CONTENTS
Monday, February 3, 1997
Bill C-300. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 7547
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 7553
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.40 a.m) 7553
The House resumed at 11.56 a.m. 7553
Bill C-60. Consideration resumed of report stage 7553
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7553
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7560
Divisions on Group No. 9 motions deemed demandedand deferred 7566
Debate on Group No. 10 7566
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7566
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 7567
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 7569
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 7570
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 7570
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 7570
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 7571
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7572
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7573
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 7573
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7574
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7574
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7574
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7576
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7576
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 7576
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7578
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 7578
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7578
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 7578
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 7579
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 7582
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 7584
Motion for concurrence in 49th report moved andagreed to 7585
Bill C-60. Report stage 7590
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7590
Debate on Group No. 11 7590
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7590
Divisions on motions deferred 7591
Bill C-57. Report stage 7591
Motion for concurrence 7591
Motion for third reading 7591
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 7602
Bill C-49. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 7602
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 7606
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 7609
7547
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 3, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, it is my duty to inform the House that
a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Stephen
Harper, member for the Electoral District of Calgary West by
resignation effective January 14, 1997.
Pursuant to section 25(1) (b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I
have addressed on Monday, January 20, 1997 my warrant to the
Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a
member to fill this vacancy.
Also, today is the anniversary of the fire in 1916 which
destroyed our original House of Commons. It is the wooden Mace
but it will serve, of course, today as always our symbol of our
authority to make laws.
_____________________________________________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 25, 1996 consideration of
the motion that Bill C-300, an act respecting the establishment and
award of a Canadian volunteer service medal and clasp for United
Nations peacekeeping to Canadians serving with a United Nations
peacekeeping force, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
good to be back again for another session. I am sure you have had
many anxious moments over the last few weeks wondering just
what was going to greet you when you got back to the House. To
think that I would be the first person to wish you a happy new year,
what a way to go. Happy new year, Mr. Speaker. It is only going to
get better after this in this parliamentary session.
This bill before us, Bill C-300, is a fascinating one which has
gone through Parliaments before. One of my colleagues, the
member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, thought that it was important
enough to bring it up again and finally do something about it before
the turn of the century. Therefore I am pleased that hopefully we in
this House will find unanimity and be able to move forward on this.
When we talk about peacekeepers we talk about an amazing
group of people willing to put their lives on the line, perhaps not in
active duty but in what we would call a safe zone. One wonders if
there is such a thing as a safe zone in this world. It is one thing for a
peacekeeper to say ``I am going in there to try to hold two groups
apart'', but when there has been strife and a great deal of human
pain and tragedy, it is very difficult to be the person who walks into
the middle to say ``here I am to try to keep peace''. It is essential to
make peace at the beginning but it is also important to be able to
keep the peace.
Canadian peacekeepers have an incredible reputation around the
world. Therefore to honour them and give them a medal for their
service is something that is long overdue. Hopefully we will be
able to put this bill through the House very quickly.
This medal would provide a distinct Canadian recognition for all
Canadians who have served with the United Nations peacekeeping
force by awarding a Canadian volunteer service medal for
peacekeeping, which is what we are focusing on today.
If we want to talk about the difference between active soldiers or
those who are involved in a fight, we may consider that
peacekeepers may not necessarily be involved in active fighting.
However, when the question is asked whether peacekeepers fight, I
think the answer is yes, they do. They fight for many things. They
fight for justice, order and maintaining the peace. One may say that
they do not have weapons in their hands but I think they have an
even more tenuous task because they do not have those defence
mechanisms but they do fight.
They fight fear and terror. There is no guarantee that they are
going to be safe in a safe zone. They may be lunged upon from
either side or both sides. Therefore when we say they are not active
fighters I would have to disagree with that. They fight fear, terror
and the unknown. The unknown is probably more frightening than
anything else.
7548
Those of House sitting in the House of Commons came in here
for our first day at one point, whether it was two or three years
ago or whether it was eight, nine, twelve or even thirty-three years
ago, but there was a first day for all of us and it was unknown.
It is the same for any student or teacher going into a new school
or someone going into a new business. It is the same for a
peacekeeper going on to a peacekeeping mission. They have a fear
because they are fighting the unknown. They are not sure what
is going to meet them there.
It is one thing to come in here and face adversaries in the House
of Commons but surely that is not as terrifying, although some
days it seems like it, perhaps even uncivil. However, to know that
you are there on the line trying to hold peace and being there as a
Canadian peacekeeper, one of the proudest in the world, not
knowing if either side that you are trying to hold apart is going to
go after each other, that is unknown and it is fear. It is also very
difficult.
Probably the most important fight that peacekeepers have is the
fight of loneliness. Perhaps they are not engaged in active battle,
but they battle loneliness. I believe that is one of the most insidious
forms of fighting that anyone ever faces. For those peacekeepers
who are thousands of miles away from home, family and friends
they do not have a cell phone at their beck and call to just ring
someone up and say ``Hi, I just wanted to tell you I love you
today''. They fight that loneliness of knowing if and when they will
ever get home again.
Mr. Speaker, you are not terribly far from this place, but for
those of us who come from a great distance I think we have the
same analogy in this House as well.
(1110 )
I have drawn parallels to that in some of these other areas, about
fear and the unknown, something which is a new situation. We
battle that as well here in the House of Commons. We battle and
fight against loneliness because we are thousands of miles from
home. We are away from friends. We are away from the people
who support us. That plane ride every Sunday is difficult for all of
us to take. We could multiply that for every peacekeeper who has
left our country's soil and gone on a UN peacekeeping mission.
Imagine how we would feel as we climbed on that plane.
I want to take my hat off today and talk about how important it is
that we recognize these peacekeepers.
Probably first and foremost, peacekeepers need to be honoured
because they have to work with a government which is unfocused.
The peacekeepers are not sure exactly what it is they are supposed
to be doing. How do they know they are doing their job when their
job description is not clearly laid out? They need to know what
their mission is. They need to know what their support system is.
They need to know what their staffing is. They need to know what
their equipment level is. If we were to ask many of them, they
would probably shrug their shoulders and say they are not quite
sure, but because they have pride and passion in what they are
doing to defend their country they are going to go ahead anyway
and do as much as they can.
Without trying to sound cynical, maybe it is harder for the
peacekeepers to work for and deal with the government than it is to
work in their peacekeeping situations. Maybe they deserve a medal
for that.
There are many veterans on the government side. It is important
for them to finally realize that we could give ourselves credit in the
35th Parliament for being the group of people who had the nerve
and the fortitude, the parallels, to be able to say yes, let us honour
these peacekeepers.
There are members in the House today who are nodding in
agreement. They are saying yes, we have watched this for several
years. As we get closer to the turn of the century it is important that
we finally do it. We should not just think about it and talk about it;
we should do it.
Let me say again that the last Parliament supported this initiative
through the introduction of two private members' bills and the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans
Affairs. They talked about the Canadian volunteer service medal
for United Nations peacekeeping. Some wars have begun and
ended while we have been talking about this in these hallowed
halls.
Let us do it. As we get closer to an election, the government has
the mandate to get this done now and put its stamp of approval on
it. Also, as we get closer to the turn of the century, we will be able
to say to our Canadian peacekeepers ``way to go, well done, you
have done a super job''.
At a time when the military has been going through such pain,
this would be a way of saying ``we celebrate you and we appreciate
the many things that you have done on our behalf''.
I want to talk about another thing that went through this
Parliament in June of 1991. At that time the Canadian voluntary
service medal for Korea was approved for the Canadian military
personnel who participated in that conflict. It was in addition to the
UN medal awarded to the veterans of the Korean war. It was a
terrific job and certainly something we needed to see action taken
on.
We are speaking specifically of our Canadian peacekeepers.
They have done a superb job in their United Nations peacekeeping
missions. They have fought well. They have fought nobly. They
have fought fear. They have fought terror. They have fought the
unknown. They have fought loneliness. They have fought the battle
for all proud and passionate Canadians when they were not quite
sure what their mandate was. I take my hat off to them. I trust that
all of us in the House will take our hats off to them today. I urge the
government to move ahead quickly and say ``yes, we will bind
7549
together in this House, regardless of political background,
regardless of political persuasion''. We are Canadians. Let us join
together under our Canadian flag, link arms and say ``yes,
peacekeepers, you have done a good job, we will award you with
the Canadian volunteer peacekeeping service medal''. We rejoice
because we trust that is happening.
I am a woman of faith. I am a woman of optimism. Therefore I
trust it will happen in this House today.
(1115 )
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Beaver River
for her kind words in support of this medal. I would also like to
recognize the person whose bill is on the table, the member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands, for his hard work to produce this program.
This medal has a lot of merit. It is long overdue. The thought that
is behind it is genuine. It is universal in nature and will certainly
fill a gap in the rights of those who serve to receive a medal.
Some things regarding the design elements will have to be
corrected, but that does not mean we are against the bill. Some
small amendments have to be made. Some of the design elements
of the bill are a little too specific, aside from usurping the authority
of the chancellery which it would like to maintain. The final design
needs to ensure that it will serve for some time and that it will not
just create another problem in a couple of years.
We want to see that this bill passes. The hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands has put his whole heart into this. Without
question the intent is honourable.
There are some the things we would like to see which could be
corrected very simply. If this bill could be moved to committee, the
committee could make the minor amendments that would be
necessary to take it forward. Then it could be brought back to the
House where I am sure it will receive passage on its return.
Certain things have to be looked at and I will pick up on them
more specifically: the protocol dealing with the chancellery, some
of the design elements which are minor and would require minimal
discussion. The rightful place to do that would be at the defence
committee. When the bill is brought back to the House with those
minor details amended, I am sure it will have the support of the
whole committee and of the whole House.
Other features this bill has deserve a lot of commendation. It fills
a gap. It recognizes the winning of the Nobel peace prize. It
recognizes actions thereafter. We would have to look at this being
fundamentally a base medal because Canada is getting so many
volunteer service medals or related medals that we would like to be
able to indicate the theatre, the area specifically. This medal would
continue to be given with a clasp designating the theatre of
operation. People could have the basic medal and pick up a fair
number of the theatre operation designations.
I commend the hon. member for bringing this forward and I hope
he will understand that if we could make these small changes the
House will give the bill speedy passage.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
excited to be back here. I am as excited as I can possibly get to
come back to Ottawa. I am so comfortable when I go back to my
riding, if I can use those terms, that it definitely feels like I am
away from home when I come back to Ottawa. I will get on with
my presentation, Mr. Speaker.
(1120)
It is encouraging to hear the parliamentary secretary support the
creation of this peacekeeping medal. I trust he will follow through
with his suggestion of just looking after some minor amendments
to make it happen.
It is my distinct honour to speak to Bill C-300 which is the
design of my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands. I support
without reservation the spirit and the substance of the proposed
legislation before the House today.
It has been said that this bill seeks to correct a wrong, to correct a
very serious omission of not awarding recognition in a formal
sense to the tremendous contribution that Canadian peacekeepers
have made. The bill asks that the Canadian government make
available a medallion and clasp in recognition of the bravery of our
peacekeepers.
If there is any question of the appropriateness of bestowing such
recognition one should consult history. I quote Commander
General Guy Simonds in 1942. He surmised: ``The final criterion
of a good or bad award is the reaction of the troops. If the troops
feel it is a good award, it is a good award. If the awards are
criticized by the troops, they are bad awards''. He goes on to say:
``Before forwarding any recommendation, at each level the
commander should ask himself the question `would the front line
soldier, if he knew the facts, consider this well deserved?'''
In light of General Simonds recommendation for the criterion
one should use in consideration of an award to the peacekeeping
personnel, there can be no question of the course of action we, as
parliamentarians, should pursue. We know that it was input from
the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association that moved my
colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands to introduce Bill C-300.
7550
I suggest that everyone in this House has a friend, an
acquaintance, who has served on a peacekeeping mission. In fact,
in my own riding, I have a consistent visitor, Mr. Ron Howard,
who has conversed frequently with the Department of National
Defence over this peacekeeping initiative. He has been keeping
me up to date on the feelings of the veterans, those who really
laid their lives down to make this world a better place. I respect
him for his persistence. I respect him for his consideration of his
fellow soldiers, his colleagues. I certainly respect him for his
dealings with myself in pushing me forward and keeping me
abreast of the concerns that many of the veterans have, especially
the peacekeeping veterans.
They appreciate their United Nations medals and it is their hope
and desire that Canada provide a distinctive recognition for their
peacekeeping efforts. It is therefore only fitting that a volunteer
service medal be awarded by the Government of Canada to
peacekeepers who have served our nation well. This legislation
would authorize the issuance of such a medallion.
I would also like to state for the record that there can be no
question that Canadians soldiers are the bravest in the world. Time
and time again our personnel have demonstrated ability and
courage under difficult circumstances and in perilous situations. I
think of Bosnia and some of the very tense moments when our
peacekeepers were nailed down and sequestered, even entrapped in
some areas in a very dangerous situation. They are recognized for
their bravery and courage.
It is noteworthy that in this legislation there are provisions for
the recognition of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
and other Canadian citizens who qualify. This is a significant and
proper recognition, given the increasingly perilous situations
RCMP officers find themselves in overseas.
I had the opportunity to ride back on a plane with a troop of
RCMP officers who had served in Bosnia. I do not think it is well
known that we have RCMP officers serving in that capacity,
teaching the rule of law to those in other nations where there is
conflict. Of course there is more recognition in Haiti.
(1125)
It is a tough situation to be in an area of conflict without any
weapons. Those officers inform me that often they were
sequestered in one room with really nothing to defend themselves
because of the conflict raging on around them. That is a tough
situation to be in. I believe that it is fitting to recognize them for
those brave acts. They are jeopardizing their lives by falling into
those circumstances.
The RCMP troops were sent over overseas to train fledgling
police departments the principles that are central to our democracy,
for example, the fair and unbiased application of the law and the
separation of politics from policing, something that is
unfortunately deteriorating in this part of the world. For that
reason the RCMP officers should, for their contribution to
Canada's peacekeeping efforts, be recognized.
In summary, I would like to state some of the obvious. There is
justification for looking at history and bringing it forward in a
manner so that it can be recognized by the public that there is a
need to recognize our soldiers. Among the reasons for supporting
this legislation is providing a distinctive Canadian recognition to
all Canadians who have served with the United Nations
peacekeeping force by awarding a Canadian volunteer service
medal, and to give recognition for the September 30, 1988 Nobel
peace prize awarded to Canadian peacekeepers signified by a clasp
on the medal's ribbon.
The 34th Parliament supported this initiative through the
introduction of two private members' bills. The standing
committee on defence and veterans affairs in a peacekeeping report
called for the establishment of a Canadian volunteer service medal
for United Nations peacekeeping. Another reason for support is the
endorsement of a distinct Canadian recognition for our
peacekeepers comes from the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans
Association and the Canadian Association United Nations
Peacekeeping Chapter.
There is a lot of support at all levels. Other countries, Belgium,
the Netherlands, Ireland, Ghana and the United States already have
distinctive national medal awards for peacekeeping. We would not
be alone.
Parliament set a precedent in June 1991 by approving the award
of the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea to its Canadian
personnel. This is, in addition to the UN medal, awarded to
veterans of the Korean war and a Canadian medal worn with a
ribbon shared with the Commonwealth countries of Great Britain,
Australia and New Zealand.
Recognition would not be limited to the Canadian forces but
would include the RCMP and other Canadians who qualify. I
believe that would be a wonderful addition because so many others
within our different agencies are risking their lives to support world
peace.
Finally, other nations such as Sweden and Finland are
establishing a medallion award for their peacekeepers. New
Zealand and Australia are also considering such an award. It is
therefore only fitting that Canada not be left out.
I urge my colleagues on the opposite side of the House to quickly
rush through whatever amendments would be deemed necessary to
quickly finalize this initiative by my colleague for Saanich-Gulf
Islands.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I begin by welcoming everyone back
to the House. I am sure we have all enjoyed a tremendous break and
7551
look forward, as the hon. member who just spoke, to very eagerly
returning to the House and working together in an enthusiastic and
co-operative manner.
(1130 )
Before I address the matter at hand I would like to congratulate
the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands for reaching this far
with his private members' bill. I know full well the hurdles one has
to jump in order to get this far. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you it is not
easy.
Moreover I would like to pay tribute to the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands. As I understand it he will not be seeking
re-election and I am sorry to hear that. He certainly is an
honourable member and a good friend. I enjoyed working with him
while serving on the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs, particularly on the Special Joint Committee on
Canada's Defence Policy. He has been a competent adversary and a
diligent politician. The House will miss him.
We know the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands put forward the
same bill in the previous session of Parliament. Unfortunately, like
so many other worthwhile private members' bills, it never reached
the end of the legislative process. As many members also know, I
spoke in favour of that bill then and I am happy to say that I support
this bill now.
However, I must qualify that by saying that the bill before us
now is not perfect. The concept behind the bill is commendable and
I agree with it. Our troops need to be treated with respect and as
such should be decorated for their service.
As we all know, Canada is world renowned for its international
efforts. That reputation has been over a century in the making.
Moreover since the second world war our participation in
international peacekeeping missions has enhanced our reputation,
as was said earlier here. I am not ignoring the recent revelations
about several incidents but I do think our entire Canadian forces
should not be marred by it.
The high quality of Canada's troops is envied around the world.
In fact it mirrors the quality of life in Canada in general. When
travelling abroad Canadians are welcomed more than people of any
other nation. The reason for that is our outlook on life. By nature
Canadians are fair, patient people. This applies equally well to our
troops.
We should not forget the accomplishments of the Canadian
forces. We should embrace them. A nation proud of its military is a
strong and united nation. I am not suggesting that we become more
like the Americans. I do not want us to look at our forces as flexing
our muscles. We leave that to the thinking of others. But we should
look at our forces as an example of what we can accomplish if we
agree to work together.
We should look at our forces as one common attribute. Our
military is a joint effort by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Without the participation from all regions, from all provinces and
yes, even from all communities, we have no national military.
Our reserves play a major role in providing a link between our
communities and our Canadian forces. This particularly was an
important aspect which received a lot of attention in 1995 when the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
reviewed the report by the commission on the restructuring of the
reserves. Numerous members of this House spoke out on how the
reserves expose the community to the military. Without it
Canadians would think less of the military than they do now.
Our military can be the foundation to rebuilding our national
unity. We should not look down upon them; in fact, we should look
up to them. They are willing to risk everything for the sake of not
only their country but someone else's.
Millions of Canadians during our history have given their lives
to protecting their country, but there have also been countless
Canadians who have given their lives going further than that. They
have given their lives to protecting not Canada but a foreign
country. It would be hard enough to put one's life on the line for
one's own country, but to put it on the line for a foreign country, a
foreign land, is an entirely different thing. For that reason we
should ensure that we properly decorate that service.
Some may say that there are a multitude of medals to award the
services of our forces. However there still exist some missions that
have yet to receive the proper decoration. Certainly our troops
serving abroad in UN led missions do receive United Nations
medals and ribbons, but I ask and the hon. member across asks, is
that enough? Should we ourselves not recognize that service in the
name of this country? Is it not appropriate for Canada to do like
other United Nations member countries and present its forces with
a distinctive Canadian medal for service in the United Nations
peacekeeping missions?
What is proposed here today can alleviate that problem. But as
legislators it is our privilege and duty to ensure that we do not
create one problem while trying to resolve another. Rarely is
anything as simple as it first seems, and this is no different. It is for
that reason that I am suggesting that we refer this bill to the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs or
better yet, to a subcommittee thereof.
(1135)
It has been said before in the House and elsewhere that this bill
has the support of various associations representing current and
retired members of the Canadian forces. I need not list them all for
7552
I believe their names have already been mentioned. But suffice it to
say that if these organizations and all the members within support
this bill, then perhaps it does deserve a thorough study.
This is further evidence for why the bill should be referred to the
committee because it deserves that. It deserves a close examination
of its objective, the process of achieving that objective, and
whether it will have the intended result.
With the indulgence of the House I would like to spend a few
moments providing some positive criticism of the bill. The
member's bill as it now stands dictates a very specific medal as was
mentioned earlier. However it does not include missions that are
not UN led. This may exclude people who I am sure the hon.
member intended to include.
What about our troops who have participated in NATO led
missions such as IFOR, the peace implementation force in Bosnia?
That, as we all know was a very difficult mission. It has been said
the mission was to uphold a very fragile peace. In fact, it has been
said that there was no peace at all at the time. However, I will leave
that debate to another time.
Nevertheless I think we have to be very careful not to exclude
some members of our forces who have participated in
peacekeeping missions led by either the United Nations or the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I firmly believe that if this bill
were to be adopted and such a medal awarded, it would be a grave
mistake to exclude some soldiers because their mission was led by
NATO and not by the UN and I do not think we should bias
ourselves on this issue.
Another aspect of the bill that we can improve is the detailed
specifications of the design of the medal. I mean the hon. member
for Saanich-Gulf Islands no disrespect when I say he has put too
much into this bill. The design of the medal as contained in the bill
is too specific. I hope the hon. member is open to some alternative
design specifications. This could be further examined during
committee hearings and a mutually agreed to compromise can be
achieved. There the committee members and the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands himself could hear testimony from various
witnesses and the list could include many people.
I also appreciate that several members have given consideration
to the cost of such an initiative, but I do not think we should lose
sight of why we want to do this. We should not let money
considerations prevent us from doing this properly. Yes, we should
look at ways of keeping the cost down but not to the extent of
negating the whole exercise.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would also like to speak in support of Bill C-300 and commend the
hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands for bringing it forward. I
hope that, as has been suggested, it will pass second reading
possibly without a vote, if we can all agree to send it off to
committee in a spirit of unanimity, to be studied there and possibly
improved.
However, to echo some of the concerns I have heard expressed, I
hope this is not a means by which the government, or at least some
members on the government side, hope to bury it in committee. I
hope it is a genuine desire to see the bill improved to address some
of its alleged imperfections and have it come back to the House and
passed so that indeed we can as a Parliament express through the
establishment of this medal the fact that as a Parliament and as a
country we appreciate and want to recognize Canadians who have
served in Canadian peacekeeping operations and perhaps in other
operations which are perceived in the same way but which may not
be technically peacekeeping or technically UN peacekeeping.
