors to
make budgetary choices, when decisions have to be made about
what equipment to invest in, certain individuals will have a greater
say than others. I am speaking of those who control air
transportation.
What, however, will happen to small carriers, as well as people
living in remote areas, for instance? I do not necessarily mean the
Far North, which the bill covers quite adequately by making
provision for special rules, but regional airports. I could mention
the Mont-Joli airport, in my region, or the one in Sept-Îles, or any
other regional airport in Canada. If Nav Canada decides not to add
a particular piece of equipment to their airport so that a particular
plane can land, that would have an important regional economic
impact. This is a reality communities will have to live with. We
have a very telling example, the situation now being experienced in
the area of Montreal and Mirabel, with ADM.
(1640)
You will recall that this was an organization created by the
former Conservative government to manage Montreal's airports.
We have here the same financial objective as Nav Canada's. There
is a decision to turn the management of the airports over to the
private sector, just as the question of air navigation services is
being turned over to the private sector, through Nav Canada. In
both cases, the organization created will have a phenomenal
amount of leeway and will not necessarily have to be truly
accountable for its actions.
In the case of ADM, we now see what this leads to. Without in
any way saying whether the choice of Dorval or of Mirabel is right,
what can be said with certainty is that the public is not now in a
position to judge the best possible decision. They must pretty much
rely on ADM, which is not accountable for its actions to either the
Government of Quebec or the federal government.
Even if the federal government owns these airport facilities,
even if there is a lease between the federal government and ADM
for the management of the Dorval and Mirabel airports, the
government has not left itself any position from which it could say
to ADM that the decisions it takes will have a major impact, a
direct economic impact on air navigation, as well as on the tourist
industry, the industrial sector, and all sorts of other impacts. Again
today, during question period, the federal government, through the
responsible minister, could not tell us anything other than that
ADM is autonomous and can do what it wants.
I give this example because, in the case of Nav Canada, it seems
to me that there is a risk that we will find ourselves in exactly the
same sort of situation in the years to come. There will be quite a
heated battle in certain regions for safety equipment
accommodating particular types of planes and people will
practically be begging Nav Canada for this equipment.
No appeal mechanism is provided by which a community,
citizens, organizations or users can be heard and can obtain rulings
reflecting the economic impact of these decisions.
At the same time, I would also like to make a comparison with
what happened with Canada Post Corporation. This is a Crown
corporation with considerable leeway, which was given a mandate
of becoming cost effective. Because this corporation was showing
deficits, the only criterion was to require it to be cost effective.
This led to a policy of brutally closing down post offices, with the
determining factor being quite simply the age of the postmaster. It
had nothing to do with the number of clients served.
It took a political decision, a moratorium by the present
government to stop this operation. The same mistakes are being
made, as though we were in some sort of neo-Liberal model,
where, when we see the pendulum swinging back, we say: ``Before,
we interfered in everything and it was costing too much, because
we were doing it badly. Now, we will not interfere in anything and
we will give people free rein''. But between these two extremes, a
balance must be sought, and in the case at hand, it is the issue of
safety.
This raises another problem as well, and that is the question of
transparency. Even if Nav Canada makes the best decisions in the
world, for them to be accepted by the regional communities
involved, public debate must be possible. Certainly public debate
brings about delays on occasion, but the time spent in public debate
is often shorter and more profitable than that spent in legal
wrangling.
We need only think of what is happening with the ADM, in the
case of the Montreal airports, Dorval and Mirabel. Since we are not
allowed access to all of the studies on this, we are now faced with
citizens who want to institute legal proceedings, and unacceptable
delays may result. The bill we have before us now will not solve
this problem of transparency.
(1645)
Let us just look at the question of the small carriers. In Canada,
there are carriers that can be identified as major carriers with high
volume and a heavy influence on air travel markets. There are,
3147
however, also many small carriers. These are found just about
everywhere in Canada.
There are, for example, tourist carriers which take southern
hunters or biologists to the north. There are many of these in the
west, and many also in northern Quebec. There are also small
charter companies. These are not companies that do a lot of
business, but they will be considerably hindered by the fee scales
set by Nav Canada.
Setting fees in this way will not impact only on the economic
survival of the small carriers. The rates set could well have only a
minimal effect on the major carriers, but a considerable one on the
smaller ones.
The way the board is set up, small carriers will not have enough
representation to make themselves heard. I believe that Nav
Canada could, in good faith, take decisions that are not intended to
hurt the small carriers but will in fact do so. There will be a
negative impact, and that is the first consequence of the fee scale.
There is another. Obviously, because there is more air traffic
between major centres, the small ones, the small airports will find
it harder to defend their arguments for obtaining relevant
equipment.
As small carriers are the ones using small airports, a sort of
vicious circle is created. We have people who are not represented
on the board of directors-small carriers-and small airports with
limited traffic, providing essential services to the smaller centres.
In the end, this could even lead to lessening economic activity in
certain regions. The effects of the choices made will be felt in two,
five, ten or twenty years with the small carriers being shifted to the
larger airports or simply eliminated. These are some of the effects
of Bill C-20.
Despite the government's best intentions, despite the work in
committee, the finishing touches are lacking. There is one element
that was not given sufficient consideration. Accordingly, if there
are no amendments, the official opposition will be unable to vote in
favour of this bill, because some things need to be changed.
Let us consider for a few minutes the various decisions that will
have to be made by Nav Canada and that may have negative effects
because of this lack of concern for safety.
For example, Nav Canada could decide to set up new
navigational equipment in an airport. As the bill now stands, the
cost of the aircraft will be reviewed, as well as all the charges for
the whole country, but not the issue of whether this equipment is
really needed in this or that airport to ensure adequate safety. There
will be no advisory committee to warn us of an inadequate level of
safety in a given sector.
This is not an area in which things can be fixed afterwards. In air
navigation services, any mistake that causes the death of people or
that has a major economic impact is very harmful to all of society.
You may appoint as many inquiries as you like, but all it takes is
one or two major accidents to have bitter regrets about not making
safety a top priority right from the start.
(1650)
Another decision that can be made by Nav Canada is to
redistribute the equipment. For example, if air traffic in eastern
Quebec was down, it could be decided that the facilities in
Mont-Joli are no longer be needed and some of the equipment
could be transferred to the national capital region, for instance.
There is no control, no requirement to inform the regions
concerned that part of their equipment will be transferred to
another airport or to tell them about the possible consequences.
This bill does not provide any mechanism for appealing decisions
or consulting the communities affected.
Several amendments to that effect were put forward during
consideration of the bill at report stage. Those amendments were
rejected.
Now that we are at third reading, we would like the government
to at least pay attention and realize that making safety a priority
would have a direct impact on such decisions. Through this bill, the
government could prompt Nav Canada to take into consideration
the security of any given airport when moving equipment. We do
not feel this was emphasized enough in the bill.
Generally speaking, this bill will no doubt make the whole cost
control issue easier. I hope we will see a marked improvement. At
the same time, it seems to us that it has deficiencies in terms of
safety, by not making safety the first consideration. This is
something we feel the government should reconsider before giving
this bill the force of law.
In the coming years, we will live through the situation I
described earlier and already experienced by other organizations,
where the federal government has relinquished so much
responsibility that it does not even have the nub to pull the door
shut with. One, two or three years from now, it will not be able to
tell Nav Canada that its decisions do not meet an acceptable
minimum level of safety.
It is all interconnected. It does not allow citizens or users to
request information about Nav Canada under the federal
government's Access to Information Act because it has been
decided that this act would not apply to this particular organization.
All the more proof that this bill is only about economic and cost
effectiveness considerations. But what we are dealing with is not a
cannery or some private sector enterprise where safety is not that
important. This is an area where the federal government must
always have some responsibility over safety, air safety and related
regulations. It must give the organization it is establishing and
3148
which will be in operation for many years to come the mandate
to give top priority to safety. The bill does not contain anything
to this effect.
That is why I move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That''
and substituting the following:
``this House declines to give third reading to Bill C-20, an act respecting the
commercialization of civil air navigation services, because the bill does not
give the safety of passengers, airline personnel and the public priority over
all other considerations in business decisions made by Nav Canada.''
(1655)
I move this amendment, which I have signed, seconded by the
hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, hoping that the
House will debate it and see that it can help ensure that the final
product meets all public requirements in that respect, so that the
bill is acceptable to all members of this House.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am in favour of this bill. I think it is the best of all
possible outcomes. That is not to say there are not some
weaknesses and flaws in it. In honesty, what bill does not have
something in it that could be improved?
I begin by making a few comments on the speeches by the Bloc
members. I am sure these things were said with great sincerity. I
noticed they member focused on various parts of Quebec. That is
not unreasonable for a single province or regional party to do.
However, because I have a much broader spectrum, being the
national transport critic, I have looked at the potential problems
and concerns of the bill from a more national perspective.
Any time a change or something new is introduced it is only
natural that it would make some people who are affected by it
nervous. The member for the Bloc talked about no representation
for airlines, even small airlines. He was speaking from Quebec's
perspective, as he should.