I hope we can do this quickly because we do not want to see a
situation that other veterans have found themselves in. It was not so
long ago, at the beginning of this Parliament, that I had a private
members' motion, not a bill, calling for the awarding of a medal
that would recognize the service of veterans of the Dieppe raid,
who for a variety of reasons did not receive the medal other
veterans received for serving in World War II. They waited for over
50 years for this kind of recognition. It eventually came as a result
of my private members' motion. It was not exactly what the motion
called for but it was a form of recognition.
It may indeed be the case that a similar thing will happen here
where the outcome will not be exactly what the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands has in mind. However, hopefully it will be
close enough or perhaps even improved in such a way that we will
all be satisfied with the result.
I commend the member and express my support and I am sure
the support of my colleagues in the NDP caucus. We look forward
to seeing this matter expeditiously dealt with.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It is my duty to inform the
House that if the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands speaks
now, he will close the debate.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as you will no doubt detect, there is a substantial amount of support
for Bill C-300 in this House. It is my fervent hope that the bill can
be referred to committee taking into account the thoughtful and
constructive criticism that has been presented not only in this
House but from people across the country who have familiarized
themselves with the bill and that we can bring it to fruition before
the 35th Parliament is dissolved for the election.
7553
As my colleague from Beaver River mentioned, this bill has
been proposed on a number of occasions by the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and by two
private members' bills in the previous Parliament. I think it would
be absolutely abhorrent to have this bill die before it was passed
into law.
With that I will conclude my address and seek the support of the
House for Bill C-300.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried. Accordingly, this bill is referred to the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to suspend the sitting until noon?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.40 a.m)
_______________
The House resumed at 11.56 a.m.
7553
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from December 13, 1996, consideration of
Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
and to repeal and amend other acts as a consequence, as reported
(with amendments) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 24,
25 and 26.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have an opportunity this morning to speak to Bill
C-60 at report stage.
(1200)
I think we need to refresh our memories, because it has been
more than a month and a half since we last discussed Bill C-60, a
bill that will have the effect of creating a Canadian food inspection
agency.
It will be a parapublic agency, rather like those school boards we
have in Quebec. This parapublic agency will be responsible for
setting standards for the safety, quality and manufacture of food
products.
The purpose of this bill is to consolidate the food inspection
services of three departments, which are the departments of health,
fisheries and oceans and agriculture and agri-food.
You will probably recall that in December, there was an aspect of
the bill that bothered opposition members, and I mean both the
Reform Party and the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois. I am
referring to the manner in which the executives of this parapublic
agency will be appointed. The president and the vice-president will
be appointed by the governor in council, and the president can
appoint an advisory board of 12 members.
You know as well as I do that the government of the Prime
Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, will appoint a Liberal,
and that the president will appoint a vice-president who will be a
Liberal as well. I hardly need to tell you what political affiliation
the members of the advisory board will have. So we have a nice
little board which the minister of agriculture or the governor in
council, in other words, cabinet, will be able to control.
This parapublic agency is a very important body because it will
employ some 4,500 people. I remind you as well that, to properly
prepare everything, under Bill C-60, the hiring rules would be
suspended for a period of up to two years. So the new agency,
which in theory is to begin operations by the first of April, is being
readied as a patronage haven.
We in the Bloc Quebecois have proposed amendments that
would significantly improve it, because there is obviously some
merit in the objectives. We do not, however, agree with the
government's underhanded approach to achieving its ends. I hope
the government takes a lot of interest in passing our amendments,
for the welfare of our fellow Canadians across the country.
By combining the food inspection services of these three
departments, we could save a lot of money. Overlap is often
criticized, but with this measure, if it is well administered, we
could save up to $40 million annually. That is a significant amount.
We salute the initiative, but not so much the way of going about it.
There is the issue of transparency.
The aim of the amendments we proposed in group No. 8 is to
have the new food inspection agency submit its business plan
annually to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
7554
(1205)
Bill C-60 provides for the president of the new agency to submit
his business plan to the minister of agriculture, who will have to
approve the plan within 15 days. In other words, the minister may,
as I said earlier, pull some strings in order to concoct a business
plan to his liking.
So, here is what we propose to do to amend clause 22. I would
like to read it to you so that all elected members of this House can
realize how important this debate is.
As soon as possible after the Agency is established and at least once every five
years after that, the Agency must submit a corporate business plan, for study, to such
committee of the House of Commons as designated or established to consider
agricultural matters for study by that committee.
After reviewing the agency's business plan, the committee
referred to in the subsection I just read either approves or rejects
the plan.
The Minister of Agriculture should not fear the Standing
Committee on Agriculture. Do not think for a moment that the
agriculture committee is controlled by Quebec sovereignists, or by
Reformers from western Canada; this committee is made up of
eight members of the Liberal Party, two members of the Bloc
Quebecois and two members of the Reform Party. Simple
mathematics indicates an easy Liberal majority of eight against
four, not to mention the fact that the Chair is also a Liberal. That
makes nine Liberals against four opposition members. It would not
be such a big deal, since it would involve not just a single
individual, but the committee as a whole. So we are dealing with 13
members. This way, the committee could become less of a
babysitting service for members and more useful as a place where
members of the various committees can take their responsibilities
and provide thoughtful advice to their-I am talking about Liberal
members of course-Minister of Agriculture, who is,
unfortunately, often out of touch with the realities faced by farming
communities across Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture, who hails from Saskatchewan, is
familiar with the particular difficulties associated with farming in
that western province. But when it comes to a highly diversified
agriculture like we have in the maritimes, in Ontario and in
Quebec, we have to forgive the minister because he really does not
know much about that type of agriculture.
So, this is the amendment I proposed in this House with the
support of the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane.
Another suggestion we are making here also has to do with
clause 22, but at line 9. I will read the amendment that we propose
and I hope Liberal members will consider it. I also hope they will
not follow the party line dictated by their minister and will not all
vote against the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.
any person from the agriculture, fisheries, food processing, food distribution and
public health sectors whom the Agency considers appropriate to consult;
The agency would not have to ask the minister's authorization to
consult groups other than those scheduled to be included in the
new agency. It would also be in a position to consult any provincial
government that makes a written request to that effect to the
agency.
All these reasons should convince hon. members opposite to
support these motions in amendment, which seek to improve Bill
C-60.
(1210)
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join the debate on Bill C-60, the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency Act, and to lend our support to the credible
proposals put forward by our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois.
While we do not always support them, and in fact object to many
of the principles for which they stand, it is enlightening to hear they
want to participate in amending legislation to make it good
legislation for the benefit of all Canadians. Therefore, we like to
see these types of proposals coming forward from our colleagues in
the Bloc.
In general terms, Bill C-60, the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency Act, unfortunately is another smoke and mirror policy by
the federal government where it says that it is doing something but
when you take a real good close look at it you find that it has done
next to nothing other than shuffle the numbers.
I think back to when the government created NavCan, an agency
to handle air navigation in Canada. It cost $200 million to provide
severance pay to the civil servants who lost their jobs on Friday.
Each and every one of those civil servants was hired back by
NavCan on Monday morning. The Canadian taxpayers came up
with $200 million in severance pay for those people and not one of
them lost his or her job.
The President of the Treasury Board could stand up in the House
and claim: ``We have reduced the size of the civil service by 6,400
people. That is a great and wonderful accomplishment''. In fact
nothing really changed except the name on the letterhead and the
name on the pay stub of the cheque. This is what I mean by smoke
and mirrors.
Once again an agency is going to be set up and these civil
servants are going to lose their jobs. They are no longer going to be
civil servants. They are going to get severance pay on Friday and
start working for the agency on Monday. Nothing will be changed
except the taxpayer will be poorer. We have been taken to the
cleaners once more courtesy of the policies put forward by the
government.
7555
The motions we are debating at the moment call for a business
plan to be put before the agricultural committee to tell committee
members how the agency wishes to follow through. Since the
agency is a creation of this House it seems only appropriate that
agency would come back to the House and tell us its business plan
because this House is going to be giving the agency or has been
giving the agency about $300 million a year to do its job.
With that kind of money we expect to know what the agency
intends to do and how it intends to do it. How is it going to do the
job better than it did it in the past? How is it going to be more
efficient? How is it going to be more productive? How are the
farmers going to be better served by this agency? If we, as
parliamentarians, are being asked to vote on this bill to give the
authority to spend taxpayers' money in some new way, then surely
we would expect the agency to come to this House and tell us how
it can do it so we can pass comment.
It seems to me, since this is a motion being put forward by the
opposition party, that the Liberals in a knee jerk reaction are going
to say no we do not want to hear about this. We do not want to see if
there is common sense or a lack of common sense in the way this
agency is being run. We do not want to know if there is waste,
mismanagement and incompetence in this organization. But there
will be because I have not seen accountability built into this
organization.
A group of farmers came to me some months ago complaining
about the way the government is building in the cost recovery to
these situations. I agree that if the government, through its
agencies, is providing service to a group of people, there should be
some element of cost recovery thought about and maybe built into
the system. That cost recovery program dealt with farmers. The
situation was the approval and the licensing of animal feed to
ensure that it met the appropriate standards.
(1215 )
I have no problem with our regulating to ensure that the feed we
give to animals will not harm individuals as it flows through the
food chain for human consumption. However, on the cost recovery
methodology that is built in, there is a huge bureaucracy that they
wanted to recover the cost of. If they had five applications a year
for a new feed to be licensed, the cost of this huge bureaucracy was
spread over five applications. If they had 50 applications in another
year the cost was spread over the 50 applications. The size of the
bureaucracy did not change whether it was five or fifty
applications. They were just going to pass their cost on to the
unfortunate consumer of their service who happened to pick a bad
year for applying for a licence.
That is not being accountable to the consumer. That is being
arrogant in the way we can dictate and legislate what people have
to pay. It means that they do not give a hoot about the service they
provide. They are just going to legislate that everyone will pay for
their costs but will have no input into their cost. People will pay the
bill because they cannot avoid the service being provided by
government. That is wrong because we need accountability.
The private sector has accountability through competition. I
have attended seminars in Victoria where we had public accounts
committees from across Canada and representatives from the
United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and
various other countries to try to wrestle with the issue of
accountability.
I found that in other areas of the world the capacity to create the
kind of competition in a market where civil servants have to ensure
that they are delivering a competent service, that the price is
reasonable, that the quality is good in order for them to keep their
job, because that is how it works in the private sector, it does not
matter what service or product one produces or sells, if one does
not provide good service and quality at a reasonable price they will
not be in business.
Government has to learn the same attitude. We need to have
good quality, good prices and good services. However, it comes all
the way back to what we have talked about here for the last three
years, the lack of accountability in this House, the lack of
accountability by the government over there and the fact that it has
ignored the needs and desires of Canadians, the lack of integrity
that we have seen from over there, the fact that it has not been
responsible in managing the affairs of this country with the $600
billion debt that we have accumulated.
We see it more again in the way the government has addressed
this bill. Accountability, integrity and responsibility are three
individual words that this government has not heard of, has not
thought about and has no intention of living by. However, if we
were to have that in the legislation that has been brought before this
House we would have a government that listens to the people and
meets the needs of the people in food inspection, in eliminating the
GST, in expense accounts that are proper and just everywhere, in
inquiries that are set up because the government wants to shuffle
paper and bad press on to an inquiry and then when the inquiry-I
am thinking of the Somali inquiry-becomes an embarrassment,
the government shuts it down.
Accountability, integrity and responsibility, the overarching
theme that every government should think about but which this
government has never thought about. We see it again in Bill C-60. I
cannot think of anything more accountable for an agency than to
have a business plan brought before Parliament for our opinions
and input in order that we can see that it is going in the direction
that we had anticipated when we gave it this authority. That speaks
volumes in the way this government, even in the small things,
ignores the wishes of Canadians. That is why we need to see real
change. If there is not a change in this government then let us
change the government at the next election.
7556
(1220)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-60 at report stage.
Members will recall that this is the bill that will establish the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Before we broke for the holidays, we saw that under this bill the
federal government's involvement in this sector would be reduced
from three services to a single agency. Members will also recall
that this sector comes under provincial jurisdiction. It was
nonetheless felt that at last the federal government was doing
something constructive after years of being urged to take action.
The bill needs to be improved, however. It is with this in mind
that the Bloc Quebecois has presented the series of amendments
regarding the corporate business plan and the form of consultations
to be held in connection with the plan.
Why is the corporate business plan important? It is important
because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency must submit to the
minister a multi-year plan outlining what it intends to do, its
planning strategy. In the bill as it appears, without the amendments,
this plan is submitted to the minister. There is no other form of
consultation. It is not submitted to the House of Commons, or even
the agriculture committee. Nor is there any obligation to consult
industry or the provinces. There is not, in our view, sufficient
consultation of the auditor general.
Often, viewers wonder what the purpose of this consultation will
be. It must be remembered that the agency will play an important
role in the competitive aspect of the agri-food industry in Canada.
Now that we have an increasing number of international markets,
and the prospect of increasing trade in agri-food products, the way
the government structures its inspection activities will have a direct
impact on the entire industry's production costs.
It is therefore important that this corporate business plan meet
more than just the agency's criteria of efficiency and effectiveness,
perhaps very, very stringent standards, which is desirable, but
which would not, however, necessarily take into account the
situation in the various regions of Canada, and of Quebec. It would
also not take into account comments from industry. This can be
seen in a number of sectors.
I will give you an example that I think is significant. In the dairy
production sector, the milk subsidy is quietly being phased out.
More and more pressure is being put on the dairy industry to be
cost-effective, yet there are fewer and fewer positive federal
government programs. Such programs will be absolutely necessary
where inspection is concerned.
When the Food Inspection Agency submits its action plan to the
government, it will be important for that plan to take into account
that, yes, cost savings must be made, but our industry also needs to
be given sufficient support. A balance must be struck between
these two elements.
The present wording of the bill does not do this. It does not, for
instance, allow the agriculture committee, on which all parties, as
well as all regions of Canada, are represented, to gather input from
MPs who have been given all manner of comments and suggestions
by their constituents. If the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
business plan were tabled in that committee, that would be the time
for this to be done.
Let me take the question of slaughterhouses as an example. The
Food Inspection Agency will, perhaps, have a Canada-wide view.
There may be a regulatory approach to slaughterhouses which
meets the requirements of the major ones in Canada, but
consultation with the MPs might perhaps provide a different point
of view, a view of the particular situations of regional
slaughterhouses. This type of consultation by the agriculture
committee would, in our opinion, make a substantial positive
contribution to the quality of the Food Inspection Agency's
business plan, which would then clearly reflect the reality in all
parts of the country.
The provinces are another sector it is important to consult. Let us
keep in mind that both levels of government are involved in food
inspection.
(1225)
Years ago, provincial governments, and especially the
Government of Quebec, did their homework and established
adequate systems for monitoring the quality of food inspection
services.
The federal government is restructuring, but if there is no proper
consultation when the corporate business plan is drafted, as there is
in any system, this may cause the following problem: the federal
agency will want to expand and take its responsibilities very
seriously, and there will be areas of friction with the provinces. If
these areas are not cleared up before, as part of a consultation
process that is not necessarily costly, this may lead to legal
problems, court proceedings and confrontation.
The agency may also be in a situation that often makes no sense
at all, where you have two inspectors at different levels of
government doing a job that is practically the same or very similar.
The private sector is sick and tired of this duplication.
I think that with proper consultation before the corporate
business plan is implemented, we could avoid a lot of grief.
Quebecers and Canadians would certainly be better off with food
inspection services that reflect the real situation.
Elected representatives should be asked about the situation that
exists in their ridings, the provinces should be consulted to avoid
friction between the federal government and the provincial govern-
7557
ments and we must ensure that all programs that are supposed to
assist companies are helpful and not a source of red tape.
Look what happened in England with mad cow disease. Since we
may face a similar emergency in the future, the agency's corporate
business plan must allow for such contingencies. Because of
financial constraints, the plan may tend to overlook such situations
and fail to provide for these exceptional cases, but it is important to
allow for such occurrences and include provisions in the agency's
action plan.
Why can we not rely on the minister alone? This is no reflection
on the competence of the minister or on any person who will be in
that position. Open consultation on food inspection is just as
important as the heart of the question.
This is an area where the appearance of justice and equality and
the fair handling of situations are just as important as the essence of
the issues. We must make sure that Canadians and Quebecers have
faith in their quality control system, know it is closely monitored
and understand that it is beyond the grasp of political meddling.
If the agency submits its business plan to the minister only,
obviously, the minister will try to protect the government and its
interests. He does not necessarily always have all the information
he needs to monitor a sector like this one countrywide. Our
international reputation is at stake. We must make sure that at any
given point our system is beyond reproach and provides a
satisfactory guarantee to consumers not only in Quebec and Canada
but around the world. It has an impact on various other sectors. We
must not forget that food inspection is part of an industry's
development programs.
We often speak of genetics programs and of research and
development. If the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's corporate
plan makes minimal provision for research and development and
the sector's monitoring methods, we risk, in the medium term,
running into problems.
Some things are not of primary concern to the people in food
inspection-that is as it should be-but they are to the people in
research and development in the agri-food sector. These people
must be given the opportunity to express their views and the fact
that experiments may need to be conducted, but not necessarily
under the same rules as a product to be marketed.
There are all sorts of considerations like this, which, in our
opinion-and I think the Reform Party shares our opinion-point
to the fact that consultation as planned with the minister only is
inadequate. This bill requires considerable improvement. It
requires improvement to ensure that Canadians who see the
agency's business plan can say: ``This plan has been seen by
members of the standing committee, the industry and the
provinces. The result is truly the product of a consensus and of the
actions proposed by the entire population''.
(1230)
In conclusion, I consider the amendments very reasonable and I
hope the Liberal majority will accept them so that, in the end, we
will have a better bill.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend the
opposition for bringing forth amendments which they feel will
improve the bill. That being said, there is a little misinformation
about what the roles in Parliament are and the latitudes each has.
When we look at the bill and the agency which is being formed
in this case, the ultimate person responsible is the minister. There is
absolutely no question that if there is a problem with the agency, if
corrections have to made, if budgets have to be altered and if some
things have to be changed, the ultimate responsibility falls on the
minister and the government. In the amendment the suggestion is
that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri-Food be the committee to deal with the approval of the
administrative budgets and the approval of the annual reports.
Quite frankly, it is the responsibility of the committee of the
House of Commons to examine every aspect of operations in
government affairs. Very clearly, the standing committee on
agriculture can bring forth any issue. It can bring forward the issue
of a business plan. It can deal with that with every industry across
the country. It can deal with that with every provincial government
across the country. And it can clearly deal with the agency. It is the
standing committee's authority given by the House to deal with
those issues and bring them forward to the public, discuss them and
allow public input.
In fact what is being suggested in the bill goes beyond the
latitude of standing committee operations. It is being suggested
that the standing committee must approve government operations
for which it is not responsible if something goes wrong. It is
responsible to the House to investigate issues and make
recommendations to the ministry and to the House. There is a
misconception about the responsible role of each person in this
type of government. That is unfortunate. Again I would point out it
is extremely important that the final approval be given to the
minister so that the minister can act very quickly.
Food inspection is very, very important to that industry in this
country. There is no question that when we ran into some
difficulties over food inspection, the minister and his ministry
acted very quickly and immediately to make certain the problems
were dealt with properly. That is why it is important for the
minister to be
7558
ready to act at any time. We do not put other vehicles in the way of
swift action.
The Canadian government has always put food safety as a
priority and will continue to do so. There is no question that we
have a worldwide reputation for dealing with issues swiftly and
conclusively and making certain that Canadians have the safest and
best food supply in the world. The minister and his ministry are
responsible for that.
If it happened that the House of Commons standing committee
would deal with those issues as has been suggested by the
opposition, we would have to set up a very large portion of full time
staff to deal with consultations across the country, with added
expenses to the government and to make certain that hearings are
held across the country.
This has been particularly well set out in Bill C-60. It is my
understanding that every province in the country supports the fact
that this agency will be of crucial importance to the agricultural
community in those provinces. All industries across this country
support our position with regard to agencies. When we look at it,
we have consulted with all of the provinces and the industry. We
are accountable through the minister and through the questioning in
this House as well as the public hearings that are carried on in the
House of Commons standing committee.
(1235)
Clearly, the support of the provinces and industry in this agency
is very important. I might underline the fact too that there is no
question that outside reporting agencies such as the auditor general
have to comment on the concerns within this bill. Therefore, there
is no question that the accountability for this agency is there
through the minister's office, through the auditor general's office,
through the processes of public consultation, through the
department as well as through the standing committee.
I cannot see how we can support this motion. It certainly does
not fulfil what I would suggest is the role of responsible
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): After a break of several weeks,
Mr. Speaker, the names of the various ridings do not come to us as
easily. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish
you happy New Year.
The three motions made by the Bloc Quebecois regarding this
bill, which are part of Group No. 8, are very worthwhile motions.
Why is that? Because as the legislation stands at present, all that is
required is for the agency to submit a business plan to the minister.
That is not enough in our opinion because these provisions have
caused considerable controversy within the industry. There is a
distinct lack of transparency.
This is why, concerned with improving the bill and making a
positive contribution to the legislative process, the Bloc Quebecois
asks that everything be submitted to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture. This seems to be the thing to do because this is all
new: three former federal inspection services amalgamated into a
single one coming under the agriculture minister's authority.
Granted, that is a good thing. And the opposition did not object to
the consolidation of three federal agencies. That is not the problem.
In this whole process, it is clear that the Minister of Agriculture
wants to retain as much power as possible. This is a tendency we
have been noticing for a few months with this government, a
tendency to have responsibility rest with a minister instead of with
the governor in council. You know as well as I do that the
expression ``governor in council'' means cabinet.
Now, under Bill C-25, I think, for what had been the normal
process so far to be operative, the phrase ``by order of the governor
in council'' will have to be included, for particular matters to be
discussed in cabinet from now on. More importantly our motions
seek to ensure that they at least be submitted to the members of this
House who sit on the agriculture committee so that they can
examine whatever changes the minister may want to make from
time to time.
We will support the good ones; opposition members do not sit
either on the various committees or in this House to object to
changes that may be positive, worthwhile. There is a another
condition however, and that is the drift of the second motion. The
agency should be required to consult both the farming industry or
the agri-food sector as a whole and the provinces; in fact, all
concerned.
(1240)
Should this amendment be rejected, there is currently no such
guarantee provided in the legislation. We believe such a measure
would protect the future of the agri-food industry. It also concerns
the health sector, however, since the inspection of food has an
impact on health.
I am a now member of the Standing Committee on Health, and I
care a lot about public health. It is necessary to inspect food. Just
think of what happened in certain countries, Great Britain, for
instance, with the whole problem of the mad cow disease. An
agency such as this one must be able to protect public health; it
must have public health as its main concern. This is why it must
operate properly and have credibility. And in order to have
credibility, consultation and transparency are required.
We could make other analogies. When it comes to controversial
issues relating to health, such as the tainted blood scandal-and I
am not only thinking of Canada, but of the western countries-any
7559
process relating to health, including the inspection of food, must be
credible and transparent. People must have confidence in it.
We are not trying to be aggressive. We are not proposing things
to make a big fuss. We want the public to feel confident about the
food it consumes, thanks to the presence of a federal agency. I am
from Quebec and I am still a sovereignist, but I care about public
health.
Again, we do not oppose the agency, particularly since such a
change was made in Quebec in 1978. I know what I am talking
about because at the time I was the press secretary of Quebec's
agriculture minister, Jean Garon. I can name him, since he does not
sit in this House. Jean Garon set out specifically to eliminate
duplication.
Before the holiday season, I rose in this House, not to lambast
the government, but to express a regret that the proposed change
had not yet taken place. As I said, such a cleanup was done almost
20 years ago, by merging responsibilities in the food inspection
sector.
This is basically what I had to say to support the amendments
proposed by the hon. member for Frontenac who, like the hon.
member for Lotbinière, also a member of the Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food, made an extraordinary and
sustained effort. These two members often raise this issue within
our caucus and with members from other parties, to make people
more aware of the agriculture and agri-food sector, because it is
sometimes forgotten. A large number of us live in urban centres.
However, the agri-food industry is very important for all of us,
since it has to do with our food, with good food and good health.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I wish you a long and healthy life.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-60. The federal Liberal government is giving the
minister the power to appoint the president, the vice-president and
the 12 members of the advisory board. In addition, the president
has the right to review the direction and policies of the agency.
If the minister is allowed to appoint the agency's president, its
vice-president and the 12 members of its advisory board, he can
also control the agency as well, by influencing its overall policies.
None of this is very reassuring when it comes to the transparency of
our federal government.
The Bloc Quebecois's amendment quite rightly suggests leaving
it up to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, a
committee of this House, to appoint the 12 members of this
advisory board and to see that the agency is run properly.
(1245)
This will ensure impartiality and transparency, since this
committee, like the others, is made up of members of the various
parties.
In addition, our partners would be invited to recommend
appointees, our partners being the provinces, or representatives
from the agricultural sector, in short people for whom agriculture is
paramount and who have a stake in the sector.
While we are on the topic, why do we not think the advisory
board would be representative of the weight of each province?
Democracy means one person, one vote. But in the Canadian
confederation, one province does not necessarily mean one vote.
Not all provinces carry the same weight. Since the province of
Quebec represents 25 per cent of the population of Canada, ought it
not to have three representatives out of the twelve on the advisory
committee? It would be common sense for there to be
proportionality, and therefore greater fairness. Let us not forget that
Quebecers who make up this 25 per cent pay 25 per cent, or some
$30 billion, to the federal government.
For as long as we are part of Canada, I will defend the interests
of my fellow citizens of Quebec. We will come here to seek what is
due to us, to demand what is ours. In short, then, Quebec is fully
justified in calling for three representatives on this advisory
committee and in demanding to be consulted on the other
appointments. In business terms, some would say Quebec is a
major shareholder, with at least one-quarter of the shares.
I would like to draw your attention to another aspect of Bill
C-60: allowing the minister to approve the business plan. Again,
why would this not be submitted to the members of the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food? This would lend more
vitality to that committee, which plays a lead role in drawing up
government policies. I say this without a great deal of enthusiasm,
since we all know that what Liberals want is to pull a fast one on us.
The Liberal government is in a hurry to get its bills passed, so that
it can then do favours for its friends.
What we want to see, obviously, is for the positions of president
and vice-president, and the others jobs in the agency, to go to those
who are best suited for them. Provinces and organizations
representing the interests of the farming community should submit
candidates for these positions to the committee, and be consulted
de facto.
Unfortunately, in this area, as with the Constitution, the
approach is unilateral. That is the lesson to be drawn from this. I
trust that historians, when dealing with the reign of this current
Liberal government, will speak out on this.
We are fed up seeing the federal government use its
constitutional prerogative, royal prerogative even, to make
appointments. This is not always a good thing. One needs only to
look at the unsavoury situation resulting from the appointment of
Jean-Louis Roux as Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec. Now we
know the disastrous results of that decision, and I shall say no more
on the matter. I am not using examples from the time of Sir John A.
Macdonald or Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but from the current term of the
Liberals. Wait and see the critical analysis of the Liberal years
historians will be making a few years from now. It will be a real
hoot to read them on
7560
screen, for nothing will be on paper any more by that time. We are
entering the era of the information highway, McLuhan's global
village.
Still in the same vein, the purpose of our amendments is to give
more power to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food. We want the committee to advise the minister on all
matters relating to the mission of the Canadian food inspection
agency. We also want the advisory board to respond to all questions
submitted by the standing committee of this House.
(1250)
We think it is very important that not only the minister but also
the committee be able to examine the agency's action plan. If two
heads are better than one, why rely on what one minister has to say?
This is no reflection on the minister, and I am sure he understands
that.
To achieve maximum transparency in what the agency does, it is
imperative to involve the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food. Why is the government afraid to give this committee a
say in the agency's appointments, its business plan and what it
does? If we want transparency, if we want everything to be crystal
clear, we must be prepared to do what is necessary to achieve this.
It is all very well to preach, but we must also practice what we
preach.
Consider also that putting the agency's plan before the members
of this House may make the public more aware of the meaning of
democracy. It is often said that people are losing interest in public
affairs, and the result is a lack of involvement. Did you ever
wonder why? Could it be because we fail to tell our fellow citizens
what we are doing? Because we keep them out of the
decision-making process? Because we want to go too fast and
consulting them or delegating authority would slow down the
process? Sometimes when a decision has to be made by a group,
everyone in the group tends to look after his own interests.
Briefly, in addition to its insistence on transparency, the
amendment we are seeking is quite straightforward and logical: the
corporate business plan is to be submitted to the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and not only to the
minister. Second, the business plan should come before the House
of Commons so that the people's elected representatives can give
their final approval.
Regarding Motion No. 25, the Bloc's amendment suggests that,
before submitting its plan to the minister, to the agriculture and
agri-food committee and to this House, the agency should consult
its partners, that is to say the farming industry, the provinces and
the appropriate unions. This will give a better product, or business
plan.
I do not have to remind you that, this way, we will ensure that the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency's corporate business plan will
have a much better chance of striking a consensus. Without these
consultations, the public and those who use these services are
likely not to be well served.
After all, we are here to serve the public and, furthermore, the
agency will reassure Quebecers and Canadians about compliance
with food safety regulations and, to a point, about their health.
The Speaker: My colleagues, pursuant to the order made on
Thursday, December 12, 1996, motions in Group No. 8 are deemed
to have been put to the House and the recorded divisions deemed to
have been requested and deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to debate on Group No. 9.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you are
absolutely right. We are now debating the motions in Group No. 9,
which were proposed by the opposition and which seek, as I
pointed out earlier, to improve Bill C-60, an act to establish the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
The clerks at the table in front of you have included four motions
in Group No. 9, namely motions Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30, which
impact on clauses 24, 26 and 27.
(1255)
For the benefit of government members, I will discuss each of
these motions. I will try to show their merits and also ask members
opposite to support these motions which, again, seek to improve
Bill C-60.
Motion No. 27 deals with clause 24, which reads as follows:
24. (1) Subject to the regulations, the Minister may fix the fees to be paid for a
service or the use of a facility provided by the Agency.
The goal here is cost recovery.
In committee, government members and senior officials told us
that it was not their intention to recover every penny spent on the
inspection or monitoring of premises, such as a bakery, a fish
processing plant or any other similar business.
No details are given in this clause, to which we in the Bloc
Quebecois are proposing to add, in lines 5 to 8:
24.(1) Subject to the regulations, the Minister may, on January 1, 2000, fix the
fees to be paid for a service or the use of a facility provided by the Agency.
7561
If we are to take seriously what we were told, to the effect that
they were not after cost recovery immediately, why not spell it
out? Our amendment stipulates that the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food may not institute new cost recovery mechanisms
before the year 2000. That is what they want, but they do not want
to put it in writing.
We are proposing that it be included in Bill C-60. If you are
serious, if you mean what you say, do not be afraid to include it in
the bill. This is what we are proposing. We will support you.
The senior officials responsible for establishing the agency told
us, when they appeared before the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food, that it was not their intention to collect
fees before the year 2000.
I understand that, on the eve of an election, the agriculture
minister would not have public servants go after individual or
corporate users for every last cent of the cost of inspecting their
facilities and their procedures. But after the election, given the
finance minister's obsession with eliminating the deficit, this same
minister who is making cuts right and left, who is sparing no one in
his quest for money, will surely look for some little way to recover
user fees. We are therefore asking that clause 24 state that no
recovery may be attempted before January 1, 2000. This is what we
were clearly told in committee.
The second motion, Motion No. 28, involves clause 26. We are
proposing that, before fixing a fee under section 24 or 25, the
minister consult with the advisory board.
(1300)
As I have just said, the advisory committee is appointed by the
President, and the President is appointed by the Governor in
Council. So, we have the following chain reaction: a Liberal
President is appointed; the Liberal President appoints a Liberal
Vice-President; the President and Vice-President, both Liberals,
create an advisory committee which will, I can well imagine, be
composed of 12 Liberals.
Something similar has, moreover, already happened in my riding
just recently, when the new returning officer was appointed, a
member of the federal Liberal Party, a director of the Quebec
Liberal Party, as well as a key organizer of the last Quebec
referendum on the future of Quebec. Of course, he got his reward
for this. He was André Pomerleau, whom I had the pleasure of
meeting last week, when he recommended I start looking for
enumerators, since the national enumeration ought to start in
mid-April. A good Liberal, as you see.
Also appointed was the daughter of Dr. Lecours, the head of the
unemployment insurance board of referees. Dr. Lecours sat for
three years in the Quebec National Assembly, on Premier
Bourassa's Liberal team of course.
I could list dozens and dozens of other appointments, like the
one involving the former Liberal member for Lotbinière, Jean-Guy
Dubois, who sat in this House from 1980 to 1984, and then Brian
and his team came along in 1984, and the Liberals took a serious
drubbing. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, how your majority in
your riding of Kingston and the Islands melted like the snows in
springtime.
After four years, Jean-Guy Dubois was dumped by the voters,
but he was appointed to the Superior Court. It is also a nice reward
for him. The only inconvenience, as he told reporters, is that he will
have to leave Victoriaville et reside in the fine city of Longueuil.
Moving to that city is what he finds the most difficult, and this is
not much of a compliment for the population of Longueuil.
I now come back to Motion No. 28 amending section 26.
26.(1) Before fixing a fee under section 24 or 25, the Minister shall consult with
the advisory board and may consult with any persons or organizations that the
Minister considers to be interested in the matter.
This is what we propose to add to this clause.
We suggest that the president and the minister be empowered to
consult with other persons before fixing the costs to be recovered
from the user-payer. They should, for instance, consult with
industry, fishers and farmers, but also with consumers since at the
end of the user-payer chain, consumers are always the ones who
have to pay the extra cent for what the federal government is
getting.
This is precisely what happened when the federal government
announced, in the 1996-97 budget, that it would cut the subsidy to
producers of industrial milk. It was then said: ``If you cut it today
you will have to pay 10 cents more per pound of butter, 30 cents
more per pound of cheese''. It has already begun.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to talk about Motions
No. 29 and 30, but one of my colleagues will probably do so.
(1305)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the amendments we are suggesting in this group are along
the same lines as those in the previous group.
As you may recall, the food inspection agency will replace three
government services with somewhat overlapping responsibilities.
There is a concern on the part of the government to clarify these
roles.
However, much remains to be improved in this bill. I hope the
government will listen to our suggestions on how to make this
legislation the best of its kind. The purpose of the group of
amendments now before the House is, first of all, to ensure these
changes are not sprung without warning on the agri-food industry
and thus ensure there will be no cost recovery before the year 2000,
so that companies have time to adjust, to consider the
7562
changes that will be made and make their operating costs reflect the
fees to be introduced by the food inspection agency.
I think it would be very wise on the part of the government to
include such an amendment in the bill. Just look at what is
happening in another sector where cost recovery has been
introduced in a way I would call somewhat ruthless. I am referring
to all the fees connected with navigation, especially on the St.
Lawrence.
In this sector, the government decided to recover the cost of
de-icing, of navigation aids, buoy maintenance, and so forth. The
government proposed certain measures which were directly
opposed to what the industry wanted, by obliging the industry to
absorb year after year additional costs which had not been included
in their planning.
In the food inspection sector, we have a wonderful opportunity to
avoid this kind of mistake. Let us send a message to the agri-food
industry, telling them that until the year 2000, there will be no
recovery of additional costs. Tell them they will receive fair
warning and there will be consultations. That is what we are
proposing in the other amendments requested by the Bloc
Quebecois in group 9, in other words, to ensure that consultations
are held on service fees and on facilities, products and the rights of
the agency, so that everyone who has something to say on the
subject can do so. We must not end up with absurdities like we have
in the case of ice breaking fees, where the industry says it is quite
prepared to pay the cost, but perhaps things ought to be cleaned up
a bit first.
I think that the food inspection agency in its first year, just
starting out, and having to integrate the three government
authorities that existed before, would have a hard time increasing
fees and asking people to pay more in its start up year, when things
have to be amalgamated and operational decisions made.
As there was a certain desire to privatize food inspection, we
must make sure that market rules are obeyed and that when
agri-food businesses are asked to pay they receive a quality
product, guaranteed at the best price, without the fee structure
being used to justify an inflated cost. Once the three government
authorities involved in this sector are integrated, there should
necessarily be economies of scale. Otherwise, the entire bill would
be a waste of time and nothing would be settled.
We must make sure that savings are made where there were three
authorities in the same sector or in parallel sectors, with similar
functions. Let us give the industry time to adjust. Let us send it a
clear message.
Let us tell it that, as of the year 2000, significant changes will be
made and that there will be consultations on the matter so that, on
both sides of the table, industry, government and consumers are
clear about the standard for services in food inspection, what their
cost will be and who will pay for them. Industry may have some
interesting suggestions.
We might perhaps even contract out to the industry the
inspection of certain products and then monitor afterwards, while,
in other sectors, the monitoring should come first. There should be
a daily production. It depends on the agri-food industry sectors.
I think the government would come out ahead if it set itself a
period for consultation to ensure that the fee structure reflected
what people want.
(1310)
We must ensure that there is adequate consultation of another
group, the provinces, because the establishment of the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency does not change the fact that both the
provincial and the federal levels are involved here. We have
already congratulated the federal government for having said that,
from now on, at least there will be only one player instead of three,
but there are still a lot of areas where both levels of government
will be working in very close proximity, and it would be utterly
ridiculous to end up with completely different fee schedules for
similar tasks. It would be illogical, for example, for a province to
charge $100 for one type of activity while the government charged
$150 or $200 for the same type of activity; the industry would have
difficulty understanding such a thing.
Moreover, consultations could lead to one of the two levels of
government dropping its activities in one area; for instance, there
could be only one inspector acting on behalf of both governments,
and, by completing the proper forms, a firm would not have to
provide information simultaneously to both governments on
different forms, as is now the case for the environment. We must
make every effort to avoid this type of situation. The way to do so
is to hold proper consultations with provinces. Once the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency is created, it will integrate the various
government services in its first year of operation. It should
therefore be given enough time to consult with provincial
stakeholders to ensure the industry's interests are protected.
The last amendment seeks to ensure that the proposed
regulations will be studied by a parliamentary committee. In the
area of food inspection, it is not enough to be right and to conduct
the inspections properly; the process must also appear to be fair so
that the general public can have confidence in the tools they are
given. For the people's representatives, that is, the members of
Parliament, parliamentary committees are a very good forum for
this type of consultation.
We believe that, when the government thinks about proposing
regulations concerning tariffs, for example, these regulations
7563
should be submitted to a parliamentary committee so it can express
its views as a public advocate. It would present its arguments for or
against the proposed tariffs and consider the benefits of having
different tariffs for different regions or different products. These
are some of the issues that the people's representatives, or
members of Parliament, can discuss. They can ask questions and
cast a critical eye on the government's actions and on tariffs, so that
consideration of the relevant views expressed will give greater
legitimacy to the government policy on tariff regulations. This will
prevent any subsequent criticism. It will also prevent legal battles
because the fee structure will have been submitted to the public
through the consultation process; therefore, when it takes effect, it
will be impossible to accuse the government of having acted
unilaterally.
I ask the government to look at this group of amendments from
the same viewpoint as the previous one, where we said we must
ensure that food safety standards are adequately covered in the
agency's corporate business plan, and that proper consultations are
held with regard to this corporate business plan, to ensure its
credibility throughout Quebec and Canada. Moreover, in the
context of that corporate business plan, the present group of
amendments is more precise on the subject of fees because it deals
with the issue of whether the corporate business plan will ensure
that no one will pull a fast one on the processors, that people will
not be surprised by a fee structure causing such cost increases that
businesses could question their own future.
Let us say for example that we propose an inadequate fee
structure for regional slaughterhouses which would make these
businesses non competitive; will we have helped the agri-food
industry with such a measure? I think not. The way to prevent such
a situation is to submit the fee structure to public scrutiny.
Let us hope the government will support our amendments on this
point.
(1315)
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise for the second time to speak to Bill C-60, an act to
establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. As agreed with my
colleague from Frontenac, our critic in this area, I will deal with the
amendments in Group No. 9.
But first I would like to extend my best wishes to my colleague
from Champlain, currently hospitalized in the Hôpital régional de
la Mauricie, who is quite concerned by this kind of issues dealing
with agriculture. Farming is the mainstay of a good part of his
riding, especially the whole area north of Cap-de-la-Madeleine,
and I know that he too would have liked to speak to the bill again
today.
I particularly want to send him my greetings as he is to undergo,
maybe today, a major operation for which he is well prepared. He is
very confident and we are looking forward to welcoming him back
here.
I also want to mention my colleague from Frontenac, the Bloc's
agriculture critic, who has done a tremendous job on this issue,
working long hours and making numerous amendments to try to
improve this bill we do not support.
We disagree on a fundamental point, namely the food inspection
issue, and I would like to digress a moment to show how important
this issue is, even though it is not a spectacular one. It concerns the
health and safety of every Canadian, every Quebecer, on a daily
basis.
When we talk about food, we are talking about everybody's daily
life. We should probably pay more attention to this bill than we
have so far, because it will have an impact on all of us in our
everyday life. This is a public health issue. When we are talking
about food, we are talking about public health and the ability to
achieve one's full potential. Unfortunately, right now, a food
inspection agency is still the privilege of so-called developed
countries.
That is why any change we make should be made after
thoughtful consideration, because they will reflect on our so-called
developed society. We must remember that three persons out of
four in the world, perhaps even four out of five, do not have
well-paid public servants to inspect or otherwise monitor what they
eat everyday. It is hard enough for them to get any kind of food,
even something not subject to the controls provided for in this bill.
Yet, we still disagree with this bill, because we consider that it is
not the business of the federal government. According to the
Canadian Constitution, this area comes under provincial
jurisdiction, especially in Quebec, where food inspection was
reorganized in 1978, in much the same way as proposed in this bill.
Indeed, when we talk about this food inspection agency, we are
talking about a merger of services which already exist within the
Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They will
now come under a single agency and be the responsibility of a
single minister and department, namely Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
(1320)
I remind you that this has already been done in Quebec: there
was a consolidation so that there would be no duplication, to
prevent a restaurant from having, within two or three days or
during the same week, one, two or three inspectors come in, disrupt
things and invade the place by demanding, with all the paperwork
and energy this implies, that such and such document be filled out,
always for the sake of the public interest. Except that, while the
7564
restaurant owner or other manager is doing this, he is not doing
something else, and this may jeopardize service.
This is a jurisdiction that already belongs to the provinces, and
which Quebec, in particular, has assumed very well, and we cannot
see why the Government of Canada would get involved, when the
public interest is already well protected by the Constitution.
It is all the more annoying to see how the minister is going about
managing this agency. Like the Liberals and their proverbial
solidarity-we know how the Liberals can help each other in all the
provinces of Canada-the bill provides that the president, the
vice-president and all the members of the advisory board working
within the agency will be appointed by the minister, without any
mention of an adequate representation for Quebec, that is, 25 per
cent of the membership-and this could have been written into the
bill-or the representation of some groups, such as the UPA, that
are greatly involved in agriculture or food on a day-to-day basis.
The minister has taken upon himself to make discretionary
appointments, using criteria that may be his own. We know how the
Liberals think, how their feelings are deep when they want. The
Liberals have credentials in that respect; just think of the outdated
mechanism by which returning officers are appointed in Canada.
These days, and you know it as well as we do, the basic
requirement is past or present membership in the Liberal Party of
Canada or service as association president or vice-president, and
we will not name names.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Is that still going on?
Mr. Rocheleau: Yes, it is. You know that this kind of criterion
no longer exists in Quebec. Competitions are held and there are
several selection stages; as a result, out of x number of candidates,
one is selected on the basis of the applicable criteria and this is as
neutral a process as can be, while in Canada, the selection method
used is a toss between antiquated and imperialistic. To know that
the Liberal Party is present in every backroom of the Canadian
government is to understand why, today still, positions as
influential in our democratic system as that of returning officer are
being filled by individuals whose main qualification is the fact that
they belong or used to belong to the Liberal Party of Canada.
This in itself is reason enough to voice any concern we may have
about the establishment of an agency with an advisory committee
whose president and vice-president are appointed directly by the
minister.
It is also baffling to realize that the entity created by merging
these three departments responsible for food inspection will
operate on a $300 million budget, according to our information.
This represents a $44 million reduction, probably to please the
Minister of Finance, whose objectives you know as well as I do.