Mr. Jenner is the head of a large airline organization in Quebec,
representing mostly small airlines, the very people the member was
concerned about. I am sure the member knows Mr. Jenner was
offered a seat on the board of directors of Nav Canada and turned it
down. Also, the head of the Canadian Owners and Pilots
Association, small aircraft operators, was offered a seat on the
board of directors of Nav Canada and turned it down.
I would not want him to leave the impression that Nav Canada is
trying to bully these small companies and have a little clique of
selected people. That is not the case.
The member also mentioned there would be no public
consultation if Nav Canada decided it wanted to take a particular
piece of equipment out of an airport and move it elsewhere. I do not
know of any procedure that requires Transport Canada to have
public consultation if it wishes to move a particular piece of
equipment from one airport to another.
I have seen some of the old equipment that Transport Canada
operated a decade or two ago. If there were public consultation to
finally move this rather decrepit equipment it would be cause for
celebration and rejoicing.
When the bill was first introduced there were a number of
possible ways of divesting Transport Canada of its air navigation
system. A variety of things were looked at, including profit
companies, a mixture of private sector businesses working
together. Some sounded a little wild but were considered because,
wild or not, they should at least be looked at because maybe there
was a portion merit.
(1700 )
However it was very quickly narrowed down to just two
particular aspects, one being a crown corporation and the other
being the not for profit corporation which is what we have ended up
with. As near as I can see, the government to its credit did not
appear to be pushing any one scenario. The same thing cannot be
said for the bureaucrats who were falling all over themselves trying
to make sure it was a crown corporation while they were busy
jockeying for position to ensure they got all the key positions in
this new crown entity.
Fortunately, industry got its act together and the users and the
various employee groups got together. They quickly recognized
what was happening and that what was good for industry and the
travelling public was the not for profit concept. They did an
excellent job of not saying one at a time: ``I want it and I can work
with him''. Rather they said: ``We the industry, we the users, we the
operators, we the employee groups, we the bargaining agents are all
sitting together and we have agreed how to do this jointly''. Thus
was born Nav Canada. It was a very good collaboration by industry.
People put together the best possible outcome for the divestment of
the air navigation system.
The price was mentioned by the parliamentary secretary to the
minister. Nav Canada was ripped off. I must make that comment
because Nav Canada will not make it. Nav Canada negotiated with
a gun at its head. They were the only obvious buyers and it was in
their own best interests to ensure that they were the ones to take
over this operation. They did not want somebody from outside with
no expertise, with no concern about the users, the bargaining agents
and all the internal people that make up Nav Canada to come in and
take over. And they certainly did not want it to remain with the
government because it was hardly an efficient or effective system.
They were the only buyers but they were also in need of getting
the system and it had to come from the government. Therefore
they had to pay whatever the government asked. I think they paid
too much, in part to bail the government out of a problem contract
it got into and perhaps also to pay off some other bad investments.
One example is the microwave landing system. It was not that this
concept was bad but government inertia makes it difficult to let go
3149
of something when its time has passed. The government continued
with the MLS long after it should have been abandoned, when other
industrialized countries had dropped it.
We heard concerns and fears from some of the northern
operators, even some remote regional operators, as the Bloc
mentioned. I am a commercial pilot and I was an air traffic
controller for 22 years. I have a lot of background in the specific
issues people were concerned about. I have looked closely at what
this bill contains and the risks. It is not a perfect bill, but what bill
is? I am satisfied it contains the necessary protections and has the
right intent with Nav Canada moving forward.
It is only natural that some operators should have some fears.
That is to be expected. If there is any fault here it is that the
government and perhaps even the committee, of which I am a
member, did not do a good enough job of selling the idea and
convincing the people that they were protected.
There is one area which came to the fore and troubled me a bit:
general aviation and recreational aircraft fees. It is only natural for
people to object to fees when they have been getting something
essentially for free and which will now have a cost. Instead of a
regular user fee for this category of aircraft there has been talk
about a general flat annual fee. The amount that has been discussed
is in the range of $500 but there is nothing in the bill. It is a Nav
Canada charge.
(1705 )
I have heard a lot of objections from different operators and
owners of aircraft along with their representatives such as the
Canadian Owners and Pilots Association. They proposed an
alternative, not that they do not want to pay and I am sure they do
not want to pay. Who does?
However, it is reasonable that a system is there. They will have
to call flight service to get weather briefings and flight information
and to file flight plans. Maybe they are not flying on instruments
but many people who have the equipment-and many do-still
tune in and use the airway as a navigation aid for themselves. They
talk to air traffic control whenever they go into a controlled airport.
Some of them fly on instruments and make use of the area control
centres. It is not unreasonable that they pay something for the
service.
One of the suggestions they brought forward was the idea of
paying for the service through an excise gas tax. I hasten to point
out that they pay a significant gas tax already. It could be some
portion of the amount that is already paid dedicated to go to Nav
Canada instead of the fee, or even possibly a bit of that combined
with a very nominal, and I stress very nominal, increase in the
gasoline component of the aviation fuel tax. A pilot who flies 50
hours a year, which many private aircraft owners do, would pay
based on his 50 hours. An operator or an owner who flies 500 hours
would pay that much more in a similar type of aircraft because he
potentially is making 10 times the use of the service.
I am not proposing that at this time. However this is enabling
legislation, and is not a finely detailed, carved in stone type of
legislation. I will continue to look at that proposal. I will continue
to consult with the various groups and individuals this is going to
impact on to see if that would have real favour. I will confirm with
Nav Canada that it is something it would look on favourably if that
were to be the type of system that was put in.
I move next to labour disputes. This is something that has not
been overlooked by the committee. I brought it up. Again, it was
something that came up. It is a very overwhelming issue. The bill
moved through far too quickly. It would be a long delay to try to
address this issue and would hold up a bill that should move ahead.
A lot of the bargaining agents are critical of the operation of the
entire air transport system of this country, the total transportation
system. The work of the air traffic controllers, flight service
people, the licensing people has to continue. When it stops, the
entire system stops. The government has introduced something and
it is jury-rigged and a poor way of doing it.
I am not talking about this government, I might add, before I get
its dander up for no reason. I do it often enough for reason so I
certainly do not want to do it for no reason. I hear kind comments
coming from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Of
course, those are the only comments I get from him.
What happened is a right to strike was given. I will use the air
traffic controllers as an example. They are not the only group, but
they are the ones I am most familiar with.
In the late 1960s they got the right to strike. In a contract dispute
in the early 1970s when a settlement could not be reached between
the Air Traffic Controllers Association and Treasury Board, the air
traffic control system was shut down. The controllers went on
strike and air transportation in this country stopped. After a week
and a half in the dead of winter, the government legislated the
controllers back to work. Mandatory arbitration was the settlement
dispute.
Some time later, a contract dispute came up again. Once again it
looked as if we were headed toward a strike. This time the
government in advance of a strike taking place legislated the
controllers so that they could not go out on strike and legislated the
3150
settlement. In other words, it completely revoked not only their
right to strike but even their right to bargain.
(1710 )
During the time when the strikes took place, the controllers had
agreed and worked with the government. There would be a number
of designated employees who would go in to ensure that safety was
still maintained.
If there was an aircraft still up and in distress the controllers
would handle it. If there was a medical emergency, the controllers
would handle it. They would handle flights that reprovisioned
remote communities in the north and air defence flights. All these
types of things were still handled. It amounted to about 15 per cent
of the control staff. The controllers did this willingly and the
system was fine.
Sometime after the second piece of legislation, the government
came out with a new list of designated employees. It pertained to
everybody who controls aircraft. It came out with a list of
designated duties which contained everything the controllers did.
This was appealed and taken to court all the way to the top and the
government prevailed.
From that day forward and for approximately the past 20 years
air traffic controllers have had the right to go on strike, but when
they go on strike every one of them has to report to work and they
have to do all the duties they normally do. No other dispute
settlement was put in place. The only dispute settlement is to strike
when in fact they cannot strike. It has been a very unsatisfactory
system for the past 20 years.
Now controllers and other bargaining agents in similar situations
are once again getting back the right to strike. They are no longer
covered by this legislation because they are no longer in the public
service. They are now private sector employees covered by the
Canada Labour Code.
I say in all sincerity that air traffic controllers are very
conscientious and sincere people. They are interested in flight
safety and in doing a good job. In fact, if controllers as a whole did
not do a little more than the system even expects them to do or
expects them to be able to do, the system probably would not work
very well at all. They are very conscientious people but they are
also people who have had a bad deal for 20 years. If there ever was
a problem in negotiations between any of these bargaining agents
and the new Nav Canada employer, we would have a major
problem in this country.
The government had to legislate back to work the dock workers
in Vancouver. I agreed in doing that. It causes severe economic
problems in this country when the port of Vancouver goes down.
The government legislated back to work the national rail system
when it went on strike and I supported that as well. I believe it had
to be done. But those two things pale in comparison to the
economic impact of the air transport system of this country being
shut down.
I say to the government that it should have a heads up on this
problem. I want to make sure it understands that the problem
exists, that we rely certainly on good faith bargaining between the
various bargaining agents and Nav Canada, but at the same time the
government should be aware that this potential problem is there. It
may be necessary at some point in time for the government to do
something about it and it should start putting some thought into it.