So we end up with $44 million less and 600 fewer inspectors
who used to work in the fisheries, agriculture and health
departments. If I remember correctly, there used to be 3,400
inspectors, 600 of whom will be eliminated. How can we be
expected not to worry about the quality and quantity of services
that will be offered in the public interest, in an area essential to the
very functioning of any society, especially against our claims of
being a civilized and developed society, when faced with cuts of
600 jobs and $44 million, affecting, as I said earlier, all Canadians
and Quebecers in their daily lives?
I hope this kind of comment will be heard so that the public
interest can take precedence over any other interest in this matter.
(1325)
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear
from the comments of the last speaker that he shares the same
concerns as our ministry, the safe food supply for Canadians. There
is no question that issue will never be compromised by this
government or any other group of people who represent people in
this country. I would certainly say that we have shown a record in
the past and we continue to show a record that the safety of
Canadians is number one.
However, only in government would someone suggest that the
people responsible for a whole operation, the people responsible
for the operation of government, are not the people who should be
setting fees, looking at the costs and looking at the expenses. But
that they would take the setting of fees, they would take the
operations and push them off to somebody else on a side group. I
find that suggestion quite disconcerting.
There is no question that the minister must retain the
responsibility of setting fees to any operations in government, not
just this agency, but all other operations of government because
circumstances change, times change and with those changes there
need to be adjustments. Who better than one who consults with
industry, the provincial parliaments across this country, with every
part of the country to make certain they are up to date with all
actions? Who better than the minister to set the fees and set a
proper structure in place?
I certainly question the thought raised here that the minister
should give up the whole operation of setting fees and making sure
that our operations are efficient. At the same time I must point out
very clearly that there were concerns raised about how quickly fees
would be changed and therefore the minister made a very clear
commitment that once the agency is up in operation, in order to
study and analyze what is happening, internally with our fee
structure, the kinds of consultations that are required, he would not
7565
alter or change those fees until the year 2000, which is a pretty
strong commitment by the minister.
The minister therefore has said once we have the agency up and
operating we will look very carefully at how the system operates
and we will take a long time to consult with people, making certain
that the abuse of industry, other governments in the provinces and
others who are affected across this country, namely the consumers,
all have their voices heard and brought forward to the ministry.
It is consistent with our policies in health, in industry and in
heritage. We have similar processes in place. As a result, the
processes that we are talking about here are consistent with the
other government agencies and therefore I believe it makes our
whole operation in government much easier to understand.
The amendment to the bill suggests consultation is an important
part of fee structuring. It suggests in that change that every group
affected be consulted before any changes occur. Imagine the legal
ramification if someone comes forward and says ``I am a consumer
and I was not consulted, therefore any change to that fee structure
is illegitimate''. It certainly does not make sense to say that every
person who possibly could have a concern must be consulted.
At the same time, consultation is extremely important and we
have various vehicles by which we do that consultation on a daily,
monthly, weekly basis all weeks of the year.
(1330 )
There is no question we try to make certain the industry is kept
aware by newsletters we send out, by professional publications and
by gazetting information. We make certain we have face to face
meetings with the people who are affected. Certainly if we make
changes within any industry, we have consultations with them. We
take their concerns into account. We definitely make certain that
the consumer organizations are involved in these processes. There
is no question the government takes very elaborate steps to make
sure the consultation process is always ongoing and that the
concerns of industry, governments and consumers are always
filled.
I must say that this consultation has proven to be very good for
the government. As I stated before, with this legislation coming
forward we know we have all provincial governments onside, we
have the industry itself onside. We have allowed it to come and
consult. We also had open hearings at the House of Commons
agriculture committee in which all kinds of concerns came
forward. The government acted upon those concerns and tried to
make certain that those concerns raised were dealt with properly in
this legislation.
There is no question we look at this in a very serious way. We
want to make certain that everyone in this country who is affected
is treated properly with open information and that we act upon their
concerns. There is no question the minister places a priority in
making certain that the health of this industry is maintained.
Through his consultations he takes into account their concerns and
acts upon them in a very quick and important way.
When we deal with issues that affect public safety though, we
must make certain that all cautions are there to make certain we
still maintain as a world reputation food safety and we make certain
that the supply of food is there. From our track record over the
years, we have and are looked upon as the best food production
country in the world. That is why we can ship products anywhere in
the world. Certainly they are well respected and well received
everywhere they go. There has never been a question nor will there
be a question because we put a top priority on inspection and
safety.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is always
interesting to listen to the comments of the parliamentary secretary
on how this government is so accountable to the people it serves.
We are talking here about the right to be consulted when the
government wants to increase fees regarding the agency that is
being set up. The parliamentary secretary went on at great length
about how everybody cannot be consulted. I read the motion and it
did not say he had to consult with everybody but only with the
advisory board and he may consult with other interested parties.
That gives a great deal of latitude which the parliamentary
secretary just rejected out of hand by saying why should he bother.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): They only consult
with the Liberal membership.
Mr. Williams: That is right. I was interested in one of the quotes
he made. Let me quote the parliamentary secretary who was talking
about the consumers who would say: ``I am a consumer and I was
not consulted on this issue''. That was the rationale he gave for not
allowing this motion. He would be required to consult with
everybody. He said that rather than being required to consult with
everybody, why not consult with nobody? He said that if people
thought they had not been consulted as consumers, they would be
outraged, and rightly so.
Let us replace the word consumer with the word taxpayer.
Taxpayers are not being consulted by this government and they are
outraged. During the last election they were told that the GST
would be axed, scrapped and abolished and they now find that this
harmonized HST is being imposed upon them. The taxpayers were
not consulted by this government. Their opinions were absolutely
ignored. They were trashed.
The government said: ``Your opinion does not count. We decided
that you did not understand what axe, scrap and abolish meant.
Therefore you are going to have an HST or a BST rather than a
GST. This still means you are going to pay 7 per cent plus
7566
provincial tax, plus more tax through harmonization''. The
taxpayers were not consulted.
(1335 )
Now the parliamentary secretary says: ``I do not want to consult
the consumers who are going to be affected by this organization
because they may have an opinion that is different than the
government's. That is why I do not want to listen to them. That is
why I do not want to hear from them''. Do we call that being
accountable? Do we call that integrity in government? Do we call
that being responsible to the taxpayers? I do not think so.
That is why this type of arrogance demonstrated by the
government in Bill C-60 has got to stop. That is why ramming
other legislation through this House by using time allocation has
got to stop. That is why this government has got to start listening to
the people who say: ``What about me? What about me and my
family? Do I not deserve to be heard?'' They deserve to be heard.
They deserve to be heard every time this government introduces
legislation or makes a major initiative.
When the parliamentary secretary says: ``I am not that excited or
interested in talking to the consumers. I do not need to consult
them'', the arrogance contained in that type of statement speaks
volumes. That is why I hope this government will listen to the
objections being raised on this side of the House so it can realize
that there are valid and necessary changes to this piece of
legislation.
The situation is that as soon as a bill is introduced in this House,
the government whip says: ``What is on the table is what you vote
for. We are not interested in hearing what goes on in this House. We
are not interested in hearing what MPs on the other side of the
House bring back from their constituents who say there are some
valid and responsible changes that can be made to this legislation''.
These are the types of things this House is supposed to debate.
We find that this process is a sham in that the bill as tabled is the
bill as proclaimed because this government will not tolerate a
contrary opinion expressed in this House even though that contrary
opinion is a valid opinion that has come from the people on the
streets, the taxpayers of this country who are being squeezed to
death every day, more and more to pay for this type of legislation
that we know is smoke and mirrors. It is not designed to improve
efficiency. It is not designed to downsize government. It is not
designed to ensure that service is improved. It is just the idea that
the government can say it is doing something when in reality when
we look behind the scenes it is doing nothing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Pursuant to order made on
Thursday, December 12, 1996, all questions on the motions in
Group No. 9 are deemed to have been put and the recorded
divisions deemed demanded and deferred.
The House will now proceed with the debate on Group No. 10. In
accordance with the motion adopted as aforesaid on December 12,
1996, all the questions are deemed to have been moved, seconded
and put to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
now debating motions in Group No. 10, which seek to improve Bill
C-60.
I see that members opposite are smiling, but they should listen
instead, they should read our motions and take a close look at them,
because these motions are aimed at ensuring the well-being of
consumers, who are the ones at the end of the food chain.
Consumers are the ones who are paying and who will continue to
foot the bill.
The clerks at the table in front of you have included three
motions in Group No. 10, namely Motions Nos. 31, 32 and 33. In
the nine minutes that I have left, I will try, for the benefit of all
elected members of this Parliament, to explain each of these
motions originating from the official opposition, the Bloc
Quebecois.
(1340)
We seek to amend clause 31 by replacing line 29 on page 9. The
minister may remit all or part of any fee fixed under section 24 or
25 or under any act that the agency enforces or administers by
virtue of subsection 11(1), and the interest on it.
Incidentally, we would also like to see in this clause a provision
requiring the president of the food inspection agency to submit a
report to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food,
within a period of one year. I can hear government members sitting
on the committee say: ``He is raising this issue once again''. I am
raising this issue once again because, among the elected members
of this Parliament, those who sit on the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food are the ones who have the best
knowledge of this issue, given that most of them used to farm in
just about every sector and region in the country. Some used to
grow grain, others were in the poultry or the beef industry, while
others still, such as the very knowledgeable member for Malpeque,
were active in the dairy industry.
Given its membership, our committee has the required expertise,
knowledge and know-how. This is why we would like to see Bill
C-60 state clearly that the president must submit his annual report
after 12 months at the latest, because under Bill C-60 as written, the
he could wait 4 or 5 years before doing so. No precise date or year
is given. We pointed this shortcoming out to the senior officials
7567
who appeared before the standing committee, but no deadline was
deemed necessary. Adding one would definitely improve the bill.
(1345)
We move on to Motion No. 32, which reads as follows:
That Bill C-60, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42 on page 9
with the following:
``(c) provide a report to the President, the Minister and such committee of the
House of Commons as is designated or established to consider agricultural matters
on the audit, opinion and assessment.''
Thus, it is clearly mentioned to whom the president must submit
his annual report.
Motion No. 33 also refers to clause 32. We are proposing to
improve subsection 32(1) as follows:
``32.1 Before providing the report under paragraph 32(c), the Auditor General of
Canada shall consult (a) any person from the agriculture, fisheries, food processing,
food distribution and public health sectors whom the Minister considers appropriate
to consult; and
This is not clear in the bill, as it says: ``any government of a
province that has advised the Auditor General of Canada, in
writing, of its wish to be consulted''.
Bill C-60 is a major bill, and it will have a decisive impact on all
Canadian consumers. The purpose of our amendments seek to set
deadlines for submitting the documents outlining the agency's
management and administration. It must be remembered that,
knowing the finance minister, he will require the agency to recover
its operating costs. You can see where this all leads: what might
cost 1 cent to begin with will end up costing 10 cents, and the
consumers will have to pay.
I see here some of my colleagues who seem to be smiling when
they hear me say that there will be an increase of 10 cents a pound.
I am well aware that, for some of us, the weekly food basket does
not make a big dent in the family budget, but for most of our fellow
citizens, putting food on the table eats up a very large portion of the
weekly pay cheque of one or both bread winners.
These amendments also seek to revitalize the role of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food by giving it
priority with regard to assessment and consideration of the
agency's accounting documents, and most of all the role of the
auditor general.
Therefore, we want to require the auditor general to consult the
groups directly involved with the agency in order to ensure that
senior management or the agriculture minister are not trying to
hide disturbing facts.
You will find me tiresome about this, I know, but I must insist. I
come back to the make-up of the Food Inspection Agency.
The president will be a Liberal; the vice-president, another
Liberal; on the advisory board, the 12 members will be Liberals
and, moreover, hiring rules are being suspended for two years. So
you can imagine who will fill the management positions. In the ten
provinces and the two territories, the management positions will be
filled-and I see you do not seem to be surprised by this
statement-by more Liberals.
(1350)
I would remind the House that, last week, three judges were
appointed to the Quebec Superior Court. One of them comes from
the beautiful area of Victoriaville, in the wonderful riding of
Lotbinière. I see that my hon. colleague from Lotbinière is smiling;
he will be losing one of his constituents, with little regret if any.
The appointee made some commendable efforts during the last
referendum, but met with little success, since he was well known to
the voters. Jean-Guy Dubois is being raised to the bench in
recognition of his long-standing service.
I know full well, Mr. Speaker, that being on the bench is not one
of your wishes, but I think you would make a good judge with that
smile of yours; and you have the right political stripes.
Finally, I want to say that one can never be too careful when
putting forward amendments, since patronage could become
rampant within the agency, which would not, of course, be in the
best interests of the consumers of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this first day back from
the Christmas break to the very important issue of food inspection,
specifically Bill C-60 and the amendments that are before the
House.
We are debating group No. 10 which is comprised of motions
Nos. 31, 32 and 33. I have heard it said that no issue is more
important for the government and the Canadian Parliament to deal
with than the issue of food and food inspection. Along with such
things as the air we breathe, the water we drink and shelter in our
harsh northern climate, food is one of the staples which maintains
life. It is an important subject.
I would like to say at the outset that the Reform Party, in dealing
with these three motions, supports motion No. 31. It would add
more accountability. As everyone knows, Reform Party members
in the 35th Parliament have stressed accountability of government
in its operations on an ongoing basis. Therefore, anything that
7568
could be written into the legislation that would bring about a
greater degree of accountability is certainly supported by members
on this side of the House.
During an intervention on this bill by one of my colleague's
some government members from the far end of the House, from the
so-called rump section of Parliament, said: ``What about us? Do
not forget about us down at this end''. He was referring to the fact
that the government consistently does not listen to people on this
side of the House. I would add that those in the rump section are not
listened to as well. They are possibly even more annoyed than we
are. It shows us the value of being a Liberal backbencher,
especially those who are sitting in the rump section of the 35th
Parliament. They are never listened to. It must be incredibly
frustrating.
We support the intent of motion No. 32 as well. However, we
oppose motion No. 33. We are not opposed to the intent of the
motion, however, it deals specifically with outlining how the
auditor general should do his job. We feel that should be left to the
auditor general. We have supported everything which that office
has done in the past and we will continue to support the
involvement of the auditor general in all aspects of holding
governments accountable. We support the intent of the motion,
however, we feel that motion No. 33 goes a bit far in instructing the
auditor general in the way he should do his job. We think he is
doing a terrific job already and does not need that type of
interference or direction.
Reform members oppose the bill. The intent is quite admirable.
The government wishes to consolidate and enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of federal inspection services related to food,
animal and plant health, and to increase the collaboration with
provincial governments in this area. It is certainly an admirable
goal. It is one which all Canadians would support. However, we do
not see the details of that in the bill.
My concern is that, once again, the government, as it has time
after time in the past, is passing umbrella type legislation and will
bring in the details and the regulations later. We are supposed to
take the government at its word and trust that it will accomplish
those stated objectives and goals. We have very deep and grave
concerns about that because all too often in the past that has not
happened. The government has a grandiose plan of how it is going
to accomplish certain things. It brings in umbrella legislation,
passes it, and then we are stuck with regulations that do not work,
which are simply shuffled through by order in council. That is why
we are in opposition to the bill.
(1355 )
No provision for a detailed breakdown of the cost savings has
been provided by the government. We do not see how a decision
can be made about such an all-encompassing bill without that type
of detail being brought forward.
We heard statements by the parliamentary secretary earlier when
he was speaking about group 9 amendments that the government
will make a commitment to take a long time-he emphasized the
word long-to consult with all the stakeholders and that the bill is
consistent with Liberal policies. I suggest that is because the policy
of the government is the status quo. It is taking a long time to bring
in legislation which Canadians have been demanding and insisting
upon. That is certainly a concern.
While the government seems to move at a snail's pace in some
areas, in others when it finally makes a decision it shuts down
debate, as was indicated by my colleague earlier. It brings in time
allocation or closure and shuts down the democratic process in this
place once it decides the direction it wants to go.
Since this is our first opportunity to speak since returning to this
place after the Christmas break, it is very interesting that the
minister for defence invoked closure on the Somali inquiry. He
shut down any further debate.
I made a comment in a newspaper column which I write back in
my riding of Prince George-Peace River that I think the hon.
minister confused the operations in the House of Commons with
the operations outside of the House of Commons. The government
has become accustomed to bringing in time allocation and shutting
down debate in this place. Now it wants to elevate that one step
further and do it across the country. I find that despicable and I
believe most Canadians are concerned about that type of operation.
As I have said on this group of amendments, we support the first
two amendments and oppose the third. That is the official position
of the Reform Party.
The Speaker: Since it is just about two o'clock we will proceed
to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
7568
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Laval West): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the family of
Father Guy Pinard, who was tragically killed Saturday while
celebrating mass in his parish of Kampanga, in Rwanda.
This news has caused great sadness in the whole country and
particularly in Quebec where Father Pinard was well known. We
have lost a man of exceptional courage and dedication.
His assassination is even more tragic considering that it
happened in the country to which Father Pinard had dedicated a big
part of his life. He was so attached to that country and to its people
7569
that he had gone back there last year in spite of dangers he was
fully aware of.
(1400)
We deplore this barbaric act which has aroused indignation
everywhere. The people of Rwanda, who knew how good a man
Father Pinard was, share our feelings.
I ask everybody to pay tribute to this missionary, for whom a
commemorative service will be held next Wednesday at the White
Fathers' chapel, in Montreal.
* * *
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to express our profound
sadness on learning of the assassination yesterday morning in
Rwanda of Father Guy Pinard, a Quebec missionary from
Trois-Rivières, who had worked in that country for 37 years. Father
Pinard was parish priest in Kampanga parish.
He was the third Quebecer belonging to a religious order to be
killed in Rwanda. Father Claude Simard was killed because he
apparently knew too much about the 1994 genocide, and Brother
François Cardinal was killed in 1992 after speaking out publicly
against the diversion of Canadian aid to benefit the Rwandan
government.
This tragic event is a reminder to us of the devotion and, in
particular, the courage of all those working abroad to help the
poorest inhabitants of this planet.
In my own name, and on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois, I would like to express our sincerest condolences to
Father Pinard's next of kin.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, POWA, the program for older worker adjustment,
provides monthly financial support for older workers unable to find
work a year after a major permanent layoff.
The mine in Port Hardy, B.C. closed in 1995. Seventy older
workers in good faith and after years of hard work and faced with
no job prospects in the North Island immediately made application
for program assistance. They qualified as a group.
In October 1996 it was announced that federal support would end
for any new applicant. However, now it is unclear that the funding
commitment to approved applicants from 1995 and early 1996 is in
play.
I want to put the government and the Minister of Human
Resources Development on notice that retroactive cancellation of
financial support is unacceptable. These older miners qualify for
and have a longstanding expectation to receive the benefits of the
program. If the government offers a program it must fund it.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
when Brian Mulroney negotiated the Canada-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement he said ``don't worry, Canadian culture is exempt from
free trade''. When the Liberal government signed on to NAFTA
and the World Trade Organization, it said ``don't worry, Canadian
culture is exempt from free trade''.
The World Trade Organization has ruled that culture is not
exempt from free trade, a conclusion not surprising to anyone who
ever honestly analysed these agreements and the agenda they serve.
But the Minister for International Trade, about this stunning defeat
of decades of effective public policy, gives the usual Liberal
answer: don't worry.
This defeatist answer has led to much speculation about who is
in charge of Canadian cultural policy, Canadians or American
business interests. But when we look at the surrender on trade
policy, at the decimation of the CBC, at the sale of the RCMP's
image to Disney and the appearance of Disneyland on Canadian
postage stamps, it is clear why we have such a Mickey Mouse
cultural policy: Mickey Mouse is actually in charge.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to salute over 2,000
athletes from over 80 countries who are taking part in the sixth
Special Olympics World Winter Games.
The World Winter Games is the largest multi-sport event that
will be held this year and Toronto and Collingwood have the
honour of hosting the athletes and the games. These games are
about the triumph of the human spirit. Everyone who competes in
these games is a winner because winning is not just about medals,
breaking records or beating your opponent. In these games winning
is about having the chance to compete, feeling the joy of the sport
and overcoming challenges.
To the athletes, their coaches, their families and all the
volunteers I extend my best wishes for a fun and memorable six
days of friendly competition.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.):.):
Mr. Speaker, on
January 10 the Saugeen River flooded, affecting the people of
Durham, Ontario in my riding of Bruce-Grey. Thankfully no
injuries have been reported but over 200 people from some 100
residences had to be displaced during the worst of the flooding.
7570
There are still 12 people who cannot return to their homes and 10
seniors who have had to vacate their seniors' housing complex.
Despite the adversity, the people of Durham showed great
courage during that flood. I want to pay special tribute to the
volunteers and the relief workers who offered the victims both the
good work of their hands and the comfort of their spirits. Durham
Mayor Kris Kennedy is also to be commended for taking swift and
decisive action to protect public safety. I also want to thank the
soldiers from the Militia Training and Support Centre at Meaford
for their work and assistance.
This tradition of neighbour helping neighbour is not new in my
riding; in Bruce-Grey lending a hand in times of difficulty is the
rule and not the exception.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently had the honour to attend a very special meeting featuring
Roger Moore, otherwise known as 007, James Bond. Roger Moore
is honorary chairman of the UNICEF/Kawanis campaign to combat
health problems caused by a lack of iodine in one's diet.
Iodine deficiency is for the most part a problem in developing
countries. It is the source of cretinism, which impairs physical
development, and can lead to serious mental disabilities.
Approximately 655 million people suffer from goitre and 43
million have preventable brain damage from an iodine deficient
diet.
(1405 )
Roger Moore praised Canada for the humanitarian work this
country has demonstrated to date. Since 1991 CIDA has
contributed $28 million in order combat iodine deficiency
disorders, making this country one of the largest international
donors for this very important cause.
But governments cannot do it alone. That is why we all wish
UNICEF/Kiwanis much success on meeting its objective of
eliminating IDD by the year 2000.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Jonquière, André Caron, is with us
no more. On January 10, after a hard fought battle with cancer, he
found peace. We will remember this unassuming man for his
courage, of course, but also for his profound sense of justice and
respect for others. We will remember him for the outstanding
rigour and professionalism with which he handled the various
dossiers assigned him.
Always ready to be of service, always there when required, he
enriched our socio-political thinking through his particularly
perceptive reading of the Quebec people.
A man of principle and determination, he spared no time or
effort in serving his fellow Quebecers.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois caucus pays a final tribute to André
Caron: ``André, you were a great Quebecer and we thank you. You
example and your memory will guide us on the road to our own
country''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, other members will speak in
tribute at the end of question period.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if you have had the chance yet to read a very interesting
new book called
Double Vision: The Inside Story of the Liberals in
Power. I wish there were time to read the whole book into the
record, but I will give an example from page 133 which tells the
story of the department negotiations with the finance minister
leading up to the budget of 1994.
More than once when officials reminded the minister of
promises in the red book he yelled: ``Don't tell me what's in the red
book. I wrote the goddarn thing and I know that it's a lot of crap.
Don't be a slave to it''.
Well, this book certainly blows the whistle on the government-
The Speaker: My colleague, I would remind you that we cannot
say with someone else's words what we cannot say here in the
House ourselves. I would judge that with those words you are
coming pretty close. I will ask you to sanitize whatever is in that
book if you are going to finish.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well,
the book certainly blows the whistle on this government and in case
you missed the title, it is Double Vision.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
older Canadian women are encouraged by their doctors to get a
mammogram every second year because mammography screening
is the best technique we have for the early detection of breast
cancer.
Good mammography requires high quality mammographic x-ray
equipment, highly trained technicians and qualified radiologists to
read the results.
7571
In Canada there is a voluntary accreditation program available
to those responsible for mammography units, but after five years
of the voluntary program's existence only 37 per cent of these
units have passed the standards.
This is not good enough. We need national standards for quality
assurance in mammography. Canadian women need to know that
the mammography unit they visit is accredited or certified and
meets the highest possible quality assurance standards. Canadian
women deserve nothing less.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the community action program for children, CAPC, is a
Health Canada program which provides funds to community
organizations that deliver direct services to those families that need
it most.
In my riding, Maggie's Place is a family support centre that
promotes positive parenting and offers programs in budgeting,
nutrition, self-esteem for parents and social development for
children. These services are essential to the mental and physical
well-being of many families in Cumberland-Colchester.
(1410)
The CAPC program has been effective and efficient in delivering
services to low income families and poor children across Canada. It
is imperative that we as a government make a renewed funding
commitment to this program which is helping thousands of
deserving Canadians in the fight against child poverty.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, February has been designated Black History Month. All
over the country, people will be honouring the contribution of
people of African origin to the development of Canada.
This month we honour the accomplishments of many African
Canadians so that young Canadians realize the role that these
figures play in shaping equality and in the multicultural nature of
this country.
I want to pay special tribute to someone who passed away about
two weeks ago, Lloyd Perry. He was a community worker, the
Official Guardian of Ontario, someone who belonged to such
organizations as the War Amps, who received several awards and
several honours as a black Canadian who made several
contributions.
At this time, this House should be well aware of the
contributions of people like Lloyd Perry and others who have given
so much to this country.
* * *
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians were saddened on New Year's Day to learn that music
legend Hagood Hardy had died after a courageous battle with
cancer at the age of 59.
Canada has indeed lost not only one of our greatest talents but a
respected national ambassador. With his music and passionate love
for Canada, Hagood proudly and elegantly represented our country
to the world.
Over the years, Hagood won the hearts of many not only with his
talent but with his grace and humanity. He was a gentleman in the
true sense of the word. His contributions to Canadian music earned
him three Juneau awards.
In 1992 Hagood was awarded the Order of Canada for both his
music and for his endless charitable work. Several days before his
death, Hagood displayed his uncommon grace when he treated
radio listeners in Toronto to a final live performance of his
signature song ``The Homecoming''.
Despite obvious pain, he insisted on playing, demonstrating the
kindness, courage and love of music that led to his national and
international acclaim.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, all this week, the Special Olympics for athletes
with mental disabilities are being held in the Toronto area.
This year's Winter Games bring together more than 2,000
athletes from 73 countries in five disciplines: downhill skiing,
cross-country skiing, ringette, figure skating, and speed skating.
From the first Special Olympics, held in Chicago in 1968, our
athletes have always brought honour to us.
I send a particular greeting to the only member of the Quebec
delegation, Josée Bournival of Saint-Étienne-des-Grès in Mauricie.
I encourage everyone in Canada to follow the progress of our
athletes in Toronto.
We wish the best of luck to each and every one of these athletes.
They certainly deserve our full admiration and encouragement for
their participation in these special Games.
7572
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the greatest
failing of the government.
When the Prime Minister came to power in 1993, he promised
Canadians accountability, integrity and responsibility. Since then,
the government has broken its GST promise, mocked the
unemployed, botched the Airbus investigation, gagged the Somalia
inquiry and stonewalled the tainted blood investigation.
If Canadians, through their House of Commons, are to hold this
government accountable for such abuses, they need the tools to do
the job. These tools include free votes in this Chamber, unfettered
committees, citizens' initiatives, referenda and the power to recall
elected officials.
This is the way to fix the system to restore accountability,
integrity and trust to our parliamentary institutions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week, Lise Thibault was sworn in as the Lieutenant-Governor
of Quebec.
Mrs. Thibault is a great Canadian, and a great Quebecer. Her
unswerving devotion to her fellow citizens has made her a lady
whom everyone respects.
(1415)
I am sure that all of the members of this House join with us in
sending our most sincere congratulations to the
Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, along with our best wishes as she
assumes these new duties.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to draw your attention to the outstanding performance of
the latest Team Canada mission. This two-week visit to three Asian
countries made it possible for the Canadian delegation, led by our
Prime Minister, to conclude nearly 180 different agreements worth
more than $2.13 billion.
This fourth mission by Team Canada included, in addition to the
Prime Minister and nine provincial premiers, more than 400
business people, education professionals, municipal authorities and
young entrepreneurs.
Team Canada missions are a very effective way to help develop
new markets for Canadian companies, in addition to stimulating
job creation at home in Canada.
Once again, our congratulations to the Prime Minister of Canada
and his provincial counterparts on their excellent co-operation on
this latest mission.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, welcome back to the House of
Commons.
_____________________________________________
7572
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to see you and my colleagues once again. I am
happy to see the government members too, because we have a lot of
questions for them.
This government's behaviour has been odd for the past three
years. The matter of contaminated blood is one example. The
Prime Minister says he wants the entire situation brought to light,
but he refuses to initiate the process giving Mr. Justice Krever
access to the documents that would allow him to get to the truth. In
the matter of the GST, despite what the Prime Minister's cronies
say about not keeping the promise, the Prime Minister keeps saying
he has met his commitments. In the matter of Somalia, the Prime
Minister, on the one hand, agrees to get at the truth and, on the
other, denies the Somalia inquiry the time accorded it.
Mr. Discepola: Do not forget that this is question period.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): They are nervous.
Mr. Gauthier: They are already nervous. The session is not
over, I guarantee.
My question is this: By cutting off testimony in the Somalia
inquiry on March 31 and by denying Mr. Justice Létourneau the
time he must have to complete his inquiry, is the Prime Minister
not telling the army its days in the hot water it got itself into are
almost over and telling the rest of Canada, Canadians, that they will
never get to the bottom of the Somalia affair?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleagues and I are very happy to return to the House.
We adore question period. I am particularly sorry to be losing the
member for Roberval as my opposite. That is very distressing. I
will let him ask questions until he has a replacement.
I think the Minister of National Defence has clearly explained
why he did not consider it appropriate to give the commission any
more time so that what must be done at national defence may be
done as soon as possible.
7573
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister need not delight in the fact that he
will be losing me as his opposite. I will counsel my successor well
on how to get him to put his foot in it regularly.
More seriously, we have learned that senior officers of Canada's
military-and this is very serious-blackmailed the former
minister of defence, who was in the race to become Prime Minister
at the time.
(1420)
It is extremely serious when members of the command staff can
put pressure of all sorts on the minister of defence in order to cover
up certain information they do not want make public.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, in the light of the
seriousness of the events that have occurred in the relationship
between the army and the minister of defence and the army and the
government, his government is making a terrible mistake in cutting
off the testimony that may be heard before the Somalia inquiry as
of March 31, which is approaching very quickly?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know,
and as the hon. member knows very well, we have never
commented on whom should called by the Somalia commission.
We have never commented on the testimony given before this
commission.
The commission's mandate was extended to the end of June,
which means it will have worked for over two years. If, for its own
reasons, the commission wants to hear testimony reflecting the
concerns of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, it may do so.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how does the government reconcile the statements of the
Prime Minister that they absolutely want light to be shed on the
Somalia affair, and the statements by the minister of defence, who
said on his appointment that everyone could be heard-he was full
of good intentions-with the attitude of the government today,
where it is limiting the time available to the commission, despite
the opinion of Mr. Justice Létourneau?
Essentially, how can they reconcile their words of a few months
ago with their hurry today to put the lid on the pot as quickly as
possible?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly what
counts for the government is getting on with things rather than
spending years studying a situation that occurred in 1992-93.
A historical document can have a certain value at a given point.
For us, and for most Canadians I think, it is time to act. We have to
take steps to try to avoid repetitions in the future.
We could have waited. A number of people think it might have
been interesting for the government to leave the thing under cover
until the end of the year, or some time next year or even two or
three years from now. What counts for us is to make sure that the
Canadian forces, which receive a lot of support from the public,
may continue to do the fine work its members have been doing for
100 years and are still doing around the world.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, observers
are unanimous in saying that, since the government decided to
impose a deadline on the Somalia commission of inquiry, witnesses
from the armed forces seem much more at ease before the
commission, knowing that, come March 31, everything will be
over, and that they only have to hang on until then. Yet, we now
know that the military blackmailed the former defence minister.
And now, the Prime Minister is gagging the inquiry.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by refusing to give the
commission enough time to shed light on this scandal, he is
condoning the actions of senior army officers regarding this whole
issue, including the blackmail to which the former defence minister
was subjected?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us not forget
that people involved in this issue have an opportunity to express
their point of view.
As I said earlier, it is absolutely not our intention to suggest to
the commission that it should call one witness instead of another.
However, it seems rather farfetched to refer, as the hon. member
did, to someone who not only was the Minister of National Defence
but who went on to become the Prime Minister of Canada. It does
not help much to suggest that people of that stature can easily be
gagged or forced into situations they do not accept.
(1425)
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
Létourneau commission was set up, we had questions to ask and the
new defence minister told us: ``We want to find out exactly what
happened in Somalia. The commission's mandate is very clear: it
must look into every aspect''.
My question is for the Prime Minister of Canada. If the Prime
Minister wants to show in a concrete manner that he does not
condone what occurred, will he agree today to extend the
commission's mandate, as asked by Mr. Justice Létourneau, and as
needed
7574
by the commission to shed light on what happened before, during
and after the events in Somalia?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting
to listen to our friends opposite who sometimes tell us, quite
correctly, that a lot of money was spent on commissions. I will not
name them all, but we sometimes hear opposition members tell us
that the government has spent enormous amounts of money on such
commissions.
But the hon. member must realize that the government has
already granted three extensions to the Somalia commission. When
the commission was first set up, its deadline was the end of
December 1995.
Perhaps the hon. member is more interested in a historical
document that could be produced in two or three years. As for us,
we felt it was very important to take action and to start
implementing policies and procedures that, hopefully, will prevent
a repeat of such things in the future.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when this Prime Minister came to power in 1993 he
promised he would establish a higher standard than the Mulroney
administration with respect to accountability, integrity and
responsibility.
Since that time he has broken the GST promise, denied that he
broke it, has botched the Airbus investigation, has gagged the
Somalia inquiry and has stonewalled the tainted blood inquiry on
which human lives depend. The trust of the Canadian people in
their government has been abused in each of these instances.
Given this record of abuse, why should Canadians trust either
him or his government any longer?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last three years and three months this government
has offered the Canadian people a good government, a competent
government and in all circumstances we have done our best.
That is why while I was travelling with the premiers in the
Pacific and later on in France, people were asking me how we
managed to turn things around in Canada in a way that all these
countries envy Canada today.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, good government includes keeping your word.
The Prime Minister promised to scrap the GST, then he denied
making that promise. He promised Canadians jobs, jobs, jobs and
there are 1.5 million unemployed. He promised the Somalia
inquiry would be allowed to get to the truth. He stood in this House
and said that was the case and yet last month the government
decided to shut it down. The litany of broken promises, denial of
responsibility and abuse of trust goes on and on.
How can Canadians believe what the Prime Minister says in the
future when they cannot believe what he has said in the past?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, most of the matters to which the hon. member referred,
for example the inquiry, we gave some very good answers. You
may not be satisfied but the people of Canada believe that the time
has come on the Somalia inquiry for the Minister of National
Defence to restore the confidence in the armed forces and to make
sure that they can do their job properly. That is exactly what the
Minister of National Defence is doing at this time.
(1430)
The hon. member can talk about all these things, but I remember
his party talking about the standards it wanted to use in the House
of Commons. I hope the leader of the third party will read the
memo about disturbances in the House of Commons and not ask
questions which require answers which may make the government
look bad. With the recipes that they have put forward today, if there
is a group that has gone down in the last three years and three
months, it is the Reform Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we do not have to make the government look bad. It is
doing an excellent job on its own.
On June 12, 1991 in this House, when he was in opposition, the
Prime Minister promised that every minister in his cabinet would
assume full responsibility for any bungling in their departments.
When we question the conduct of his ministers, the Prime Minister
has said again and again that the buck stops with him.
Will the Prime Minister now assume responsibility and hold
these ministers accountable today in this House-the defence
minister, the health minister, the justice minister-for the serious
blunders they have made in the last two months?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I watched the debates. The ministers answered all the
questions very well. When the press asked them questions they
took full responsibility for their departments. When there was
something that needed to be remedied, they moved very quickly.
The leader of the third party accused the government a few
months ago of wanting to postpone the inquiry on Somalia until
after the election. Now he is complaining because we are assuming
responsibility right away. He should make up his mind.
7575
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The more we know
about the Airbus affair, the less we understand.
What do we have here? A justice minister who claims not to be
involved, but apologizes anyway; a solicitor general who admits
having known for eight months, but takes no responsibility and did
not inform any of his colleagues; the Clerk of the Privy Council,
Jocelyne Bourgon, who denies knowing anything in spite of
information to the contrary; a commissioner of the RCMP who
denies any responsibility because he did not see the letter until
January 1997, when the letter was written two years earlier; and a
Prime Minister skirting the whole issue by saying it is none of his
concern.
How will the people of Canada know who is responsible for the
mistake that will cost them millions of dollars?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is very clear in all of this are
the first principles. There was no political interference in the police
investigation in the Airbus matter. That is a principle of real
importance to this government and to Canadians.
[Translation]
The hon. member talked of responsibility. According to
parliamentary tradition, ministers have a responsibility to address
weaknesses in the system openly and directly. That is exactly what
we have done. The justice department has already changed its
procedures so as to address the weaknesses and improve both the
system and the procedures. To act responsibly is to make the
changes required to improve the system, and that is what we did.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if there is one principle this House recognizes, it is that of
government accountability.
In this case, the Prime Minister has denied any responsibility. So
have his ministers and the commissioner of the RCMP. But the
decision to write the Swiss authorities and denounce a former
Prime Minister was nonetheless made by someone somewhere in
this government.
(1435)
My question is for the Prime Minister, and I would like him to
answer it. Who in his government is responsible for this blunder
that will cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have acted
responsibly. We have changed the procedures. We have been
accountable to the public and to Parliament. We have addressed the
weaknesses in the procedures. That is what being accountable is all
about, under parliamentary tradition. We have been and continue to
be accountable.
I have hired a former justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal to
review all the changes made to date and recommend more changes,
as required. We have acted responsibly.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I quote:
``The time has come to let the commission do its work''. That is
from April 1996. Second: ``The Somalia inquiry has a job to do.
Let them do their jobs''. That was September 1996.
This was our Prime Minister in his finest hour, but now he is
shutting down the investigation of a murder and a cover-up. How
can he defend his zigzag integrity? What page of the red book is
that on?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have to be
very clear about who is zigzagging.
I quote from the House of Commons Debates on Tuesday,
September 17, 1996, page 4,308 during oral questions: ``Mr.
Manning: The question-''
The Speaker: Although it is a direct quote, I would ask the hon.
minister to use the term ``the leader of the Reform Party''.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I suspect Canadians will know who we
are talking about.
This is the quote from the hon. leader of the third party in this
House from September 17, 1996: ``Mr. Speaker, to ensure that there
is no ultimate cover-up in the Somalia inquiry, will the Prime
Minister guarantee to this House that the results of the inquiry will
be made fully public before the next federal election?''
I am not Eaton's but I am trying to deliver.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Eaton's
would have had those documents delivered in a catalogue.
Allegations of cover-up have occurred under this Liberal
government, not just under Kim Campbell and the Conservatives.
It is no coincidence that the inquiry will not have enough time to
question friends of the government like Bob Fowler.
Another quote: ``We have to respect the rights of each individual
to be heard and we must wait for the commission to render its
7576
judgment''. That was October. That was not Eaton's. That was the
Prime Minister of this country.
How in the world are we supposed to be able to trust this
government to run the country when it cannot even keep its
promise of getting to the bottom of a murder, a cover-up and
blackmail?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if this is an
example of the ethics and integrity that one finds in Hawaii, I do
not think this will take you very far.
(1440 )
When we look at what was said in terms of the Reform Party
strategy to try to operate in this House during this session, the first
question that has to be asked of the hon. member is: Does she
agree, yes or no, with the hon. leader of the third party who in
September said he wanted it shut down before the next election?
Which is it going to be?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Brian Mulroney's former chief of staff, Norman Spector, stated
that he had informed the present Clerk of the Privy Council,
Jocelyne Bourgon, about an RCMP investigation of former Prime
Minister Mulroney, one month before The Financial Post made
this information public. Yet Mrs. Bourgon continues to deny that
she obtained this information and passed it on to the Prime
Minister or his advisers.
How does the Prime Minister explain the contradictions between
the version given by Mr. Spector and that of Mrs. Bourgon?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mrs. Bourgon briefed me fully on this file, as was stated
in a document released on November 20, when I was in Asia with
the Commonwealth and at the APEC meeting.
Mrs. Bourgon's statement to the press was very clear. And I am
completely satisfied with the answer she gave when questioned.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
in a somewhat special situation. Mr. Spector apparently passed this
information on to Mrs. Bourgon in September 1995. Mr. Spector
and Mrs. Bourgon have one thing in common: they both enjoy the
confidence of the Prime Minister. The latter appointed Mrs.
Bourgon Clerk of the Privy Council and Mr. Spector head of the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
In light of the circumstances and in light of the mess, what is the
Prime Minister waiting for to set up an independent commission of
inquiry in order to shed light on the Airbus affair?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, debate on this topic was closed when we offered our
apologies to Mr. Mulroney and the two other people. In Canada, no
one is guilty until so declared by a court of law. Apologies were
made.
Mr. Mulroney's own lawyers said clearly in their statement that
there had been no political interference in this matter.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has always pretended to have high standards for his
cabinet. He has always promised that every one of his ministers
will have to take full responsibility for bungling in their
departments. Well this has turned into a national joke.
Who is taking responsibility for the botched investigation into
Airbus? The justice minister says he is not responsible, even
though the letter to the Swiss authorities was written by his
department and signed on his behalf. The solicitor general says he
is not responsible; it is all the fault of an RCMP sergeant.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is blaming RCMP
sergeants his interpretation and understanding of ministerial
responsibility?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a very well known practice that when there are
criminal investigations the political part of the government is not
informed. It has always been that way.
Yesterday it was confirmed in a debate on TV between two of the
most respected public servants who have served this country for a
long time, Gordon Robertson and Arthur Kroeger. They said that
everything was conducted according to tradition. When there is a
criminal investigation it is for the police to conduct the
investigation and the prime minister and the ministers are not
involved in the investigation. This has been a very clear practice
for a long time.
I do not believe it is the business of a minister or a prime
minister to give instruction to the police to investigate one guy and
not investigate another.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the evidence
shows very clearly that the justice minister knew what was going
on and what the content of the letter was back in November 1996
and he chose to do nothing about it.
When I look across at the Liberal cabinet, all they seem able to
do is botch up, cover up and make the taxpayer cough up. The
7577
backroom Airbus deal soaked taxpayers for over $2 million which
kept the abuse of the justice system from coming out during a
public trial.
Despite all of the Prime Minister's promises, his cabinet refuse
to be accountable themselves and refuse to demand accountability
from senior officials. I ask the Prime Minister: When will he stop
making speeches about accountability, integrity and responsibility
and start acting on it?
(1445)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is part of the parliamentary
tradition, for which I have great respect, that ministers show
responsibility in cases such as this one by acting responsibly to
address the problems in the system squarely, quickly and
effectively. That is exactly what I have done. To be sure, there were
problems in this system. To be sure, there were weaknesses to be
overcome. We have done just that.
The very month this letter became public, I directed that there be
changes made in the system for sending letters of request from the
Department of Justice. In the past year we have made a variety of
changes to minimize the risk of such a thing ever happening again.
Two weeks ago I engaged the services of a former justice of the
court of appeal for Ontario, a person of impeccable reputation, to
look at the changes we have made, to examine the entire system
and to recommend any other changes that he thinks should be made
to improve the system.
That is how a minister acts responsibly in these circumstances,
and that is exactly what we have done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister.
This Liberal government was elected on a platform of
transparency and good government. Nearly three and a half years
after they came to the power, their record is a disgrace. Not long
ago, the information commissioner severely criticized Health
Canada officials who destroyed documents vital to the inquiry into
the tainted blood scandal. This is outrageous.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the apologies of the
Minister of Health are not enough? Does he realize that taxpayers
do not want empty excuses but assurances that never again will an
official be able to conceal or destroy government documents with
impunity?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I agree with the hon. member opposite in her comments with regard
to destroying of documents, but let us be very clear so that all
members of the House fully understand, this was an incident which
occurred in 1989.
The commissioner's report is comprehensive. We in Health
Canada have followed and accepted all of his recommendations as
they relate to that particular incident. We will adhere to the
recommendations of the commissioner to ensure that it does not
happen again in the future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even
today, nothing prevents similar incidents from occurring. Nothing
prevents other officials from concealing or destroying documents
to avoid disclosure.