I will now move on to committee practices particularly with
respect to this bill. I begin with the Canadian Transportation Act,
specifically section 27.2.
When legislation starts in the House and goes to committee, I
have to assume it goes to committee for a reason and not just
because a piece of paper says that is the procedure. There has to be
a reason for it to go to committee. I am told by the government that
legislation goes to committee so we can discuss it openly, so we
can hear witnesses, hear what problems might exist with the
legislation, and address the concerns the majority of witnesses
bring forward and find ways to deal with these problems.
There were many witnesses on that piece of legislation. Most of
the people who came forward said: ``Get rid of 27.2. It is a disaster
for us''. They quoted chapter and verse where all the problems
were. On the other side were representatives of the National
Transportation Agency, the government body. I asked them about
section 27.2, which started as a significant prejudice and later
became substantial commercial harm. What did it mean? They
gave us a spectrum. Maybe it was a small loss or profit or, to the
other extreme, maybe bankruptcy and anything in between.
Lawyers will argue this for ages and precedents will eventually be
set.
(1715)
The government ignored that completely. It refused to do
anything significant about section 27.2 or, more appropriately,
remove it. Why were there all these hearings? Why was the bill
sent to committee if the government was going to ignore what the
public said? It then came back to this House.
A new minister is now responsible for this bill. A lot of the
shippers began last minute consultations because there was a new
minister and a new chair of the committee. They said they were
really concerned about section 27.2. The minister said that he was
also concerned, that he had just read it and had a lot of concerns
about it. He asked for some time to look at it because he felt
something would have to be done about it. This was nothing more
than a ruse.
I offered the minister every opportunity to do something about
section 27.2 without involving politics. I told him that if he wanted
some co-operation to take it back to committee and do it in an
all-party, relatively non-partisan way, no feet to the coals and no
saying ``I told you so, I'm right you're wrong''. I told him it should
be done because it was the right thing to do and that he had my total
co-operation.
3151
As soon as it was time for the vote they said they did not want to
do anything. It passed and section 27.2 is still in the bill.
We then moved to another transport area involving the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans or, more appropriately I guess,
the department of oceans because in order to have a department of
fisheries there has to be fish. The user pay concept is commencing,
the coast guard recovery fees.
I attended the committee meetings of that department and
listened to the witnesses talking about user pay. They recognized
that they needed to pay and they were willing to pay. However, they
thought the government was being a bit premature. There had been
no cost rationalization of the coast guard and no impact study to see
how this was going to affect them and the whole marine shipping
strategy.
The minister was sure that the fees were going to have an impact
and maybe cause some traffic to be diverted to the United States,
but he felt that after the bill was implemented an impact study
would be done to see how much damage it had caused. That is a
pretty bizarre way of doing it. Again, it ignores everything that
happened in the committee.
We now get to Bill C-20. At committee the government's
privacy commissioner told us that he had a serious concern about
the bill. At the present time the Privacy Act covers all the activities
of Transport Canada in the operation of the air navigation system
and when it is transferred to Nav Canada, a private corporation,
that will not be the case.
There is also employee privacy which may possibly be dealt with
in other ways. Almost everybody who takes to the air, except for
some local flights, and who has to file a flight plan with particular
information, is covered by the Privacy Act now. However, they will
not be covered under Nav Canada as it is a private corporation.
The privacy commissioner said that it would not cost a dime and
that the bill should include that the Privacy Act continue to apply to
Nav Canada as if it were a crown corporation. This is the exact
same wording that the parliamentary secretary bragged about
tonight for the official languages. It was stated that Nav Canada, as
a private company, still has to operate for the purposes of the
Official Languages Act as if it were still a crown corporation.
I put in an amendment stating exactly that. I just extended
what it said for the Official Languages Act. I wanted NavCan to
be covered under the Privacy Act is if it were still a crown
corporation. It passed. That is what a committee is supposed to
do. It is supposed to consider these matters, listen to the
witnesses and vote. Matters that are defeated are defeated and
the matters that are passed are passed. My amendment passed
and became part of the bill.
(1720 )
Democracy does not live well in committees. Certain parts of the
committee, not sitting on this side of the House, did not like that.
Democracy be damned, so they waited until the bill came to the
House and put forward a motion to remove the amendment that the
committee passed in response to the witnesses that came forward.
That is not a very good system. It does not speak well of what the
government does in committees.
I would like to turn now to what the Bloc said it its amendment.
The amendment is that the bill not be read the third time because
the air navigation system will not be safe with Nav Canada.
I worked in the navigation system for 22 years. For all those
years we wanted to get out of government control because it would
be far more efficient and more technologically advanced. We could
respond quicker to changing needs through the use of technology
and changing conditions.
Contrary to what the Bloc says, I believe that the system will be
at least as safe as it is now. I do not wish to suggest for a moment
that it is not a safe system now. However, it is not in any kind of
danger with regard to safety whatsoever. It will be a much more
efficient and safe system once Nav Canada takes over. Therefore I
will not be supporting the Bloc motion.
It will also enhance the air industry's viability. The air transport
industry in this country is in trouble. Everyone knows about the
clash between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines and how both of
them are writing a lot of red ink. Perhaps that is why the
government relates so well to them with its red ink book. They are
in trouble. With open skies they get a lot of pressure from
American competitors. They need to find ways to operate more
efficiently.
If Nav Canada can operate the system, which is made up of users
and operators, and operate it more effectively and more efficiently
than the government does, then that is going to save money for all
the people involved in the industry and it will enhance that
industry's viability.
It will also give enhanced service and value to the travelling
public. If NavCan can keep its costs down, better compete against
foreign competitors, offer better fees and better opportunities to
travellers and travel to more places, the travelling public has to
benefit.
Finally, it is good for the general public. The government has
been running this system for years at a significant loss. Most
recently with some new initiatives added toward the end of the
system being under government control, the government was
3152
losing something in the range of $200 million a year. This adds to
the deficit and all the associated costs that go with that.
This is a good bill. There are some bumps in the road which the
government could have handled a little better. If I had been in the
government's place handling it, some things could have been done
better. We have to move ahead. We have to recognize that the
government needs to get out of business. The government's sole
responsibility is regulation. It has retained all the regulatory
controls. It will still monitor safety. It will still set standards. It will
still ensure that those standards are kept up.
The government has brought forward several bills in the
transportation sector. With one exception, the Pearson airport, they
have been relatively good bills. It is only the implementation that
has suffered.
I hope the government will continue to learn. I hope it will
continue to listen, as the member for Kingston and the Islands is
mostly doing, which is rather gratifying. When the government
does I will be pleased to support it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now move to the
next stage of debate where members will be able to speak for 20
minutes subject to 10 minutes of questions or comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my speech will be quite similar to the one I made at
second reading, since the bill before us is more or less the same,
considering that all our amendments were defeated.
(1725)
Again, we agree with the principle of privatization. However, we
will oppose the bill because the government did not take into
account certain principles which we felt were important and
rejected our amendments.
One of these amendments had miraculously been accepted by the
Standing Committee on Transport and we thought it would go
through. It was an important amendment, since it provided that Nav
Canada should, like the government did before, agree to comply
with the Privacy Act.
The amendment had been adopted by the committee, but the
government tabled another amendment to counteract ours.
Therefore, the minister rejected the recommendation of the
transport committee, even though his party has a majority in that
committee.
Even so, we submitted other amendments that were all defeated.
Let me quickly explain again what the issue was, to show the
importance of the principle involved, and to explain why, in spite
of our agreement in principle regarding privatization, we will have
no choice but to vote against the bill.
First, there is the issue of privacy which we felt very important
and regarding which our amendment was rejected. We also asked
that further information be provided regarding the media and other
means of communications that Nav Canada would use to inform
the public about its intention to change, restrict or cancel its
services, so that interested parties can react.
We felt it was important to specify which media should be used
and how widespread the information should be, to ensure that
everyone would be well informed. It would have been only natural
to support this principle, but such was not the case. We also felt it
was improper to have private users of Nav Canada's services pay
for national defence, which is exempt from having to pay the fees
involved. This situation is not reasonable. We tabled an
amendment, but it was rejected.
More importantly, we wanted to emphasize the spirit of this
legislation in a preamble. This is a private organization providing a
public service, and we wanted the preamble to say that service to
the public should always take precedence over financial interests.
Even this principle, which would have been stated in the bill to
ensure better service to the public, was rejected.
My colleague, the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup,
drew a parallel between Nav Canada and ADM. We did not get
together on this, but I am going to do the same thing, because the
similarities and analogies are striking. ADM and Nav Canada were
created by the government, more specifically the Minister of
Transport. They are private organizations, both providing public
services. What is now happening with ADM does not augur well
for what may happen with Nav Canada.
I remind members that ADM recently took a decision, the
principle of which I will not comment on here, but I protest against
the fact that ADM, because of the status the government has given
it, has no obligation to release to the public the information on
which it based its decision.
(1730)
Just a while ago, in response to a question, the minister said:
``Yes, but there is SOPRAM''. SOPRAM has 21 members. Of
these, seven are on the board of directors that took the decision.