Will the Prime Minister promise to amend the Access to
Information Act so as to prevent any recurrences?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member must realize that the contents of the
commissioner's report have been forwarded to Justice Krever. He
will then have an opportunity, if he so desires, to comment on the
substance of the commissioner's report and make
recommendations thereto.
The hon. member is fully aware that the commissioner has also
made recommendations to Parliament, of which the hon. member
is a member, in terms of recommendations and sanctions which
may or may not take place as they relate to officials in the future if
in fact actions of that nature do take place.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Cooperation and Francophonie.
Last weekend, a microcredit summit was held in Washington.
Could the minister explain what Canada is doing in this respect and
how microcredit can help developing countries?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the issue of microcredit is of great interest to Canada.
Since this week is International Cooperation Week, I would like
to point out that, through the Canadian International Development
Agency, Canada supports microcredit projects in several countries,
including Vietnam and Haiti.
(1450)
Last week, in Montreal, I had the opportunity to announce a
microcredit project to take place in the Czech Republic, in
partnership with Développement international Desjardins. We are
7578
pleased to support this kind of project and we intend to increase our
efforts in this area.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, restoring
integrity to government went out the window in the first 60 days of
this government.
On the basis of a 30-day partisan review, the Pearson airport
contract was cancelled and the Canadians involved would be
denied access to our courts. They would have no chance to defend
their reputations or their contract.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the shameful
attempt to deny justice, why should Canadians trust the
government or this Prime Minister?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Pearson contract was cancelled after it was determined
it was not in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayers.
We prefer to have airports in the hands of not for profit
corporations similar to those in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton.
It is an approach that has proven its worth. We now have that type
of organization in Toronto, and I look forward in co-operation with
it to making the airport in Toronto the best airport east of the
Mississippi.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the courts
have proven that that deal was a good deal for the taxpayers and
that it was cancelled strictly for partisan reasons. The only question
remaining about Pearson is how much it is going to cost the
taxpayers for nothing. Thirteen million dollars have already been
spent and hundreds of millions more are at stake. Who is going to
be held accountable for this waste of taxpayers' dollars? Who in
this government?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we want at Pearson is to have an airport which will
serve as the funnel for the eastern seaboard of North America for
Europe, just as Vancouver now is beginning to serve as the point of
transfer for all Asian, North American and indeed South American
flights.
I would like to say to the hon. member that certainly this
government would be happy to have this settled for substantially
less than the sums he is talking about and fully expects it to be
settled for substantially less, if in fact the people who have
concerns on the other side wish to settle.
I should say that it is quite, quite unacceptable to the Canadian
taxpayer and it should be quite unacceptable to members of the
third party and their Tory senator friends to settle it for anything
more than the taxpayer should pay. In other words, that is for
reasonable expenses incurred in the preparation of the bid
submitted and nothing, nothing, nothing for unearned profit or for
lobbyists fees.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
after
The Price is Right and
La Poule aux oeufs d'or, we now have
Attractions Canada, a quiz where people can fly to any Canadian
Airlines destination if they get the right answer to a question put by
the Canada Information Office, the office of federalist and federal
propaganda.
Are the Deputy Prime Minister and all of her cabinet colleagues
the only ones not to realize how ridiculous and sad it is to try to sell
a country to its own people by using techniques such as a quiz, a
free flag program and info-commercials?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the promises our
government made during the last election campaign was to work at
the national level to promote tourism. We know that, this week,
with the help of Attractions Canada, we will be able to promote the
Quebec City Carnival to Canadians throughout the country.
Through Attractions Canada, we will be able to promote the
Grands Ballets Canadiens, which are very important to the city of
Montreal. We will also be able to promote Cap-Saint-Jacques, the
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, the Montreal Botanical Garden,
Mont-Saint-Bruno, the Plains of Abraham, the Royal 22nd
Regiment Museum, the old port.
(1455)
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian
Heritage likes quizzes, I am going to ask her a question; she should
listen carefully to the choice of answers I will give her.
How much will the overall propaganda campaign she has set up
since her appointment to Canadian Heritage cost us: (a) $50
million, (b) $75 million, (c) never too much, or (d) submit a request
pursuant to the Access to Information Act and never get an answer?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the Bloc
Quebecois and the Quebec government, its allies in Quebec, have a
hard time promoting tourism throughout the province of Quebec
and the rest of Canada.
7579
I know however that the Montreal Biosphere, the Sir
George-Étienne Cartier national historic site and the Montreal
Botanical Garden are some of Canada's jewels. I hope that,
through TV ads and a small investment from the government, who
will work in partnership with the private sector, we can revive
Canadian tourism in Quebec, a jewel among our tourist attractions
in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, like millions of Canadians, I was both appalled and
embarrassed when Irving Abella of the Canadian Jewish Congress
told the television program ``60 Minutes'' former Liberal Prime
Minister Pierre Trudeau would not prosecute war criminals living
in Canada.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does this reprehensible
abdication of responsibility continue to be the Liberal government
policy as evidenced by recent botched deportation proceedings and
foot dragging?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the record of this government is
clear. Unlike the last government, from the beginning we have
committed ourselves to acting decisively and effectively where
there are people in respect of whom there is evidence of complicity
in war crimes or crimes against humanity to have them removed
from the country.
In January 1995 a few months after the Supreme Court of
Canada had decided the Finta case, that it is very difficult to
proceed through the criminal law, this government committed itself
to starting by April 1997, 12 deportation and denaturalization cases
where there was evidence of complicity in war crimes. We have
now started 10 of those cases. The other two will be started by our
target date of April of this year. That is evidence of this
government's commitment.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada should never again be a haven for any war
criminal.
My question again is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime
Minister doing anything to ensure that no other war criminal will
ever find a safe haven in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government fully agrees with
the sentiment expressed by the hon. member.
Canada cannot be a safe haven for war criminals, for those who
commit crimes against humanity. Every effort is made to ensure
that does not happen. Indeed in recent months we have succeeded
in having just such a person sent back out of the country where the
evidence justified it.
The hon. member should also know that Canada very proudly
contributed one of its best judges, the hon. Madam Justice Louise
Arbour, to serve as chief prosecutor for the International War
Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, and that notwithstanding the
opposition in various quarters.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after three budgets, the finance minister's record is
dismal: unprecedented attacks on the poor, radical cuts in social
programs such as health care and welfare, the shameless dumping
of the deficit problems onto the provinces, the promise of a tax
reform that never came true, privileges still in place for the rich.
After three and a half years under the Liberals, it is a disgrace.
(1500)
My question is for the Minister of Finance. When will he clean
up this mess, in other words, when will he table his next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
is customary in this House, where the date of the presentation of the
budget is announced in response to a question from the finance
critic for the official opposition-usually it is a question, not a
speech-I am pleased to announce that the budget will be tabled on
Tuesday, February 18, at 4.30 p.m.
[English]
There is a custom in this House that the date of the budget is
announced in response to a question from the finance critic of the
opposition. I am therefore delighted to announce that the budget
will be tabled in this House on Tuesday, February 18 at 4.30 in the
afternoon.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government
says that its record is clear when it comes to integrity. What about
the Krever commission? The contempt for the Krever commission
is palpable.
The government has blocked Krever in court. It has shredded
documents and will not deliver important documents from cabinet.
If we cannot trust the Prime Minister on the Krever commission
into tainted blood, what can we trust him with?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the tone and the accusations of the hon. member are absolutely
false. Just like the record of the Reform Party, when it comes to
health related measures it is all over the map.
7580
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Jure Radic, Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister of Development and Reconstruction of the
Republic of Croatia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Also I wish to draw to your attention the presence
in the gallery of the Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Family and
Social Services of the Government of Alberta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
The Speaker: Before we proceed to tributes for one of our
members who died over the holidays, I am going to entertain two
points of order, which I hope will be brief. One is from the hon.
member for St. Albert and the other is from the hon. member for
Winnipeg Transcona.
(1505)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is rather
unfortunate on this first day that we return that I have to invoke
Beauchesne's 481(e) which states talks about imputing bad motives
or motives different from those acknowledged by a member.
I am referring to the remarks by the minister of defence during
question period. He quoted Hansard regarding the leader of the
Reform Party. To give the picture, I will also repeat what the leader
of the Reform Party said from Hansard September 17, 1996:
Mr. Speaker, to ensure that there is no ultimate cover-up in the Somalia inquiry
will the Prime Minister guarantee to this House that the results of the inquiry will be
made fully public before the next federal election?
That is a direct quote from
Hansard from the leader of the
Reform Party. However, in the next breath after quoting these
words the minister of defence went on to put words in the leader's
mouth, saying that he demanded the Somalia inquiry be shut down.
That is not in any way, shape or form the proper interpretation of
the quote.
The Speaker: I thank the member for bringing this up but in my
view this would be a matter of debate, how one member sees it and
how the other member sees it.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
point of order has to do with the way question period proceeded
today and the fact that it was completely dominated by the three
official parties in this House and there was no place for the New
Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party or
independents.
I had a question on medicare I would like to have asked which I
think a lot of people would like to have had asked. I did not get to
ask it because three official parties were allowed to dominate
question period by going on and on and on.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona
for bringing up this point of order. It gives me the opportunity to
appeal to all hon. members. During question period we do have 45
minutes and I would appeal to both the questioners and those who
are to give the answers to please be as brief as they can.
It is of course the intention of the Chair to accommodate as many
members as possible. It was pointed out to me earlier that only one
member of the government posed a question today.
I would hope that the questions tomorrow and in the days ahead
will be a little shorter as well as the answers. In that way we should
be able to accommodate the independent members of the House as
well as the members from the government. It is a point well taken
and I do thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona for
bringing it up.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, on the
same point of order. I do want to support my colleague from the
NDP in his point of order.
May I just add a comment that the Chair may wish to take into
consideration in the way question period is conducted. Mr.
Speaker, with regard to members on the government side, since you
have expressed some concern about the fact that only one member
from the government side was allowed to rise, one of the things we
know about this place is that the members on the government side
have full access to members of the cabinet and their colleagues
through caucus, which is not the case for members on the
opposition benches. Question period is clearly designed, as far as
we know from its practice and traditions, to enable the government
to be questioned and to allow the opposition to make the
government accountable. I submit that maybe one question for the
government side would be enough.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. On
the same point of order, the hon. member for York South-Weston.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it seems to me it is more than a point of order. It in fact ought to be
considered a question of privilege.
Government members, NDP members of Parliament and
Conservative members of Parliament are treated differently in
terms of question period than Bloc members of Parliament and
Reform members of Parliament.
7581
(1510 )
They are treated differently in the sense that government
members, independent members, Conservative members and NDP
members are permitted only a single question, normally at the end
of question period. The other registered parties are entitled to a
question and a supplementary.
It seems the Chair has to give some plausible and reasonable
explanation for why there is that distinction, for why I as a member
of Parliament am discriminated against in terms of question
period-
The Speaker: Colleagues, we could get more members of
Parliament posing questions if both the questions and the answers
were shorter. The Chair has taken note of this. I will proceed to the
hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you
reminded the House at the opening of today's session of the
wooden Mace in front of you. I would remind all of us that you
have the authority under that Mace, and if any question is too long
or if any answer is too long, you have the authority to cut it short.
The Speaker: I thank you for reminding me of my authority. I
am not sure but I think I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg
Transcona say something. Were you addressing your remarks to
me?
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I was
saying unofficially what the member across the way was saying,
that you have authority and-
The Speaker: Of course I thank hon. members for their support
in this regard. I would like to close down this part of the points of
order. I think they are messages you are giving to your Speaker and
they will be taken as such.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to say that when I was an independent member, these people
who just spoke were less inclined to give us more time for Oral
Question Period.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, having put that point of order aside, I
will now proceed to tributes.
[Translation]
One of our members died during the adjournment. I am referring
to our colleague and friend, André Caron. I now give the floor to
the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on January 10, André Caron, member of Parliament for
Jonquière, died after a long battle with cancer. He was our friend,
and we were profoundly saddened by this loss.
Mr. Caron was deeply religious and looked forward to a full
recovery, in spite of his condition. He fought with all his might to
the very end. His courage in facing his illness was an example to us
all.
(1515)
Mr. Caron was born in Jonquière in 1944. After studying
educational counselling and teaching at Laval University and
theology at the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi, he worked for
the greater part of his life for the Jonquière school board as a
guidance counsellor.
His political career started in 1990 when he became president of
the Parti Québécois riding association in Jonquière. Then, in 1993,
he was elected to the House of Commons as a member of the Bloc
Quebecois.
Mr. Caron was ordained a deacon in 1988 before becoming
responsible for all deacons in the diocese of Chicoutimi and
serving on the provincial executive of the diaconate. A member of
Amnesty International and the Civil Liberties Union, Mr. Caron
was involved in a number of organizations throughout his life and
was unstinting in his desire to help others.
André Caron was a sensitive man, a good listener, a man with
great tact, a man who was very human, modest and generous. He
strongly believed wealth should be shared, and he felt it was his
mission to speak for the most vulnerable, the poor and those who
are not always able to defend themselves. He was a citizen with a
cause.
Mr. Caron is an example to all members of this House. He
wanted to represent the people of his riding as well as he could, and
his views show he was a man of ideas. His convictions were more
important to him that his personal interests. Quebec and Canada
have lost a parliamentarian of integrity.
André Caron was a staunch sovereignist. He never doubted the
ability of Quebecers to build their own future. The people of
Jonquière trusted him. He was respected by everyone because of
his commitment to his constituents, and many people mourned his
passing. Our thoughts go out today to those who loved him and
supported him in his long battle against illness.
On behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to offer
his wife Marie Lévesque and his sons, Jean-François and
Louis-Philippe, our sincere condolences. With them we mourn the
loss of our friend André Caron.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
7582
are gathered here today to honour the memory of one of our
colleagues, Mr. André Caron. On behalf of the Government of
Canada, I speak for all of the members of the government in
offering our most sincere condolences to Mrs. Marie
Lévesque-Caron and her two sons, Jean-François and
Louis-Philippe.
The House will remember André Caron, elected to this House by
a region of Quebec that is proud of its roots and origins as a
building force in this country. There have been Bouchards and
there have been Tremblays, but there has been only one André
Caron, a man of the people, a man close to his people, as all elected
members must be when representing a riding.
Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure of seeing André often
in settings other than the House of Commons. Divergent political
leanings make those of us who are parliamentarians often
philosophically distant from each other because of our political
choices, but we share a common goal: the interests of our
constituents, our fellow citizens, the population as a whole. His
straightforwardness and courage earned him the respect of all us
parliamentarians engaged in the federal political arena.
On the personal level, all those coming in contact with him will
attest to his profound moral values. He acknowledged only God as
his master. This candid and frank man will leave a great gap in all
the lives of all those around him.
André's political career was too short to do more than hint at his
profound and intense dedication to the causes he espoused
throughout his career.
He was particularly committed to our young people and to his
faith.
(1520)
Many young people came to know André as one of those devoted
souls who gives without reserve, but others will unfortunately not
come to know him, for his Father has called him away.
I would like to repeat, in closing, the words used by Mgr.
Jean-Guy Couture in André Caron's funeral eulogy: ``Even if he is
called away before his time, the just man will find his rest-
Wisdom surpasses grey hairs-A spotless life is the equal of a long
one''.
All of us will mourn the passing of the parliamentarian but, most
of all, we will mourn the passing of a man with a mission, part of it
accomplished and part of it yet to be accomplished, the ambassador
and diplomat from Jonquière.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada, I wish to offer
my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of the hon.
member for Jonquière, André Caron.
As a teacher and a vocational counsellor, André spent many
years helping young people choose a career that would be both
successful and fulfilling.
Elected to the House of Commons in 1993, André was transport
critic for his party. To his colleagues, he was a good worker, a man
of conviction, dedication and integrity who always showed courage
and determination.
[English]
I would like to recite a little poem for his family:
I am standing upon the seashore.
A ship at my side spreads her sails
to the morning breeze and starts for
the blue ocean. She is an object
of beauty and strength and I watch
her until at length she hangs like
a speck of white cloud just where
the sea and the sky come down to mingle
with each other. Then someone at my
side says, ``there, she's gone''.
``Gone where?'' Gone from my sight-
that is all. She is as large in
mast and hull and spar as she was
when she left my side, and just as
able to bear her load of living
freight to the place of destination.
Her diminished size is in me, not in
her: and just at that moment when
someone at my side says, ``there she's
gone,'' there are other eyes watching
her coming, and other voices ready
to take up the glad shout, ``here
she comes!''
And this is dying.
[
Translation]
To Mr. Caron's family I will say that André was taken from us
much too soon. But he was carried in caring arms to a place of
peace and happiness.
God be with you, André. We will miss you greatly.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party, I also
wish to offer my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues
of André Caron.
I did not have the opportunity to know Mr. Caron personally, but
I know he served the people of Jonquière very well as a member of
Parliament and, before being elected to this House, as a worker in
the field of education.
The death of a member of Parliament is always a very sad
occasion, but it is particularly tragic when death occurs at an early
age.
[English]
On behalf of all of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I
send my condolences to my colleagues in the Bloc and to the
family of Mr. Caron. We will miss his service and his constituents
will remember him well.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, and
the Progressive Conservative Party to pay tribute today to André
Caron.
I wish to extend our heartfelt condolences to Mr. Caron's wife
Marie, his parents and his children Jean-François and Louis-Phi-
7583
lippe. It is always very tragic when someone leaves us so young.
André gave 21 years of his life working with young people to make
a better life for them and their future. All of us as members of the
House know full well the sacrifices that families must make to
allow a loved one to become a member of Parliament.
(1525)
What I observed of Mr. Caron was that he was a hard working
MP, a person of conviction, a person of integrity. We will all
remember him as a devoted man who always showed courage and
determination, as much in his work as an MP as in his fight against
his illness. I am sure he will be missed by his colleagues in the
House and by his constituents in Jonquière.
The Progressive Conservative Party extends its prayers and best
wishes to the family and friends of André Caron.
[Translation]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I wish to say a few words also
about our parliamentary colleague who was here with us for more
than three years.
As you know, he is the second member of this House to be taken
from us, the first one being Mr. Péloquin who died in an accident a
few years ago.
On behalf of all my colleagues here, I repeat what we have
already said, and it comes from the bottom of our hearts. We offer
our condolences to Mr. Caron's family. We know it is always sad to
lose a member of the family. Mr. Caron was a member of our
parliamentary family. He will be missed dearly.
_____________________________________________
7583
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in
council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the standing committees, a list of which is
attached.
* * *
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 26 petitions.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister I am
honoured and pleased to table the Fourth Annual Report to The
Prime Minister on The Public Service of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to talk to you about international development week but
before, I wish to offer my condolences to the family and friends of
Father Guy Pinard, who was assassinated yesterday while
celebrating mass in Rwanda.
A native of Shawinigan, Father Pinard spent several years of his
life helping the poorest of the poor in Rwanda. I had the
opportunity today to speak with the Rwandan minister, Dr. Charles
Muringande, who indicated his government's intention of ensuring
better safety in the area of the country where this crime was
committed and to make sure that such reprehensible acts can be
avoided in the future.
Be that as it may, Father Pinard's death is a great tragedy. With
him we have lost a courageous man. He will be greatly missed in
Rwanda as well as here in Canada.
I will now talk to you about international development week. In
the next few days, Canadian men and women will have the
opportunity to learn a little more about the outstanding efforts
made by our fellow countrymen and countrywomen and their
partners in developing countries.
(1530)
Every first week of February, we have an opportunity to thank
the international development workers for the future they are
preparing for our children and all the children of the world. Until
February 8, throughout the country, community and educational
activities will highlight the challenges facing developing countries
and the opportunities development represents for Canada.
[English]
This year's theme, ``The World Ahead'', is about our shared
future. It is about a world where better health, education and
economic opportunities in developing countries mean increased
peace and increased prosperity for all, for the world. It is about
seeing today's development partners not only as tomorrow's
trading partners, but also as today's neighbours in the global
village. It is about the hundreds of thousands of men, women and
children worldwide who are creating that shared future right now.
[Translation]
An increasing number of Canadians, particularly young men and
women, are getting involved in international development. During
7584
recent visits, I met with people and discussed with them the work
they do in developing countries.
By setting up medical clinics, building water supply systems,
cleaning up the environment or enacting human rights legislation,
they create links that bring nations of the world closer to one
another. Their action has an immediate impact but also contributes
to ensure a better future.
[English]
Every day Canadians are making a contribution to development:
innovating, adapting and learning from their partners. Throughout
international development week we will see and hear about the
exciting work that they are doing. It is work worth recognizing and
worth celebrating. I invite all hon. members of the House to join
me this week to reflect on the challenges of international
development and to salute the Canadians who are helping to build
the world ahead. As I said previously, that is the theme of this
year's development week.
[Translation]
During international development week, I invite my colleagues
in the House and all Canadians to ``Think of the World''.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
International Development Week gives me an opportunity, as the
Bloc Quebecois critic for international co-operation, to recognize
the outstanding contribution of non-governmental organizations in
this area. Efforts made here and abroad, in the north as well as in
the south, to promote sustainable development deserve to be
recognized and encouraged.
Over the years, Canada has established a very good reputation in
development thanks mainly to the excellent work of our nameless
ambassadors who sometimes put their life on the line like Father
Pinard did.
Unfortunately, the official development assistance budget has
been cut by 28 percent over four years, including the cuts that will
be made during the present fiscal year. We have to confess that the
present Canadian foreign policy emphasizes trade and not
co-operation. Moreover it is ironic that the minister should talk
about public education activities during this week, when CIDA has
cut by 100 percent the subsidies to NGOs whose mandate it was in
the public participation program.
Since the international cooperation minister urges us to think
about international development issues, I am taking this
opportunity to emphasize that the level of poverty throughout the
world is rising, as mentioned in the report of the UN development
program made public last October. Sustainable development is the
very basis of a lasting solution for millions of people. Let us keep
that in mind, especially during this week.
(1535)
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would also like
to address the death of Father Pinard and extend condolences on
behalf of the Reform Party to his family and friends.
Father Pinard was tragically murdered while delivering
communion in Rwanda. This senseless and shameful act has
shocked Canadians and has reminded us all of the dangers faced by
many Canadian men and women who work abroad under very
difficult and uncertain circumstances to relieve human suffering.
Father Pinard fought for decades to bring hope and love of God
to the people of Rwanda. Even in the face of other recent shootings
he did not abandon his parishioners. He served them to the very end
and this will not be forgotten by Canadians.
On behalf of the Reform Party it is a pleasure to respond to the
minister's statement on International Development Week 1997. For
decades Canadians have made a great contribution in the area of
international development. Thousands have volunteered their time
and millions have donated money to aid the cause.
Given this commitment by Canadians, it is also important that
the federal government do its part and support the priorities of
grassroots Canadians by matching the contributions raised
privately by non-governmental organizations and church groups. I
believe that Canadians prefer this approach rather than spending
large amounts of aid dollars on government to government
handouts. By working with grassroots organizations our aid dollars
will more effectively help the world's poorest people by providing
for basic human needs such as primary education, basic health care
and sanitation. Canada will help to bring an end to the cycle of
poverty and dependency that is common in many parts of the
developing world. This is a worthy goal.
In addition since the minister mentioned human rights, I would
argue that his government should act, not just simply talk. When
Reformers consulted our grassroots membership on this topic at
Assembly 96, they voted overwhelmingly to oppose giving foreign
aid to governments that abuse basic human rights. This is a good
idea and I am sure that most Canadians would agree with it.
Canadians have already done a great deal to foster international
development but we can do better. We can make sure that our
shrinking aid budget is spent more effectively and we can expect
greater accountability for that spending from CIDA which should
be given a true legislative mandate. If we do all this, then our
development program will be on track for the 21st century.
7585
[Translation]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table the committee's report on Bill C-70, which
harmonizes the GST with the provincial sales taxes in the three
Atlantic provinces and contains about one hundred amendments.
[English]
I would like very much at this time to thank members of the
committee from all parties who worked so diligently and very
intensely over the holidays before the House came back. I would
also like to thank our staff who were splendid as always.
I would ask that this bill harmonizing the tax in the three Atlantic
provinces with the GST be tabled at this moment.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the 49th report
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 49th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1540 )
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure and honour to present a petition on behalf of
dozens of Manitobans, some of whom are my constituents.
The petitioners want to bring to the attention of the House the
substandard condition of our national highway system. They urge
the Government of Canada to join the provincial governments to
upgrade the highway system which would bring on, among other
things, the following benefits: job creation, economic
development, saving lives and avoiding injuries, lower vehicle
operating costs and greater international competitiveness.
I am happy to give my support to this petition.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.):.):
Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to table on behalf of 25 of my constituents
a petition with regard to breast milk substitution.
The petitioners feel that a child has the best opportunity for life
when breast fed and that breast milk substitutes should be
discouraged. Indeed, we have endorsed that at the United Nations.
The petitioners feel very strongly about this.
Since children are our best products and the best attributes that
our country would have, we have much better health situations
when they are breast fed. We try to pursue that policy. I agree with
the petitioners and will table the petition on their behalf.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from the people of Peterborough riding who want a nuclear
weapons free future for their children.
The petitioners urge the nuclear weapons states to commit
themselves to a binding timetable leading to the elimination of
nuclear weapons by the year 2020. They urge that Canada
participate with other non-nuclear weapons nations in Abolition
2000, which is the international campaign leading to the abolition
of nuclear weapons worldwide by the year 2020.
These petitioners ask Parliament to support an international
convention with a binding timetable to be signed by the year 2000
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have two petitions to present under Standing Order 36.
The first one calls on Parliament to renew and ensure that AIDS
funding goes beyond March 1998 and to renew the national AIDS
strategy now.
This is a petition from the people in Victoria-Haliburton.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is presented under Standing Order 36 also calls
on the Parliament of Canada assembled to enact legislation to
ensure that Canada remains one country, undivided, from coast to
coast to coast.
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from the residents of Niagara Falls and the Niagara
peninsula.
7586
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join the provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition signed by 172 constituents of the riding
of Halton-Peel who pray that Parliament enact Bill C-205
introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West at the earliest
opportunity in order to provide, in Canadian law, that no criminal
profits from committing a crime.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. I would like to remind you once again that I put four
questions on the Order Paper last September and that, according to
our Standing Orders, the government has 45 days to answer this
type of questions. We are now at the beginning of February and I
am still awaiting answers to my questions, which concern family
trusts.
I can assure you that during the holiday season, I met many
people from my riding and from other ridings as well and that,
generally speaking, taxpayers from Canada and Quebec are very
much interested in these questions.
(1545)
I find it deplorable that the hon. parliamentary secretary has
already told me here in the House that the government was
preparing to respond to this type of question on the number of
family trusts, a ranking of categories of family trusts by size, the
impact on the Canadian taxation system of the creation of family
trusts in 1972, and the number of trusts transferring their assets out
of the country, about which we have learned recently after
revelations by the auditor general.
Mr. Speaker, I am counting on you to ensure that the government
answers these questions, which are of major public interest.
Judging by the reaction of the parliamentary secretary, there is
something to hide.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 52, 58, 60 and
94.
[Text]
Question No. 52-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
-For each of the last 10 years, how many seized firearms have been destroyed by
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and (a) how many of these firearms could
be described as firearms commonly used for hunting and sporting purposes, including
how many prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, rifles and shotguns, and (b) what is
the fair market value of these firearms with collectors, hunters and sport shooters, and
(c) why did the RCMP Forensic Laboratories, Firearms Section, destroy approximately
2,617 firearms in 1994 rather than offer these firearms for sale to individual firearm
owners who are authorized by the RCMP to own these types of firearms?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): In so far as
the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada and its agency are
concerned, the answer is as follows:
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE (RCMP)
Part a:
The requested data are being provided for 1994 and 1995. The
data are held in electronic form and were relatively easy to
assemble from all the regional sources. The data for previous years
would have to be compiled manually and would require significant
time and effort. The requested data are set out below in table form.
Firearms Received by RCMP Forensic Laboratories for
Destruction
Comments with respect to part a) vis-à-vis the above data: The
rifles and shotguns, almost without exception, were firearms
commonly used for hunting and sporting purposes; the handguns
are restricted weapons; the submachine guns and machine guns for
the most part would have fallen into the prohibited category,
although some may have been only restricted; and firearms, such as
sawed off shotguns and rifles, are prohibited weapons, however,for
RCMP Forensic Laboratory purposes they are recorded according
to the actual make, model, etc. Barrel and overall lenghts are key
factors in determining if a particular firearm is a prohibited
weapon, however, these are recorded only if the firearm is an
exhibit in a laboratory case. If it is simply received for destruction,
neither is recorded for inventory purposes and cnsequently there is
no way of determining how many of the rifles and shotguns listed
above actually fell within the ``prohibited weapons'' category.
Part b:
Fair Market Value
Rifle: $175.00 ea
Shotguns: $200.00 ea
Handguns: $250.00 ea
For inventory and destruction purposes the actual condition of
the firearms as received is not recorded and therefore the values
7587
given are an average based on the overall general condition for the
various categories of firearms received for destruction.
Part c:
The ``approximately 2,617 firearms'' stated as destroyed in 1994
by the RCMP Forensic Laboratories, Firearms Sections, would
have come from three sources:
1) The vast majority of these firearms were received from
Canada Customs. These were disposed of in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Canada Customs
and the Firearms Section at Central Forensic Laboratory, Ottawa.
Available options are listed in Laboratory Services Manual, chapter
21, paragraph G.7.c.10. Specifically the options are: retain in a
Forensic Laboratory Services Directorate (FLSD), return to the
contributor (Canada Customs), dispose of according to written
instruction from Canada Customs, or destroy. There are no other
options with respect to the firearms received from Canada
Customs;
2) Of the total, a number were destroyed in accordance with a
Court Order. This category forms the next largest portion, and
usually are representative of the firearms seized during
investigation of criminal matters. Their disposition is nearly
always at the direction of the courts who direct that either they be
destroyed or forfeited to the Crown. Those forfeited to the Crown
are then disposed of (destroyed) according to the wishes of the
various provincial Crowns and/or their representatives. This group
would also include firearms turned in during the various amnesty
periods which have been proclaimed over the past few years; and
3) A smaller portion were destroyed as an assistance to the
general public. Firearms are turned into local detachments by
either the owners, or in many cases, by executors of estates, who
wish to have them destroyed. Others, such as firearms used in
suicides, are destroyed in accordance with family wishes. Selling
any of these firearms may undermine public confidence in the
RCMP, other police services, and the justice system as a whole.
With respect to the first portion of Q-52, information provided
pertains only to firearms destroyed by the Forensic Laboratory
Services Directorate of the RCMP and not by any other unit of the
RCMP that may have destroyed seized firearms during the years in
question. The vast majority of firearms seized by the operation
units of the RCMP are disposed of through being ordered forfeited
by the applicable court for the provincial Crowns. These firearms
are then disposed of, generally by destruction, by the provincial
Chief Provincial Firearms Officers (CPFO'S) or other provincial
authority.
Question No. 58-Mr. Hoeppner:
Regarding the Canadian Wheat Board's long-term debts and forgiven debts to
foreign borrowers, could the Minister give the following figures for the past three crop
years: (a) how much in long-term debts or liabilities is owed to the Canadian Wheat
Board and from what countries (please give the amount for each country); (b) how
much interest is being paid on these long-term debts or liabilities (please give details for
each country); and (c) how many loans have been forgiven in the past three crop years
and for each of them, what dollar amount do they represent?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): a) The long term debts or liabilities owed to the
Canadian Wheat Board, CWB, by individual countries is
commercially sensitive information and public disclosure would be
considered a breach of customer confidentiality. However, the
volume of CWB's credit sales by country is regularly disclosed in
the CWB's annual report.
b) The total value of outstanding debt owed to the CWB from
sales made under credit arrangements is approximately $6.7
billion. The interest accumulated for the period between August 1,
1994 and July 31, 1995 was approximately $444.5 million, which
is included in the total value of the outstanding debt and hence in
the government guarantee. Non-payment of principle or interest, if
it occurs, does not represent a cost to farmers.
c) The Paris Club is the institution through which major creditor
governments reschedule or refinance credits they have extended to
public or private sector borrowers in developing countries and
which enjoy the sovereign guarantee of the borrowing country.
During the last three years, three countries have received some
limited debt reduction through Canada's participation in the Paris
Club process. The Government of Canada has agreed to forgive a
portion of the debt of these countries as follows (in millions of
Canadian dollars):
Zambia and Haiti do not appear in the attached table, Canadian
Grain Exports Under Credit Agreements, because the credit sales
made to these countries occurred before 1985/86. The debt
forgiven for Zambia and Haiti relates to wheat sales made as
follows:
Year Wheat Exports Under
Credit Agreement
Haiti 1984/85 25,000 tonnes
Zambia 1972/73 16,000 tonnes
1973/74 45,000 tonnes
7588
Canadian Grain Exports under Credit Agreements 1985-86 to
1994-95 (thousand tonnes)
7589
Question No. 60-Mr. Hermanson:
For the fiscal years 1993/1994 and 1994/1995 which departments, agencies or
crown corporations contributed funding to the following organizations: (a) Planned
Parenthood of Canada and Planned Parenthood International; (b) Legal Education
and Action Fund; (c) National Action Committee on the Status of Women; (d)
Campaign Life Coalition; and (e) Realistic Equal Active for Life (R.E.A.L.) Women
and what were the amounts contributed?
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons,Lib.):
Other departments, agencies and crown corporations have no
information on this subject.
Question No. 94-Mr. Caccia:
What are the reasons the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Act, passed by both
Houses of Parliament in the early 1980's, was not proclaimed into law?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): In 1982,
during the time when the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption
Standards Act, MVFCSA, was being considered by Parliament, the
motor vehicle industry agreed to meet the provisions of the
proposed act voluntarily under the existing joint
government-industry voluntary fuel consumption program,
including the company average fuel consumption, CAFC,
requirements. The government felt that all the benefits of a
mandated program could be realised at a lower cost to government,
industry and consumers through the voluntary approach. This
option was therefore chosen and the MVFCSA was retained as
contingency legislation should the voluntary program fail.
The Canadian company average fuel consumption for new
passenger cars has been consistently better than the annual CAFC
goal and overall program effectiveness has paralleled that of the
legislated U.S. program.
[English]
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 71 could be made an order for return, this return
would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 71-Mr. Morrison:
With respect to the consultants working at the headquarters of the Canadian
International Development Agency, will the government provide a list of all
consultants, including the following information: (a) branch and division, (b)
remuneration, (c) terms of reference, (d) resume (or employment background), (e)
past positions at CIDA (contract or otherwise) and (f) whether the contract went
through a competitive allocation process?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet perhaps I could be permitted
to reply to my hon. colleague. While I understand he is losing some
patience on this issue, he has asked a comprehensive question. It is
a very detailed question and is a question that requires a good bit of
information to come from one of the government departments that
is very consumed with getting his information.
I assure him that we are working on the question and I can assure
the hon. member we are doing everything we can to have the
answer as soon as possible.
The Speaker: It is rather a strange twist but you have answered
the question and you have presented Questions on the Order Paper
which is all right.
Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
7590
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the
ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 10
minutes.
_____________________________________________
7590
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-60, an act to
establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and
amend other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 31, 32 and 33.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I was about to indicate
that, if no one else speaks, debate on Group No. 10 is completed
and we can move on immediately to Group No. 11.
The Speaker: Pursuant to an order made Thursday, December
12 1996, all questions on the motions in Group No. 10 are deemed
to have been put and the recorded divisions deemed demanded and
deferred.
The House will now proceed to consideration of motions in
Group No. 11.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
Group No. 11 contains but a single motion and that motion comes
from the government party, I wonder if it might not be appropriate
to ask my colleague to speak first. I would then speak after him.
The Speaker: The parliamentary secretary is not on his feet.
(1550 )
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the
government does support Group No. 11, the technical amendment
to Bill C-60. The amendment ensures that any money authority
appropriated to existing departments, food inspection, health or
other departments will be transferred to the agency early in 1997.
This is a technical amendment which is necessary for the
parliamentary budget to be put in place. There is absolutely no
question that when an agency is being set up it needs funding. It
will be receiving its funding from the Departments of Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Health and from other moneys which have already
been put into the budget.
Some questions brought forth by the opposition suggest that new
money is being placed within the system. That is totally not
accurate. We have reassured everyone that the funding in this case
is a technical amendment which will allow the moneys which have
already been allocated in government departments to go into the
agency so it will have funds to operate. As a result, we need to have
the amendment passed.
I would again reassure everyone here that we are not talking
about new money coming into the system. We are talking about
transferring already approved funding into the new agency.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, unlike
the Secretary of State, I think the motion in Group No. 11, Motion
No. 34, is just window dressing.
The minister is trying to recover sums of money and use them
again, as he sees fit, in the agency's operations. I keep coming back
to the setup we have with the president and the vice-president of the
advisory board appointed by the party in power. You will agree that
since the past offers no guarantees for the future, we cannot support
this motion.
I am reminded of the lieutenant-governor your party appointed,
yes, your party, Mr. Speaker-
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I am the Speaker, and as such,
I have no party.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say
that our friends recently appointed a lieutenant-governor in the
person of Jean-Louis Roux and soon found this was a mistake. To
err being human and to recognize the fact divine, the
lieutenant-governor managed to step down from this prestigious
position at the right time, but that will not always be the case.
Here, the chief executive of the food inspection agency will have
a very sizeable budget. For two years regular hiring practices will
be suspended. The president will be able to hire and fire at will.
This is a very serious matter.
He will be given a sizeable sum of money. If surpluses are a
problem, less money should be given to ensure there will be no
surplus, if that is what the Secretary of State is saying. Give them a
very small operating budget so they will have to come and ask for
their monthly allowance to operate the agency, at least during the
first year.
(1555)
Since the government's aim is to recover costs sooner or later,
we will then be able to better manage this new parapublic agency.
Since it is always the end users, that is to say the consumers, who
end us paying for this government's famous promises, I would ask
my colleagues to be very vigilant. By creating this agency, we are
really opening the door to abuse, to the risk of shameless public
spending by the government.
In the hope of saving $40 million, we are running the risk of
spending much more if my fears are confirmed. I hope the
government will allay my fears by improving the appointment
process, by appointing to the posts of president and vice-president
or as one of the 12 members of the advisory committee not the best
7591
Liberals in Canada but the rare gems, those who have the skills, the
experience needed.
The past is not always an indication of what the future will be
like. The Airbus affair, for example, will probably cost in the end,
as we will eventually find out through the information access
commission, God knows how many millions of dollars as a result
of mistakes, of ignorance, or even because they tried to pull a fast
one on the Conservative Party. How much will Canadian taxpayers
pay in the end? We will never know how much money was paid to
the 29 legal experts who worked to defend the Minister of Justice.
On the other hand, we know how much the Mulroney group must
have spent because there will be an agreement, soon I believe, to
pay the people who worked on the former Prime Minister's defence
team. It was, of course, the first time a government went before a
court of law with false, hastily prepared charges in order to obtain
information from the Swiss government, charges which came from
the General Solicitor and the Minister of Justice and which
tarnished one man's reputation. I hope the present Prime Minister
will not be treated the same way. You will not remain in power for
the rest of your life. When you cross over to the opposition side, I
hope the party that will take your place will not treat this Prime
Minister the same way-
The Speaker: I remind the hon. member that he must always
address the Chair, and not other members. If he has something to
add, he can say it.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely
right. I was wrong in addressing directly the whip of the official
opposition. I must address the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
In closing, we are debating the last group of motions aimed at
improving Bill C-60 and we, in the Bloc, do not think MotionNo. 34 put forward by the government side is an improvement.
Consequently, we will vote against it.
[English]
The Speaker: Pursuant to an order made Thursday, December
12, 1996, all questions on the motions in Group No. 11 are deemed
to have been put and the recorded divisions deemed demanded and
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions on the motions at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
(1600 )
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: The votes stand deferred until tomorrow.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-57, an act to
amend the Bell Canada Act, as reported (without amendment) from
the committee.
Hon. Ron Irwin (for Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By
leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Irwin (for the Minister of Industry) moved that the bill be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-57, an act to amend the Bell Canada Act,
is an important part of the government's efforts to stimulate
investment and innovation in advanced technology and to promote
new services on the information highway.
By repealing section 7 of the Bell Canada Act, the amendment
takes us another step closer toward the realization of a truly
Canadian information highway. Those of us who want to see
Canadian industry compete and grow in the information economy
will be the first to assent to the progress of this bill. I am pleased
that members of the House share this view, as was reflected by the
speedy passage of this bill at second reading stage and by the
Standing Committee on Industry.
Let me quickly review exactly what the legislation will do. The
amendment will permit Bell Canada to hold a broadcasting licence,
enabling it to compete with cable television companies. The
government's convergence policy allows for a balanced approach
to competition in telecommunications and broadcasting services.
That is why the government has established a no head starts
approach.
Once the rules for competition in local telephone services have
been implemented, Bell and its Stentor partners will be able to
provide broadcasting distribution services. Competition could
begin as early as the end of 1997.
I should note that broadcasting distribution and programming
services will continue to be regulated by the CRTC under the
Broadcasting Act no matter how or by whom they are delivered.
The key result of this bill will be to open the developing informa-
7592
tion highway to competition. This will benefit consumers who will
be able to choose who provides their services.
Why this bill now? First, the rationale for keeping Bell Canada
out of the broadcasting business is no longer valid. The prohibition
against Bell Canada holding such a licence dates back to 1968. At
that time, Bell was kept out of broadcasting and especially cable
television, in order to give the young cable industry a chance to
grow. As we know, the cable television industry in Canada is now
very well established.
Second, the convergence of previously distinct technology
means that telephone and cable television distributors will be able
to compete with each other in offering a full range of services.
Soon we may not only be getting cable service from the telephone
company but also telephone services from the cable company. This
convergence will bring businesses and consumers a host of new
products and services and it will change the way we work,
communicate with each other, do business and entertain ourselves.
(1605 )
Finally, because both telephone and cable companies are seeking
to offer integrated services over their networks, consumers will be
the beneficiaries in this competitive environment.
If you will permit, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few
moments to provide a brief chronology of the initiatives taken that
have brought us to this point.
In 1994 the government formulated a vision for the Canadian
information highway, one that saw it as an integral part of the jobs
and growth agenda. At that time the Information Highway
Advisory Council was set up to examine key public policy issues
related to Canada's transition to an information society and
knowledge economy.
Following this, the government released an order in council
outlining its policy on convergence. This policy focused on
network facilities, Canadian content and competition in facilities,
products and services. The order in council requested the CRTC to
hold public consultations and report on issues related to the
implementation of this policy.
In response, the CRTC held public proceedings in 1995. Over
1,000 public submissions were received and 78 parties participated
in the public hearings which were broadcast live on cable TV
channels across Canada.
On the issue of convergence, both the CRTC and the Information
Highway Advisory Council supported the move toward greater
competition. They also supported policies and regulations that will
allow cable companies to compete in the local switched telephone
market and telephone companies to compete in the broadcasting
distribution market.
The CRTC's report ``Competition and Culture on Canada's
Information Highway: Managing the Realities of Transition'' came
out in May 1995. In this report, the CRTC said: ``Given the
commission's view that Canadian telephone companies have the
potential to contribute to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act,
and that they should be allowed to do so, the commission
recommends that the government amend the Bell Canada Act to
permit Bell Canada to hold broadcasting licences''.
The Information Highway Advisory Council concluded its
comments on the CRTC's report in its own final report
``Connection, Community, Content, the Challenge of the
Information Highway'' released in September 1995. The council
said that in liberalizing its regulatory framework for
telecommunications, ``the government should act to remove
outdated and unnecessary barriers to competition and implement
safeguards against anti-competitive practices''.
These two reports provided insight and precision to the
government's policy objectives.
Last May the government released its report ``Building the
Information Society: Moving Canada into the 21st Century''. Part
of the action plan in that report was a commitment to finalize the
policy on convergence.
In August the government issued the final text of its convergence
policy in which it confirmed the policy objectives announced in the
1994 order in council and set out the principles for implementing
these policies.
The policy statement and implementation principles cover three
major areas: facilities, content and competition. Obviously an
essential element in the implementation of this policy is to allow
Bell Canada to hold a broadcasting licence.
The policy statement included a commitment to amend the Bell
Canada Act to remove the prohibition on Bell Canada and its
subsidiaries from holding broadcasting licences. The bill before us
today will implement that policy by repealing section 7 of the Bell
Canada Act.