Even this organization, which is, in short, the only avenue by which
the public may examine ADM's decisions, even the members of
this organization are not entitled to take out the studies that ADM
says it used in reaching its decision. They must consult them on the
premises. So much for the public's right to information.
So the parallel is obvious. The ability to make decisions in both
these organizations is enormous, and the obligation to be
accountable to the public, and to explain those decisions, is nil. It is
therefore fairly easy to predict what might happen with Nav
Canada. Just think about what has just happened with ADM. I
would imagine that Nav Canada, with the enormous powers it
3153
possesses, will make the decision to do away with this service or
that service, when it does not seem sufficiently profitable.
As the law requires, it will publish its intention to do so in
certain newspapers of its own choosing, according to criteria that
are far too broad. Then, if there is no reaction, or even if there is
one, since what is required is only to give notice, the situation will
be judged and Nav Canada will take the decision it wanted in the
first place, making its intentions as little known as possible and
possibly without releasing the studies and other documents on
which the decision was based.
In both cases, then, we are dealing with organizations that do not
provide the public with the services it would have received when
the government was providing them. Privatization, in one case as
much as the other, has the effect of cutting back on services to the
user, a lesser view of what service is, in one case as much as the
other. That is what we cannot accept. Needless to say, I shall be
supporting my colleague's amendment.
That, then, is what I had to say. Unfortunately, we cannot support
this bill because it contains too many serious shortcomings to be
acceptable.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the debate on this bill because it concerns the representation
of small carriers, the subject I have given greatest consideration to.
We were told that the small carriers were represented.
I have here a series of facts. I have letters here. Those who are
not familiar with the bill must understand that the government said
it was going to privatize air services. No problem so far. For those
who are not really familiar with air services, here is what that
means. When a plane takes off from an airport, it must
communicate with a control tower. Then there are the instrument
flight rules and the pilot is in contact with other controllers whose
job it is to direct aircraft according to the various weather
conditions.
The government decides to privatize these services. So far so
good. With the state of public finances at the moment, there is
reason to think this is very appropriate. Then the government said it
would appoint a competent board. Given that the government does
not necessarily know everything in this area, it appointed a board to
look after privatizing services and then set the charges for air
services to users. When the time came to decide who would sit on
the board of Nav Canada, discussions were held. My remarks will
concern the persons on this board.
(1735)
The people deciding the type of charges are probably experts in
the area of aviation. The real problem is that, if these experts-as I
said-are major carriers, the charges will probably favour major
carriers over small ones. This is my fear.
Coming from a remote region, I can confirm that small carriers
in such regions encounter major difficulties. Travel by air is
important if you want to go from the Lac-Saint-Jean region to
Montreal. Air transportation is vital for business and economic
development in remote areas; it also creates jobs. Given the need to
provide a high level of service despite the fairly low number of
passengers, costs are prohibitive. Ask most of the people in my
riding and in all the regions from Vancouver to Newfoundland and
they will tell you that plane tickets are very expensive.
This was the subject of a study. Every time the cost of tickets
goes up by $1, there is a corresponding $1 drop in annual sales for
the airline. Other modes of transportation are slower, but those who
cannot afford to fly take the bus or the train even if it takes longer.
But in business, time is important, time is money.
One chamber of commerce-I think it is in Matane but I am not
sure-asked the Quebec government whether it could give remote
areas a subsidy allowing them to reduce their costs. As I was
saying, air service is a key factor of economic development.
This brings me to the squabble that surrounded the creation of
the Nav Canada committee. As you know, sometimes it does not
take much to provoke an outcry, but there may be cases in which
such an outcry is justified. There are cases in which questions
should be raised, but the issues are too complicated. That is one of
the problems in this case; what happened is extremely complicated.
People find it quite confusing.
I will try to explain the situation as best I can. The people in the
Quebec air transport industry got together. As you know, I worked
in that sector for three years so I am quite familiar with the
difficulties faced by small airlines. Quebec set up an association of
small airlines called AQTA or Association québécoise des
transporteurs aériens.
We would have liked AQTA to sit on this committee for two
reasons. First of all, because AQTA represents mostly small
airlines and, second, because it represents the French fact in
Quebec and Canada and also because it represents Quebec. I think
it would have been important. There was a debate. They told us
they invited us but we did not come.
I will quote from a few articles, including a letter of opinion
published in Le Soleil. This letter, from Mr. Jenner of the
Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens or AQTA, read as
follows: ``The privatization of Canadian air navigation services is
turning sour. The Air Transport Association of Canada or ATAC
has taken control of the new corporation''.
It is important to understand that the current president of Nav
Canada is also the president of ATAC. The acronyms are confusing,
3154
but the thing to remember is that ATAC stands for the Air Transport
Association of Canada.
(1740)
So this association is bragging, saying: ``Look, do not say that
small carriers are not represented. Not only does ATAC have a
representative on Nav Canada's committee, but he is the
chairman''. The problem is, and I will come back on this later on,
that ATAC and the AQTA are quite different in terms of
representation.
The article reads on: ``Ottawa has set out to privatize the entire
Canadian air navigation system, which employs nearly 7,000
Canadians. A non-profit organization called Nav Canada has been
created to eventually take over the administration of this operation
on behalf of the industry. When the users committee responsible
for incorporating the new company was formed, AQTA stepped
aside to let the president of ATAC represent all users. This was too
good to be true. As soon as the incorporation committee submitted
the first draft of the letters patent, the fighting started'', Mr. Jenner
told the members of his association, who were gathered in Quebec
City yesterday for their 20th annual congress.
The article reads on: ``ATAC's president was holding the pen on
our behalf but the fact of the matter is that he just wrote whatever
he wanted to. He has betrayed us'', Mr. Jenner told Le Soleil,
adding: ``Consequently, regional carriers are complaining about
being completely excluded from the decision making process.
Thus, any recommendation they may have made concerning the
selection of board members came to naught. The president of
AQTA had asked that Nav Canada's statutes and letters patent be
bilingual, so as to recognize both official languages as equal,
arguing that this was the practice in all legislation in Quebec and
Canada. It was requested that the mission statement include a
commitment to promote the use of the French language in air
operations. The committee came back a week later, having settled
the language issue. Only the company's name and corporate logo
are bilingual''.
So much for Canada being this great bilingual country. But this
is another story, that I may get to debate in my future career.
According to Mr. Jenner, ``such an attitude jeopardizes the
headway made over the past 20 years in the fight for the use of the
French language in the air transportation industry. What kind of
quality of life and quality of service can we expect from Nav
Canada's French speaking employees if management has a total
aversion to our language?''
Sure, it is a bilingual service, except that only the logo is. But
that is another issue.
Brian Jenner is concerned that small carriers are not represented
on Nav Canada's board, particularly since the decisions that will be
made will directly impact on the already exorbitant transportation
costs in the regions.
The article goes on: ``The costs of privatization are going up.
Originally, there was talk of selling the service for an amount
somewhere between $800 million and $1.3 billion. Now, the figure
mentioned is $1.7 billion, possibly more. The budget of the whole
operation was also scaled up, as well as the anticipated deficit. In
the end, the expected savings will give way to increased operating
costs''.
According to Mr. Jenner, ``if regional airports are asked to be
financially self-sufficient, it could really hurt air transport outside
large centres. It is obvious that the Sept-Îles airport cannot
self-finance itself; however, closing its control tower is not an
obvious solution. There is a limit to the ability of small and
medium size businesses to pay''.
One problem is that if authorities find out that little use is made
of a control tower in Sept-Îles or in northern
Saskatchewan-because I am not merely talking about the interests
of Quebecers but those of all small carriers in every remote
area-if they find out you are not using your on-board
equipment-I will spare hon. members the aviation jargon-they
will decide to close it down because of the high costs involved.
This is what privatization is about. If you want to keep your
services you have to pay. How do you expect a small carrier to do
that?
This was a letter published in Le Soleil, but I have another
article, this one from the magazine Circul-Air, which is a Quebec
publication on air transportation-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I would like to
take this opportunity to remind the member for Lac-Saint-Jean that
members may not use catalogues or other props. I would ask the
member, if he wishes to quote from texts, to do so without a lot of
fanfare, if I may put it that way.
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I
will see that it does not happen again.
(1745)
In the editorial in Circul-Air, Édith Fournier, the general
manager of Air Satellite and president of the council of the
Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, or AQTA, said
the following: ``In the course of the negotiations leading up to the
privatization of air navigation services, we have heard some pretty
strong language. John Crichton, the president of ATAC, the Air
Transport Association of Canada-which I mentioned earlier-on
the op-ed page of the January 4, 1996 issue of Le Soleil, took the
contempt of regional bodies to new heights''.
3155
First of all, Mr. Crichton, from his lofty new perch as president
of Nav Canada, took it upon himself to cast doubt on the accuracy
of remarks made by Mr. Jenner, the president and CEO of AQTA
at the association's 20th annual conference. In his article in Le
Soleil, he said: ``Let us be very clear: the bitter words of Mr.
Jenner concerning the privatization of air navigation services say
it all. Furthermore, they are an accurate reflection of the opinion
of AQTA, which feels that ATAC stole control of Nav Canada
away from small and medium size businesses in the air
transportation sector.''
As for Mr. Crichton's remarks about breaking solidarity, of
greater importance to members of AQTA, there is a preoccupation
with the almighty buck, a value completely foreign to AQTA. No
one member is more important than another in our association. I
will explain. Furthermore, it is because of scrupulous respect for
this principle that AQTA rallied over 50 per cent of all Quebec air
carriers, an unheard of level of support. ATAC cannot teach us
anything about representativity, then, with its meagre 10 per cent of
Canadian air carriers.
And here is where the problem lies. ATQA has more than 50 per
cent of all carriers, whereas ATAC, which boasts that it is
representative of all carriers, in fact represents only 10 per cent of
them. They say ATAC is far larger. When one has on one's board
members such as Air Canada and Canadian, which generate big
bucks, one is capable of financing associations such as ATAC. The
little guys are not necessary.
That is not the case with AQTA. In AQTA, whether you are a big
or a small carrier, it is not the amount of your dues that counts.
What counts is that you will be defended, and your membership is
wanted.
Still quoting Mr. Chrichton, it appears that Mr. Jenner was the
only one opposed to ATAC's highjacking of Nav Canada. In reality,
there was generalized opposition by the commercial airline
associations, so much so that they formed the council of air carrier
associations, or CATA, another four letter acronym to add to the
confusion. There were some air carriers in Canada who did not
agree and who formed an association called the council of air
carrier associations to defend themselves against the privatization
which had been decided upon with the greatest of insensitivity to
the opinion of small and medium size businesses.
Through AQTA and other regional associations, the majority of
small and medium size businesses chose to be represented by this
CATA. Let there be no confusion. Democracy and fairness require
that choice to be respected and not denigrated. Mr. Chrichton still
has a long way to go in that respect.
So that is about where the situation stands. I would have liked to
talk of other things, including the letter from ATAC to Mr. Jenner
inviting him to sit on the Nav Canada committee. I also have a
letter from the AQTA, from Édith Fournier, the editorialist I have
just referred to, expressing great pleasure, saying: ``Yes, Mr.
Jenner is in agreement, despite our not always agreeing on the
principle of Nav Canada, but since there was no other choice left,
yes, we will get involved in the Nav Canada committee''. A letter
of acceptance.
I also have a third letter from ATAC, where the Nav Canada
representative writes: ``unfortunately, your candidature could not
be accepted. Thank you for your offer, but unfortunately we cannot
take you''. And that is the end of that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I apologize for interrupting
the hon. member. He can go on when the subject comes back to the
House. If he wishes to complete his remarks, he will have two or
three minutes at most. This is at his discretion.
In the meantime, it being 5.49 p.m., the House will now proceed
to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3155
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending
the Income Tax Act to provide a caregiver tax credit for those who provide care
in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
He said: Mr. Speaker, over the past two years I have presented a
petition to the House of Commons which basically states that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society. The petition also states the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that choose to provide care in the
home to preschool children, the chronically ill, the disabled or the
aged. The petition therefore calls on Parliament pursue tax
initiatives which would do just that.
Motion No. 30 is a votable motion of the House of Commons
which asks the House of Commons and the government to consider
the advisability of this motion and to provide a caregiver tax credit
to those who choose to provide care in the home to preschool
children, the chronically ill, the disabled or the aged.
I will give a bit of background. Last weekend I had the
opportunity of attending a wedding of my cousin. As they
exchanged vows I began to consider what family really meant to
me.
3156
This is a young couple starting their lives together. I wondered
when they exchanged their vows did they automatically become a
family. I looked around the church and I found there were many
children there and I realized even more that family means children.
As I looked at my family members and relatives I saw an aunt
whose husband had been disabled, chronically ill, and she had to
leave her work to care for him. Tragically he passed away.
I saw a sister who is married but who decided not to have
children. I saw my brother who has daughters, but both he and his
wife decided to continue their careers because a parent lived next
door to them who could care for their daughters during their
formative years.
I saw my grandmother who is now 95 years old, who after my
grandfather passed away had to leave her home because she was no
longer able to care for it. Then she stayed with my mother. After
some time as she needed more and more care it was evident she
needed institutionalized care. I also saw a cousin who presently
lives common law and who has no children.
Then I looked at my own family. My dear wife and I will
celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary this year. We have three
lovely children. My wife took 13 years off from her career to help
raise those children to be fine young people.
The issue surrounding Motion No. 30 is family responsibilities.
They are lifelong responsibilities, from cradle to grave. They
reflect family values and social norms and values and choices
related to children and other family members who may be
chronically ill, aged or disabled
I quote Dr. Benjamin Spock: ``Children are made to love. Parents
love children because they remember being loved so much by their
own parents. Despite all the hard work, taking care of children and
seeing them grow up to develop to be fine young people gives most
parents their greatest satisfaction in life. To reflect on children we
se that this is creation, this is our visible immortality''.
Dr. Penelope Leach is the author of Children First, a wonderful
book which states that if couples are contemplating having
children, one thing they must understand is they must be prepared
to put the interests of their child ahead of their own. This is very
difficult and in many cases not possible in today's society.
(1755)
What is the current situation in Canada with regard to families
and children? I come across many cases in which people have said:
``Both of us are working. We have our children in child care spaces
but after child care expenses, after income taxes, after the cost of
employment, my net take home pay is so small I really do not know
why we are doing this''.
We have a situation now in which the drop-out rate in high
school is around 32 per cent. We have growing concern about
young offenders and crime in general. We have concern about the
literacy rate in Canada, which is presently at about the grade six
level.
In 1968, 68 per cent of families with preschool children had one
parent staying in the home and caring for those children.
Twenty-five years later in 1993 that reduced to only 12 per cent.
We have social agencies everywhere for behavioural, learning
and social skills. Schools even have full time psychologists now.
Families are having increasing difficulty parenting their children.
The Standing Committee on Health is presently studying
preventive strategies for the good health of children. We heard a
number of witnesses. I refer to a couple of the points raised.
There was the point that quality day care cannot be provided or
delivered without government subsidy, the reason being the
salaries paid to qualified caregivers averages somewhere around
only $21,000. That was presented to us by Martha Friendly of the U
of T child resource centre. She confirmed that the demand for
subsidized child care is much greater than the availability.
Families are different. Choice and options are essential and
desirable. Dr. Fraser Mustard of the Canadian Institute for
Advanced Research also came before the committee. He told us
about research that clearly shows there are factors occurring during
the first three years of life that have a significant impact on the
likelihood of positive outcomes of children, cognitive skills, social
skills, behavioural skills, coping skills, mental and physical health.
We also had Dr. Marc Genuis of the National Foundation for
Family Research and Education. He told us about a meta-analysis,
a analysis of all the studies done on this subject matter.
He told the committee that if a child had more than 20 hours per
week disruption of the secure attachment with the caregiver, there
was evidence of increased likelihood of negative impact on
socio-emotional development, behavioural bonding, consistent,
secure attachment to an adult.
The Globe and Mail April 22, 1996 reported on a U.S. study, the
most far reaching and comprehensive dealing with the first 15
months of infancy. It said the likelihood of a troubled mother-child
bond can be increased by child care that is of poor quality, that
changes several times or that extends to more than 10 hours per
week. It also said that after the mother as primary caregiver, child
care centres were ranked lowest in quality whereas fathers,
relatives or other caregivers in the family home were ranked the
highest.
This is not a situation of black and white. This is a situation of
probabilities. We can have many situations turning out different
ways but we are talking about the likelihood of outcomes. It is
important for us to ensure there are high likelihoods of positive
outcomes for the development of our children.
3157
As legislators our job is to provide optimum flexibility to
families to choose options suited to their situation and to their
values.
What if more families to could afford to provide direct parental
care? In the short term, it would free jobs possibly for those on
welfare or for those who really need the jobs. It would free the
demand on child care spaces and institutionalized care spaces. It
would reduce stress on the family and, most important, it would
recognize the value of work in the home.
In the recent census we included a question to get information
about the amount of unpaid work. In the long term health, social
and criminal costs to Canada would decrease significantly because
of the more positive outcomes of our children.
It would create healthier, happier families. It would allow
families to better discharge their lifelong duties. It would be an
investment in the healthy outcomes of our children and it would
constitute a significant saving to the Canadian taxpayer.
(1800 )
The viability of M-30 needs to be assessed not from a financial
perspective, but from a balanced perspective, taking into account
both social and fiscal realities. The finance minister said to the
House in his very first speech: ``Good fiscal policy makes good
social policy and good social policy makes good fiscal policy''.
Now is the time to recognize that reality. Now is the time to stop
defending the status quo based on soft mathematics. Now is the
time to have tax reform which restores fairness and equity to all
Canadians. Now is the time to reflect social priorities in our tax
policy.
The recent bill on the employment insurance program showed
some movement on behalf of legislators in Canada to recognize the
value of work in the home and the importance of caregiving in the
home. That reform showed this by recognizing and offering for the
first time training assistance and wage subsidies to parents who
have taken parental leaves to provide that parental care.
In October 1994 I had a private member's Bill C-256, which
proposed income splitting between couples so that one could stay
at home and care for preschool children. During the debate on the
bill the finance department spokesman came before the House and
dismissed it on the basis that the idea was too costly and because
we had already provided many tax breaks to the family. In my view,
no assessment of the social realities was given, no recognition to
long term benefits and no mention of anything other than it being
simply too costly.
Parents know intuitively that direct parental care is optimal. In a
recent Angus Reid survey 70 per cent of parents, where both were
working and had preschool children, said that if they could they
would choose to have one stay at home to provide direct parental
care for their child.
I am not naive on this issue. The pie is not getting bigger. We do
not have more money to spend. That means that we have to work
smarter with what we have. Therefore, we need to reassess the
propriety for existing deductions, tax credits and other tax benefits
incorporated into the Income Tax Act. We need to establish
whether tax breaks will be given on the basis of need and family
income, such as is done with the old age security, the age credit and
the new seniors' benefit which was announced in the last budget.
We need to consolidate existing resources and allocate them to
where we get the optimum benefit for all Canadians.
These changes will result in stronger, healthier families. I
believe that if the family is strong the deficit would be gone.
The financial arguments against M-30, to provide a caregiver tax
credit, take the narrow view of fiscal expediency and dwell on why
we cannot rather than on how we can. I would like to give some
examples to the House.
The child care expense deduction in the Income Tax Act
provides for preschool children a deduction of $5,000 per child.
That is not available to a stay at home parent. It is only available to
someone who actually incurs the cost and pays someone else to
care for their child.
What is worse is that a deduction is worth more to a high income
earner than to a low income earner. As an example, someone who
makes $60,000 a year and pays $5,000 for child care space receives
a refund cheque from the government of $2,600. However, if
someone makes only $30,000 and incurs the same $5,000 cost,
their refund is only $1,800. That is an $800 difference when both
taxpayers incurred the same expense for child care costs.
I have Bill C-240 before the House which proposes to convert
that deduction to a tax credit so that it will be equitable and fair for
all Canadian taxpayers.
Another example would be the supplement to the child tax
benefit, which is $213 per year, or a working income supplement,
which could be up to $500 a year. However, these are quite
insignificant. They would represent something like about $12 to
$13 a week. That kind of additional assistance to couples who want
to choose to provide direct parental care simply does not facilitate
that choice.
Also there is the disability tax credit, which can accumulate
savings of some $720 to the taxpayer who is caring for a disabled
relative or dependant. The reason that they get the savings is that
the disability credit is transferable to the relative that is taking care
of them. Again, this represents a very small amount of money,
some $20 a week.
3158
(1805)
If Canadians were forced to provide care because they could not
afford the cost of institutionalized care, this modicum, this very
minuscule amount of dollars certainly is not going to deal with a
situation that is imposed on a family. The family has that
responsibility. Canadians want to be able to provide that kind of
care in those situations for their family members.
The medical expenses credit provides a 17 per cent credit for
expenses in excess of the lesser of 3 per cent of net income or
$1,614. This is available to all Canadians. What is not available to
all Canadians is that those who are employed, who have employer
paid plans, have all of their expenses covered subject to possibly
certain deductions and there are some uninsured costs. Those
uninsured costs then can be covered when they file their income tax
return to claim the additional amount of the credit. Therefore, those
who have insured plans have a better opportunity to recoup a
greater proportion of medical expenses. That is not available to
families who make the choice to provide care in the home to a
family member.
We should have a special benefit. I proposed to the finance
minister that there should be at a point special rules for uninsured
Canadians so they do not have to have a deductible of the first 3 per
cent of their net income and that every dollar of medical expenses
incurred by families that are uninsured be covered in the Income
Tax Act.
There is also an infirm dependant credit which could generate
savings for a family of up to $400; again, some $8 per week.
The finance department in the past, and I suspect today, will
characterize the existing benefits as significant assistance to the
family. I characterize these benefits as inadequate in the extreme.
By investing in families through meaningful tax breaks which
facilitate care in the home to preschool children, the chronically ill,
the disabled or the aged, the savings to Canada in the long term
would far outweigh the costs.
Motion M-30 is not a simple solution to a complex problem but
rather an opportunity for all hon. members to ask themselves
whether we can do better. I believe that we can.
Tax reform is an issue which I have talked about substantially in
the House on a number of private members' bills and motions. I
have also prepared a report which I sent to the finance minister
before preparation of the last budget. I believe that the finance
minister is open to suggestions on tax reform. A blue ribbon
committee has been established to deal with the corporate
taxation issue. I know the minister was very receptive to a
number of the changes proposed. I am sure that the kinds of
things that we are talking about are progressive and should be
looked at very carefully.
Tax reform is not an option, it is an imperative. Therefore on
behalf of the traditional family I ask the finance minister to heed
his own words when he said that ``good social policy makes good
fiscal policy and good fiscal policy makes good social policy''.
Now is the time for tax policy to reflect good social policy and
the best interests of the Canadian family.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the following motion. I move:
That should any vote by recorded division be requested on this bill today that
it be deferred until next Monday, June 3 at 9.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on first reading
of this private member's motion, there seems no reason to oppose
it. If I may, I will read it again, simply for those who did not hear it
the first time.
(1810)
It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending
the Income Tax Act to provide a caregiver tax credit for those who provide care
in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The initial reaction to this motion is to think, yes, but, if we
support this motion, do we not run the risk of having the
government use it as an opportunity to limit or change the benefits
this group of persons already enjoys to ensure their quality of life?
There is the risk that, with this measure, by granting a tax credit,
the government will reduce old age pensions or cut certain family
allowances currently paid for small children.
In granting the tax credit, the government might also take away
certain benefits accorded dependent individuals considered
disabled.
Our first reaction was to say that we do not want the government
to use this as a pretext to change the situation. After due
consideration, however, we decided it was better to support this
motion, which has the best of intentions, by proposing an
amendment, which I will present to you in a few minutes at the end
of my speech.
The purpose of this motion is not to improve the economy
indirectly. We are not looking for ways to improve the lot of the
unemployed or to reduce the deficit, although it would be nice to
kill two birds with one stone.
3159
The main purpose of this motion is really to find other ways
to assist those who have been in dire need of such help for several
years. We are thinking in particular of preschool age children, of
those in early childhood, as the teachers and child psychiatrists
who deal with them like to say.
According to the experts, it is before the age of three that
children acquire almost all the psychological baggage they need for
their own development.
Some experts say that the baggage received by children during
the first three years will reflect on the rest of their lives and
influence all other behaviours.
That being the case, it is important for children in that age group
to have beside them people they can trust. These people are usually
the mother or the father. But, when there is no mother or father
available, there should be another adult in whom the children can
confide, on whom they can rely every day to help in their
development.
The government should have recognized this a long time ago and
taken steps so that these children can get the help and support they
need. Unfortunately, nowadays, financially strapped couples often
have to place their children in institutions, which, as well-meaning
as they may be, can never replace the love of a father, mother, big
brother, big sister, uncle, aunt or grandparents who would be
willing to raise these children but cannot do so for lack of financial
resources.
(1815)
A cure-all it is not but, in such cases, the tax credit could
probably ensure that a larger number of can afford the time to do
so. It could be that a person is looking to work outside the home to
increase his or her self-esteem. Money is not always the only
motivation.
But when people want to work outside the home but are
penalized, either because their spouse will end up paying more
taxes as a result or because they cannot find a job they like in a
given field, there are instances where-as the hon. member who
spoke before me pointed out-a cousin, uncle, aunt or other family
member, provided they are not penalized, would take on this task,
all the more readily if a tax measure were put in place to help them
out.
Given a equivalent tax credit, some people may give up looking
for a job outside the home paying $5,000, $6,000 or $10,000 a year
to look after children.
The same could be done for seniors. How many families are
currently forced, again for economic reasons, to send a grandfather,
a grandmother, a father or a mother to a seniors residence or a
nursing home, because they do not have the time to look after
them? Why do they not have the time? Because they must spend all
their time earning a living to make ends meet, to provide for their
family's needs.
If a tax credit could be applied to the family income, that is to the
income of the working spouse, it would enable the other spouse to
spend some time with an older person who, instead of being sent to
a seniors residence, would live with the family.
The older person would not only be better off in terms of health
care, but also in terms of his or her quality of life and psychological
needs. Indeed, the emotional needs of seniors are met when they
live with those they love and raised, and to whom they gave the
greater part of their life. I am convinced that many seniors would
then live longer because they would be in a better environment in
terms of their emotional needs.
For these reasons, I feel it is important to support the motion of
the hon. member for Mississauga South. However, I would like to
propose an amendment to ensure that, after making such a change,
the government would not be tempted to cut other benefits already
enjoyed by these people. As you know, a government always means
well. However, sometimes, when faced with difficult conditions, it
tries to make up for what it gives by taking the necessary money
elsewhere.
I move:
That the motion be amended by adding after the word ``aged'' the following:
``without curtailing the assistance already provided to those individuals and to
those groups affected by the aforesaid motion''.
This amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi. I
submit this amendment to the House, in the hope that it will
support it, to improve the motion brought forward by the member.
The proposed amendment takes nothing away from the motion,
quite the contrary. It simply allows the House to have a guarantee
that all those we want to help will be helped without curtailing
benefits they already enjoy.
(1820)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment by the hon.
member for Joliette is in order.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to address the motion put forward by the member for Mississauga
South.
He points out this would contemplate changes to the Income Tax
Act which would refocus available resources to those in need.
Additional savings would be realized by reducing demand on child
care spaces or institutionalized services. Cutbacks at both the
federal and provincial levels necessitate that we look for creative
ways to provide options or more choice to families.
Although the intentions are honourable, I feel the motion as it
stands is vague. I missed the first part of his speech because of
standing committee work. Unless it was pointed out earlier, it does
not outline the amount of the tax credit he refers to so one can
compare it to the existing redistribution of tax dollars that we now
3160
apply to families in need, the disabled and all the people he wishes
to assist in a greater fashion.
From his comments, I feel there is not enough of a cost benefit
analysis. The motion talks of the need for people to have more
money, to have more access to funds and it is a feel good motion.
We all want to do the things this motion puts forward.
On a caregiver tax credit, I thought long and hard about what is a
caregiver. A caregiver is somebody who earns money and who pays
the bills. That is a caregiver. Whether they give the care to
themselves as a single person, whether they give the care to a
family of whatever size, a caregiver is someone who pays the bills.
The existing system takes care of caregivers now because we do
have a lot of exemptions, deductions, incentives and loopholes
within the current system.
However, with the vagueness in the motion it seems the member
for Mississauga South wants to give a bigger tax credit. He lists all
the things this bigger credit would do, if it is a bigger credit or just
a reshuffling. It would recognize the value of work in the home. It
would free up jobs. It would free up child care spaces, spaces in
long term care facilities for the handicapped and the aged, provide
the option for direct parental child care, promote financial
independence of the spouse in the home and enhance the quality of
life for families.
It seems to do an awful lot of things but we do not know how
much more we have to spend to achieve all those things. It sounds
like the speeches I give when I talk about the flat tax and how that
is the cure all and the end all for all our problems in this confusing
complicated taxation system. It seems a caregiver tax credit will
solve all our problems.
There is no question there are some issues the member is
seriously trying to address, and I respect his efforts to do so. We
both had private member's bills before the House in which we were
concerned about the discrimination against stay at home parents.
There is no question our system encourages, forces, begs, pleads
and wants families to have both spouses working outside the home.
(1825 )
There is incentive to work outside the home. If parents each earn
$30,000 with two children at home versus a family that chooses to
have one spouse work outside the home making $60,000 and the
other looking after the children and providing the care in the home,
the difference in the family situation, same family size, same
salary, is about $6,000 or $7,000 in taxes.
There is discrimination against stay at home parents. In order to
solve the problem I presented a private member's bill which would
provide a $5,000 child care deduction for children up to age 7 and
$3,000 between the ages of 8 and 13. The finance department
quickly calculated that number and the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Finance gave a nice speech and said ``although the
suggestion of the member for Calgary Centre is honourable and
great, it will cost the taxpayers another $6 billion more and
therefore we cannot do it''. So much for helping to eliminate
discrimination against stay at home parents.
The member for Mississauga South also put forward a bill in
which he looked at income splitting. I believe that suffered the
same fate.
Mr. Szabo: It was not votable.
Mr. Silye: It is obvious the member is trying to find a way to get
more money into the pockets of Canadians so they can look after
the essentials of life, their children, the disabled and the aged and
have more disposable income.
The solution is not by increasing the caregiver tax credit. The
member also hinted that the solution is tax reform. He talked about
the blue ribbon commission which will come up with a pink ribbon
prize, I am sure. He is encouraging the finance minister to look
further.
I support his efforts to eliminate discrimination against stay at
home parents. This motion is too vague. It does not give any
amounts and it will probably get shot down the same as my private
member's bill did even though they both tried to do the same thing.
He is absolutely right about the tax reform angle he talked about.
We have to create a tax free zone and allow the first $8,000, $9,000
or $10,000 of a person's income to be tax free. We should also
allow that same amount for a spouse, whether or not that spouse
works outside the home. It would be the best way to develop good
social programs by leaving the money in the hands of the people
who earn it.
Currently the Reform Party is working on a simplified tax
system in which the first $8,200 would be tax free along with
another $8,200 for a spouse, for a total of $16,400, and $2,000 for
each child up to age 16, which would be deductible as well. That
would total $20,000 for a family of four which would be zero
taxed. Anything above that 21 per cent would be revenue neutral
and all the other exemptions and deductions for the wealthy and the
loopholes would be gone.
The income would be redistributed from this system of taxation
which features a single rate through direct government spending, as
is done through the Departments of Transport, Health or HRD.
There would be better accountability and visibility of spending.
That way we would get to a balanced budget faster and then we
could decide how much more money to leave in the hands of the
people who are suffering, the people who have specific needs for
disabled. If they happen to be low income we could decide how
much more we could help them. We could do it through direct
3161
grants. Social workers in the field could find out where those 1
million starving children are.
We spend $9 billion on this complicated, confusing, convoluted
tax system we have now. Through five different programs we spend
$9 billion on children, subsidizing single parents, child care
deductions, day care centres and there are a million children
starving? This does not make sense to me.
I respect the efforts and the intent of the motion. However,
because of its vagueness and lack of a cost benefit analysis I will be
voting against it. It must be more specific. I really believe we
should have a system in which the money is directly given to those
people identified as being truly in need through direct spending
instead of this mirage of the Income Tax Act. Change it, replace it
with a simplified flat tax. That is how we could truly solve our
social problems and create more hope, growth and expansion in the
economy.
(1830 )
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all this talk from the member
opposite about shooting down bills I am proud to be part of a
government that brought in gun control.
I am pleased to address private member's motion M-30. It asks
the government to provide a child caregiver tax credit for those
who look after preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill
or the aged in the home.
The motion implies that the Income Tax Act somehow
discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care
at home for the categories of people mentioned earlier. In support
of his motion, the member for Mississauga South implied in his
remarks that the government does not care about families as much
as he does. I know that is not the case.
The motion appears to target the provision of the Income Tax Act
which disallows the deduction of child care expenses by one
income earner couples. The purpose of the child care expense
deduction is to recognize for tax purposes the child care expenses
that taxpayers must incur in order to earn income, to attend a
recognized educational institution full time or to take an eligible
vocational training course.
This deduction provides a way for the tax system to
acknowledge that those taxpayers have a lesser capacity to pay
taxes than others with an identical income who do not have child
care expenses. This deduction ensures up to a limit that income
used to pay for child care expenses is not taxable.
In order to assist parents who choose to remain at home to raise
their preschool aged children, the federal government introduced a
supplement to the child tax benefit. The supplement is a benefit to
low and middle income families that have preschool aged children
but do not have deductible child care expenses. This year the
supplement is $213 for each child six years old or younger and is in
addition to the regular benefit of $1,020 per child.
The federal government provides additional assistance to low
income families through the working income supplement. This is a
component of the child tax benefit. The working income
supplement directs assistance to low income families with children
by providing an additional annual non-taxable benefit of up to
$500. It supplements the employment earnings of families with net
incomes below $25,921.
As indicated in the budget presented to the House of Commons
on March 6, assistance to low income families will be enriched
through a two step doubling of the working income supplement.
The maximum annual benefit will be increased from $500 to $750
in July 1997 and to $1,000 in July 1998.
Recall for a moment that the motion suggests tax assistance
should be made available to families that provide in home care for
elderly relatives or relatives with disabilities. This already
happens. Tax assistance for people with disabilities and for families
caring for elderly or disabled relatives at home is provided by a
number of existing tax measures.
For example, significant benefits are provided to those with a
severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment through the
disability tax credit. This credit reduces the federal tax of claimants
by about $720 and is equivalent to an exemption of $4,233 for
those in the 17 per cent tax bracket.
Where the disabled individual has little or no income, the unused
amount of the credit may be claimed by a supporting relative. The
ability to transfer the disability tax credit recognizes that people
with disabilities and low incomes are often supported and cared for
by family members.
I will focus on another provision of the act to further indicate
things the act already provides for the categories of people
mentioned by the hon. member in support of this motion. The
medical expense tax credit is another such provision. It provides
tax relief to those with extraordinary medical expenses by
providing a tax credit for medical expenses in excess of a certain
percentage of a taxpayer's net income.
The medical expense tax credit reduces the federal tax of a
claimant by 17 per cent of qualifying unreimbursed expenses that
exceed 3 per cent of net income or up to $1,614.
(1835 )
Among the many expenses that qualify for this credit is up to
$5,000 in respite or part time attendant care expenses. This is
specifically intended to assist families caring for elderly or
disabled relatives at home. Tax assistance is provided for part time
or temporary attendant care. Families caring for elderly relatives or
3162
relatives with disabilities may also benefit from the ability to claim
unused amounts of the credit.
Individuals supporting relatives with a disability may also claim
the infirm dependant credit. This credit was significantly enriched
in the budget presented to the House on March 6, 1996.
According to the income of the dependant, this credit reduces the
federal tax of a supporting relative by up to $400 and is equivalent
to a deduction of as much as $2,352 for those with incomes in the
17 per cent tax bracket.
Through all of these measures, the federal tax system provides a
significant amount of tax assistance to families that decide to
provide care in the home for preschool aged children, the disabled
and the elderly.
I have given the House this evening a great deal of information
about various programs which are already contained in the Income
Tax Act. An hon. member opposite asked about cost. Let me state
for the record that the programs I have outlined already provide
$1.4 billion in support to families that decide to provide care in the
home for preschool aged children, the disabled and the elderly.
These are substantial amounts of money available to families that
support the disabled and the elderly. One of the problems with the
hon. member's motion is that we do not know what it would cost.
I urge the House to withhold support for private member's
Motion No. 30.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this
evening to speak to Motion No. 30. I welcome the opportunity to
speak to the motion which was put forward by my hon. friend, the
member for Mississauga South.
The motion asks the government to provide a caregiver tax credit
for those who provide care in the home for preschool aged children,
the disabled, the chronically ill and the elderly. The tax system
already provides a significant amount of assistance to families that
provide care in the home for their dependants.
For parents with children, the child care expense deduction helps
those with modest incomes with child care expenses they incur
while at work, attending school full time or taking an eligible
vocational training course.
The supplement to the child tax benefit helps parents who choose
to remain in the home to raise their preschool children. It provides
assistance to low and middle income families that have preschool
aged children but do not have deductible child care expenses.
This year the supplement is $213 for each child who is six years
old or younger and is in addition to the regular benefit of $1,020 for
each child.
The working income supplement, the WIS, a component of the
child tax benefit, helps low income working families meet some of
the extra costs related to earning employment income, such as child
care and transportation to work. It is a non-taxable benefit of up
to $500.
Changes introduced in the 1996 budget will double this
supplement to $1,000 by 1998, increasing the benefits to more than
700,000 working families by an average of $350 a year. While the
WIS is available to two-income families, it is also available to the
single earner families where one spouse stays at home as a
caregiver.
For people with disabilities and families caring for elderly or
disabled relatives, the disability tax credit provides significant
benefits to those with a severe and prolonged mental or physical
impairment. The credit reduces the federal tax of claimants by
about $750 and is equivalent to an exemption of $4,235 for those in
the 17 per cent tax bracket. The unused amount of the credit can be
transferred to the supporting relative to recognize that people with
disabilities and low incomes are often supported and cared for by
family members.
(1840)
The medical expense tax credit provides tax relief for those with
extraordinary medical expenses by providing a tax credit for
medical expenses in excess of a certain percentage of a taxpayer's
net income. Among the many expenses that qualify for this credit is
up to $5,000 in respite, or part time attendant care expenses. This is
specifically intended to help families caring for elderly or disabled
relatives at home by providing tax assistance for part time or
temporary attendant care. Families who care for elderly or disabled
relatives can claim the unused amounts of the credit.
Individuals supporting relatives with a disability can also claim
the infirm dependant credit which was significantly enriched in the
1996 budget. Depending on the income of the dependant, the credit
reduces the federal tax of a supporting relative by up to $400 and is
equivalent to the deduction of up to $2,353 for those with incomes
in the 17 per cent bracket.
Through all these measures the federal tax system provided $1.4
billion in tax assistance in 1996 to families with preschool aged
children, the disabled and the elderly.
My colleague's motion to introduce a caregiver tax credit does
not indicate how much such a credit would cost taxpayers, nor are
there sufficient details to estimate the proposed cost. If the
proposed credits were to cost more than the current level of tax
assistance, the government would have to reduce spending on other
programs in order to avoid an increase in the deficit.
For these reasons the government cannot support private
member's Motion M-30.
3163
On another note, there is no question that all of us would like
to have a perfect family situation. We would like to have children
reared in an environment that is caring and nurturing, where they
get all the tools they require to become good citizens. The
government works on many fronts. There are moneys in the
Department of Health. There are moneys in the HRD department.
There are income tax benefits. All of these are used collectively
to try to improve the situation of Canadian families.
Where children are reared properly with a lot of nurturing and
caring there is certainly a good community. If we travel around this
world and see an environment where people are doing well, where
there are many jobs and the environment is good there is less
crime. When a country is functioning properly children are treated
properly. They get the correct nurturing, they get the correct
education and they develop. A country's chief resource is its
people. It is people and ideas. It is not physical structures.
I like the general objectives of the motion of my colleague, the
member for Mississauga South but obviously there are
mechanisms currently within the system. After the deficit is looked
after we may be able to look in that direction in the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1845 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to order adopted
earlier today, the recorded division on the amendment stands
deferred until Monday evening, at 9.30 p.m.
3163
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 30 I put a
question to the Minister of Transport about the Quebec bridge. As
the reply did not satisfy me or the people of the Quebec City area, I
hope that I will receive a better answer today from the minister or
his representative.
Members will remember my question. In earlier replies, the
minister kept repeating: ``The Quebec bridge belongs to CN, and
CN is now a private company. Since it is a private company, I, as
the Minister of Transport, have no responsibility''.
This is precisely what we want to challenge. In my question, I
referred to the bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island, in which the federal government has invested $2.1 billion,
although it is being built by a private enterprise, a consortium. We
were trying to show that there was a double standard. After all, the
Quebec City area has six times the population of Prince Edward
Island.
Today, I would like to argue my point, since we have a few
minutes. Why should the federal government continue? It cannot,
in our view, invoke the transfer of responsibility to CN because of
privatization for the following reasons.
CN was to receive in exchange for one dollar lands worth $30
million for reconstruction and architectural restoration of the
Quebec bridge, according to an agreement entered into in July,
1993. Earlier this year it was learned that Jocelyne Bourgon, of the
Privy Council, the highest public servant in that body, had stated in
a December 1993 letter to the Quebec deputy minister of transport,
Mr Lalande, that the land would be fully transferred to CN only
over a five year period.
In addition, the grant deed was signed only on November 7, 1995
by the federal Minister of Transport. This means, therefore, that the
lands will not be fully deeded over the CN before November of the
year 2000. The considerable neglect of the bridge occurred during
the time that the federal government was still the owner.
(1850)
By 1998, the federal government will have invested, and I give
you these figures just as an example, $250 million in the
Champlain bridge and the Jacques-Cartier bridge, both located in
the province of Quebec. So, we think the federal government
should do the same for the Quebec bridge.
3164
Contrary to what the minister stated, the Government of Quebec
has indicated that it was ready to reopen the agreement concerning
vehicular traffic on the bridge, provided the federal government
also makes a commitment within an agreement with both the CN
and the Quebec Department of Transport.
The Quebec Department of Transport is ready to provide $1.5
million a year, over the next 16 years, even if its current
contribution is only $25,000. Also, earlier this year, the Quebec
bridge was designated a historic national landmark by the Minister
of Canadian Heritage. Soon, Unesco will be designating the bridge
as a world heritage site.
Under these circumstances, I do not think the federal
government can argue that it is no longer its responsibility, as I said
at the beginning, since it has yet to meet all the commitments it
made to the CN.
Therefore, I would ask the representative of the minister not to
give us the same arguments the minister used to turn down my
request and to tell us if he has found the time, since the last time I
asked a question on this issue, to meet with the Quebec Minister of
Transport, who I know is very willing to do something about this
whole situation.
I think the argument he used in his answer was also suitably
addressed. So, can the federal government tell us what it intends to
do about repairs to the Quebec bridge?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to address
the question from the hon. member for Lévis concerning the
government's responsibility for the Quebec bridge. I have had the
occasion to drive over the magnificent structure and I have had the
opportunity to be on a boat and pass under this historic landmark.
The hon. member for Lévis can ask the question time and time
again, but we cannot change the facts. The Quebec bridge has been
conveyed to CN along with other entrusted properties. In return,
CN accepted a number of commitments, including as the new
owner of the bridge, responsibility for a major maintenance
program. CN is also committed to the 1993 agreement which
transfers to it approximately 78,000 acres by July 1998 and not the
year 2000 as was suggested by the hon. member for Lévis.
Despite the fact that the lands are located in six different
provinces and jurisdictions, I am pleased to report that CN has
made significant progress. Close to 20,000 acres have already been
transferred.
Let me remind the hon. member that CN as owner of the bridge
must restore this magnificent structure in order to ensure its long
term viability. I reiterate that the bridge is CN's responsibility and I
am confident it will fulfil its commitment as owner. CN has issued
tenders already for more than $1.5 million worth of work which
will be undertaken this summer. There will be other significant
expenditures by the company in the future.
As the hon. member is aware, the deteriorating physical
appearance of the bridge is due in large part to the thousands of
vehicles, the vehicular traffic that uses it daily. The hon. member
should urge his provincial colleagues to acknowledge that the
bridge's main purpose is a highway linking the north and south
shore. He should urge his provincial counterparts to sit down with
CN to negotiate an accelerated maintenance program that will see
the main users pay a fair share.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.55 p.m.)