Technology is changing our world daily, eliminating barriers and
bringing people together, offering new services and other benefits.
We can help this process by expediting the passage of Bill C-57.
(1610)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this bill,
which seeks to amend the Bell Canada Act, repeals section 7 of that
act. The purpose of this change is to allow Bell Canada to hold a
broadcasting licence and to compete directly with cable
distributors. Let us not forget that section 7 dates back to 1968.
7593
The government announced its intention to amend the Bell
Canada Act last August with the release of the Minister of
Industry's policy on convergence. This policy allows cable
distributors and telephone companies to compete with each other in
their basic operations.
Bell and its partners at Stentor will be able to provide
broadcasting services, as soon as the government has regulated
competition with respect to local telephone services, including
rates, so that cable distributors and other companies will be able to
set up competitive local telephone services. This convergence of
technologies prompted the Minister of Industry to state, and I
quote: ``The real winners are consumers, who will ultimately have
a choice in who provides their services''.
This government policy on convergence is an integral part of the
federal plans respecting the development of Canada's information
highway, as described in the report tabled by the Minister of
Industry last May, entitled ``Building the Information Society:
Moving Canada into the 21st Century''.
Has the federal government kept or will it keep its promise to
protect Quebec's and Canada's interests in developing the
information highway? These are important issues, on which I will
try to shed some light and find some answers. It should be
remembered that the first reading of this bill goes back to October
29, 1996.
To start with, I will talk about convergence. As I said earlier, this
bill is the result of the report entitled ``Building the Information
Society: Moving Canada into the 21st Century'', which was made
public on May 23 of last year. The Minister of Industry informed us
in this regard that a convergence policy would soon be developed.
On August 6, 1996, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage unveiled their so-called convergence policy.
This policy set the stage for competition between telephone
companies and cable distributors in their respective areas. This
policy prompted the Minister of Industry to announce in a
September 19 press release that, and I quote: ``The real winners are
consumers, who will ultimately have a choice in who provides their
services''. If I take the liberty of quoting this press release, it is
precisely because we are still waiting to see the benefits for
consumers.
On the other hand, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said on
August 6, in a news release, that they had ``decided, concerning
Quebec Telephone and BC Tel, to change the foreign ownership
rule so that these two big companies serving British Columbia and
Eastern Quebec can take part in the competitive market of
communications systems just like any other telephone company''.
Hence, the Minister of Canadian Heritage agreed with the Bloc
Quebecois, that wanted the government to safeguard the vested
rights of these two companies.
In fact, strictly speaking, Quebec Telephone and BC Tel are
foreign owned companies. GTE, a U.S. company, has a 51 per cent
stake in Quebec Telephone. We know, however, that Quebec
Telephone is deemed to be a Quebec company because its
headquarters are in Quebec, it is managed by Quebecers and French
is the only working language of employees. It was becoming
imperative, considering convergence, to adapt the rule to give more
freedom to Quebec Telephone.
(1615)
It has been six months since the heritage minister made this
statement on the changes to the orders regulating Quebec
Telephone and BC Tel. During the first reading debate on this bill,
my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata said, and I
quote: ``We are concerned that this bill was tabled without any
order being made regarding Quebec Telephone and BC Tel''.
My colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata went on to say:
``Madam Speaker, I ask you to remind the government that it would
be greatly appreciated if the order was made before the final vote
on this bill, so as to give equal treatment to all telephone
companies.''
Today, as the House is dealing with this bill to amend the Bell
Canada Act, have the orders been made? No, they have not. So I
took upon myself to check with a few people in the know at
Industry and at Canadian Heritage and I was assured that the
drafting of these orders would be completed in the very near future.
We can only thank my colleague, the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, for her hard work in favour of the rights
of Quebec Telephone and indeed of the people in Quebec who are
serviced by this excellent company.
I will now go back to the claims made by the industry minister,
this unabashed advocate of unfettered competition. As I mentioned
before, he said, and I will repeat it to show how wrong he is, that
the real winners of convergence, or competition, will be the
consumers.
Let us look at the real consequences we have been seeing for
some time now. The deregulation of telecommunications started
about ten years ago, but the CRTC authorized competition in long
distance services only in 1992. This measure put an end to a long
standing tradition of monopoly in telecommunications. That
decision was supposed to generate significant savings for the
consumers. But what happened in fact?
As shown in the report on long distance savings by the coalition
for affordable telephone services, filed in February 1996, most
residential subscribers of companies that are members of Stentor
have enjoyed no substantial reduction in their long distance bills
since the CRTC opened up the area to competition in 1992.
Let us look at page 2 of the coalition's report; it reads as follows:
``Last December, the members of the Stentor group convinced the
7594
federal government that they should be allowed to keep the
increases and not have to reduce basic rates. If residential
subscribers remain customers of Stentor for long distance services,
they will pay no less than $700 million in 1996 and 1997, and over
a ten-year period up to $4.5 billion'', an amount that would go to
the telephone companies without giving the subscribers our
honourable industry minister referred to the benefit of discounts on
long distance calls they should have received according to all the
promises we have heard. The Coalition concludes that this is unfair.
The coalition goes on to say that long distance rates have gone
down, but significantly so only in the case of wholesale users,
mainly large corporations.
Now about local telephone rates. In ruling 94-19, the CRTC
announced that it would, among other things, authorize a
rebalancing of rates between long distance and local services and
would therefore allow three increases of $2 each in the monthly
basic service rate over the next three years. In exchange, the
telecommunications companies would commit to reducing the long
distance bills of residential subscribers and small and medium size
businesses by the same amount.
However, Bell Canada and the seven other telecommunications
companies that are members of the Stentor group objected to this
restriction and filed a petition with the government asking that the
restriction be withdrawn.
(1620)
Obviously, and unfortunately, the Minister of Industry
responded favourably to the expectations of the Stentor Group by
maintaining a portion of the increase in local service charges, i.e.
$2 in 1996, $2 in 1997, with a $2 reassessment in 1998, while
allowing long distance charges to continue to be dictated by
so-called competition in the marketplace.
Yet, public notice 95-49, tabled by the CRTC on November 22,
1995, that is before the government's rejection of rulings 94-19 and
95-21, states, among other things, that ``the CRTC feels local rate
increases, over and above the ones that would result from the rate
rebalancing referred to in ruling 95-21, raise concerns about the
maintaining and affordability of local services''. The Minister of
Industry does not seem to share these concerns, since his only
policy is a belief in uncontrolled competition.
Paradoxically, while consumers could look forward to an
increase in local rates and no decrease in long distance rates, the
president of Bell Canada told Le Devoir on December 21, 1995 that
this government decision would not result in a reduction in costs or
maintaining the same rates for consumers but in a 1 per cent
increase in the yield on shareholders' assets for 1996.
The Fédération nationale des associations de consommateurs du
Québec, also known as FNACQ, said in the same article that
Canadian households would have to pay more than one billion
dollars over the next three years in increases in local rates so the
telephone companies could make the desired profits.
An analyst with FNACQ, Marie Vallée, added that the CRTC's
original decision would have led to the first substantial decrease in
low and medium volume long distance rates for residential users
and small businesses. We now know that the exact opposite is
happening.
On September 6 last year, Bell made a new submission to the
CRTC regarding residential services. This submission was in two
parts. The first part concerned updating the telephone network for
about 490,000 customers in Quebec and Ontario. The second part
proposed compressing the rate scale from 19 levels to 11, which
would result in an average increase of $1.11 for 850,000 Quebec
households.
This request by Bell Canada has just been approved by the
CRTC. As regards the $2 increases already announced for 1996 and
1997, it seems to me the government could be more attuned to
customers' need for affordability, but it did nothing.
Not only are Mr. and Mrs. ordinary consumer affected, business
rates are affected as well. In the spring of 1996, Bell Canada
submitted a proposal to the CRTC to harmonize the rates paid by
business customers, in other words, another rate increase.
According to Bell, business customers in small communities, that
is customers in rural communities, will have to pay between $44
and $54 for their lines, whereas businesses in major centres will
pay between $39 and $44 only. The increase would take effect in
July 1997.
If we are trying to tell small business to move out of the rural
community to the city, we could not put it better. What a poor
message to be sending to an economy that wants nothing more than
to get back on track.
(1625)
In its press release of September 11, the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business indicated that the Bell Canada telephone
company had justified its application by alleging that small
businesses outside Montreal and Toronto were subsidized and,
therefore, not paying their fair share of the real costs of such lines.
However, Catherine Swift, president of that organization,
responded that only a minority of businesses were getting such
subsidies and that last August's rate increases had in fact
eliminated these subsidies.
As for the vice-president of the federation from Quebec, Pierre
Cléroux, he said that small businesses are the biggest job creators,
7595
that several of them had a precarious status, and that such an
increase in telephone rates would affect not only their
performance, but could even threaten them in some cases.
I would now like to tell the House and the public which costs will
affect some ridings. I hope that the constituents who are watching
us today will draw the obvious conclusion regarding the
government's concern about protecting the rights of consumers as
opposed to its eagerness to meet the endless, insatiable needs of
large businesses.
Let us talk about the riding of Sherbrooke. Bell Canada's
application in the riding of the leader of the Conservative Party
represents a 50.8 per cent increase for the city of Sherbrooke alone.
In Laval West, the monthly fee for a business line will rise from
$42.20 to $54.75, or a 21.1 per cent increase.
In Brome-Missisquoi, rates will go up by 32.8 per cent in
Clarenceville and 50 per cent in Magog. The people of Bedford,
Bromont, Cowansville, Dunham, Farnham, Frelighsburg,
Henryville and Sutton are looking at increases of between 60 and
62.5 per cent.
In Gatineau-La Lièvre, the increases will amount to 41.8 per
cent in Thurso, 52.2 per cent in St-Pierre-de-Wakefield, and 50.3
per cent in Buckingham; and in Gatineau, each line will cost $63.20
per month instead of $38.75, a 63 per cent increase.
In Hull-Aylmer, a riding represented by the minister
responsible for the Outaouais, rates will increase by 41.3 per cent
in Hull and 63.1 per cent in Aylmer.
In Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, the municipality of Luskville
will see the cost of business lines rise by 41.9 per cent, while
Maniwaki and other municipalities in the area will be facing a 60.1
per cent increase. Chelsea will be one of the hardest hit in Quebec,
with business line rates rising from $38.75 to $68.80, or a 77.5 per
cent increase.
In Saint-Maurice, the venerable riding of Saint-Maurice, the
people of Grand-Mère and Shawinigan are facing a 50 per cent
increase.
As you can see, small businesses outside the greater Montreal
and Toronto areas will suffer losses amounting to $115 million per
year if the CRTC approves Bell Canada's proposed rate increases
for 1997.
I regret to say that this government fails to realize that
unhampered, unrestricted competition is not in the interest of
consumers.
We are anxiously waiting to see what the government will do
once the CRTC renders its decision regarding Bell Canada's
application to raise tariffs for business lines.
As I pointed out earlier, the government claims that consumers
and businesses will benefit from this competition. Unfortunately,
the facts prove just the opposite.
Instead of using their own money to invest in modernization,
telecommunications companies pass most of the cost on to the
consumers, this with the blessing of the industry minister, who
seems to wash his hands of it. Worse yet, the poorest consumers
and those living outside large urban centres are the hardest hit. The
Minister of Industry can no longer afford not to be involved.
(1630)
While the re-balancing of tariffs is necessary in a competitive
environment, the government should show leadership in order to
alleviate the negative impact of thses actions by proposing stopgap
measures for low income people and for small and medium size
businesses in rural or semi-rural areas.
There are elements of solutions. The Bloc Quebecois has already
mentioned them to the government and it will do it again now. The
Bloc Quebecois is very interested in solutions proposed by the
federation of consumers' associations and by the National
Anti-Poverty Organization.
These groups propose to first set a monthly rate ceiling of $15
for the basic service provided to households that have confirmed,
through a self-certification process, as is done in California for
example, that their income is below the poverty line. The whole
process would be based on a universal telecommunications access
fund. These moneys would come from a supplement charged to the
ultimate user of telecommunications services. The providers of
telecommunications services would be responsible for collecting
these moneys and transferring them to the fund. In return, the fund
would compensate companies providing the service to the poor.
In the case of small and medium size businesses located in the
regions, the purpose of the fund would be to ensure a sharing of
access and maintenance costs, which are higher in the regions than
in urban areas. The fund would be financed through a contribution
paid by companies providing telecommunications services.
Again, the government has yet to act upon the proposals made by
these organizations. Convergence is here to stay, it is a
technological fact we can no longer avoid. It is part of the
government strategy concerning the information highway.
As we indicated before, in the telecommunications area, the
government's commitment to defend the interest of the consumers
is too often swiftly dismissed in favour of the interest of
telecommunication companies, and the government's record as
regards the information highway is no exception to that rule.
You have to understand that the federal strategy concerning the
information highway seems to promote measures supporting
telecommunications, such as personal communications services,
local
7596
multipoint communications systems, multimedia services via
satellites, direct broadcast satellites and broadcaster digitizing.
On the other hand, the protection of personal information,
copyright and privacy, and measures relating to offensive content,
child pornography, production of francophone content,
affordability, accessibility and universality of these services seem
to be low on the priority list.
The federal strategy with respect to the information highway is
incomplete. It is being doled out bit by bit by the Minister of
Industry, despite extensive, in-depth studies by various levels of
government.
Despite the CRTC report on competition and culture on Canada's
information highway tabled a good year and a half ago, despite the
final report by the information highway advisory council tabled
over a year ago, despite the many departmental committees on
which public servants toil away and without the benefit of a
pre-study by a standing committee of the House of
Commons-other than the Committee on Canadian Heritage that
received evidence on more general issues-and despite the
Minister of Industry's constant reminders of the need for urgent
action, the minister has shown himself quite unable to define
concrete and viable orientations for the more sensitive areas of the
information highway.
To get a hint of the minister's lack of insight, you only have to
review the document he has just released. Everyone was expecting
the federal government's action plan on the information highway.
Instead, we got a report recapping the progress made on the
information highway. The Minister of Industry told us this was a
progress report on Canada's transition toward the information
society and the government's response to the recommendations
made by the Information Highway Advisory Council in September
1995.
(1635)
The Bloc Quebecois reacted strongly to the tabling of this
so-called strategy. Here are the main points that we condemned the
report for at the time.
While the report is a good analysis of the problem, it has nothing
to do with the political intention of a thoughtful government that is
saying it is urgent to move forward. The report denies the existence
of the Quebec culture by making it an element of the multicultural
diversity of Canada. The report covers all the technological aspects
of the information highway, but leaves out the social aspects
entirely.
The report sanctions the hopes of the advisory committee on the
information highway, which reflect a federal intrusion in provincial
jurisdictions and which ultimately sanction new duplications of
provincial programs. Finally, the report describes the majority of
problems related to the information highway, but totally postpones
dealing with the solutions to these problems.
You will have understood that Bill C-57 in itself is a
modernization of an act that had now to be modernized. But the
government could not examine where this bill will lead the Quebec
people and the Canadian people without checking at the same time
the guidelines that are established to ensure that everything is in the
best interests of the people. And the people are also the consumers.
They work, for the most part, for small and medium size
businesses.
This is why I stressed the inconveniences currently experienced
by individuals and by small corporations in the context of this
convergence, this implementation of the information highway.
We too support progress. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois must
support this bill. However, as I said, and I will say it again, the Bloc
Quebecois does not support progress at any cost, progress at the
expense of the most vulnerable ones, progress at the risk of killing
our small and medium size businesses, particularly in rural areas.
I would like to conclude by making three recommendations. We
ask the Liberal government to exercise diligence to make sure that
Québec-Téléphone and BC Tel get a satisfactory agreement so that
they, like other telecommunications companies, have an
opportunity to offer their services in the context of the convergence
of telecommunications.
Second, we ask the Liberal government to fulfil the commitment
made in its red book, in the chapter on small and medium size
businesses, to the effect that the federal government must
contribute to the creation of a climate that promotes economic
development. Once the CRTC renders its decision on rate increases
for business lines, this government will show us whether it intends
to fulfil its promise or to forget it like so many other ones.
Third, we ask this government to stop the mad dash for the
information highway, something that is less and less affordable to
consumers, small and medium size businesses, and those who live
in rural areas.
(1640)
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to enter the debate on Bill C-57. I want to register
immediately that the Reform Party is in favour of this bill.
At the time of rendering that support, however, I think it is
essential for us to register that not only will we support the bill but
at the same time we encourage the government to recognize that we
are not deluded into thinking that somehow a suitable
telecommunications policy has been developed for Canada. In fact,
as I progress through the remarks that I wish to address to the
House this afternoon it will become abundantly clear that the repeal
of
7597
section 7 of the Bell Canada Act is really nothing more than teeny
weenie, itsy bitsy little bit of a step moving forward but covering
all the important parts that really should have been addressed but
which are not being addressed by the telecommunications policy of
the government.
I hold in my hand a copy of the bill. It is probably the shortest
bill I have ever seen. In fact the notes that explain what the bill does
are many time longer than the actual words in the bill itself. I
commend the government for its efficiency in writing this so
succinctly. I wish all legislation was this succinct.
However, we need to move on. The big argument that has been
presented with regard to the repealing of section 7 in the Bell
Canada Act is to give consumers a choice. While it is true that it
will give them choice, it will for once bring about competition
between the cable companies and the telephone companies in a
common field so that they can now enter into each other's field.
That is a good move.
Let us now move into the broader field of communication
technology of which this is but a part. I wish here to borrow rather
extensively from Don Tapscott who wrote a book on the digital
economy. That is probably closer to where we ought to be moving
than anything we have heard in the paper supporting the converging
technology or other aspects of telecommunications industry in
Canada.
The author writes that a decade ago cable and phone companies
were seen as totally different businesses, but technology has now
brought them into direct competition. This is because all
information: audio, tech and video images can now be converted
into digits or it can be digitized. It is the same commodity. That is
little bytes of data that computers use. Depending on to whom you
speak this is enabling the phone companies to encroach on the
cable business and is enabling cable companies to poach on the
phone business. In fact, in some locales the fight has already
begun. The Videotron Cable Company in Britain is successfully
offering local services. In Canada, BC Tel snared an exclusive
contract with a developer in Vancouver's Concordia Pacific
complex to provide all communication services, including cable, to
a proposed housing development for 13,000 people.
No matter who builds the highway, the backbone of the system
will likely be fibre optic cable running underground from coast to
coast. Some of that is already in place. These thin strands of glass
use light pulses to convey 5,000 video channels or 500,000 phone
conversations per fibre.
That is just one small part. As we go on we will notice that while
the fibre optic cables are important, there is something which is far
more significant, probably far more dynamic and the change is
revolutionary and that is the wireless communication system which
exists with the direct broadcast satellites.
To give a little precision to this highway analogy, the band width
on which this information is transmitted, the road is shifting from a
three foot garden patch which we have had until now to a highway
16 miles wide. However, because that analogy is imperfect we need
to move in a little different way. The issue is not just the width of
the highway but also how highly and how tightly the traffic can be
concentrated or screened on that road. The number of moving
vehicles is the significant issue. Using compression technologies
that squeeze more bytes through the pipeline, the capacity of the
fibre is going up.
(1645)
Nicholas Negroponte points out that recent research results show
we are close to being able to deliver gigabits per second. That
means a fibre the size of a human hair can deliver every issue of the
Wall Street Journal. I notice that the parliamentary secretary is
grasping his hair because he notices that he cannot carry quite as
much information as some of the rest of us. This means that a fibre
the size of a human hair can deliver every issue of the Wall Street
Journal in less than one second. It still means that the
parliamentary secretary can carry quite a lot of information.
Transmitting data at that speed, a fibre can deliver a million
channels of television simultaneously; roughly 200,000 times
faster than a twisted pair. I am talking of a single fibre so if you
want more, you make more fibres. After all it is just sand.
Telephone and cable are certainly not the only players in this
game. There are also direct broadcast satellites as I mentioned
earlier, cellular telephones as we witnessed just a moment ago, low
orbit interactive satellites and even high altitude balloons to name
but a few. Some electrical companies are assessing their possible
role because they have extensive fibre optic systems in place to
monitor their electrical grids. Technology is evolving so quickly
that it would be rash today for any country to commit itself
exclusively to just one or two of the systems. It is from that point of
view that I call this an itsy bitsy little step. It is far from clear which
technologies and strategies will ultimately be most effective in
delivering content at the best possible price.
In the end the total prize for suppliers will be in content, not
carriage. At the moment all our long distance tolls are essentially
measured in terms of the time you are on the line. As we move into
a digital economy, and as the compression technologies advance,
the issue will no longer become how much time you were on the
line but how much information did you transmit. I suspect that
could be another development.
If that says anything about the way the CRTC operates one thing
becomes abundantly clear: it is probably the greatest impediment
of technological application that this country has witnessed. I think
the sooner the CRTC gets out of the business of maintaining
monopolies the better off we are all going to be.
7598
I want to use a special illustration. Let us examine for a moment
that the CEO of Alcoa wakes up one morning to find that Russia is
now dumping aluminium on world markets at half the current
price. The first major survey of Chinese people shows that the top
priority for two-thirds of the country is to get rich through hard
work, whereas only 4 per cent want to continue the revolution.
Economist Lester Thurow asked his audience in a recent speech to
U.S. business leaders: Who do you think has more high school
graduates, the United States or China? If you guessed China-and
in fact he has done this study-you are right by a couple of hundred
million.
Why should I hire a graduate from a U.S. high school at $30,000
per year when I can get a person with equivalent education in China
for $100 per month? Many U.S. businesses have already answered
that question with a resounding: ``We don't''. Millions of so-called
virtual aliens are clicking away on keyboards in Shanghai, New
Delhi and Hong Kong fully networked and employed as members
of the U.S. economy, except that they do not pay U.S. taxes or live
in the United States. How are they doing it? Through the Internet.
The bipolar world has become a multi-polar economy. In the
1960s east Asia accounted for only 4 per cent of the world's
economic output. Today that region accounts for 25 per cent. At the
same time the GNP of the United States has been growing at a not
bad 3 per cent annual rate, but the Pacific rim has seen rates that
have been more than twice that high. Not so long ago Taiwan and
South Korea were low cost countries. Now they find they have to
ship to lower cost places like China. The economy for the age of
network intelligence is a digital economy. In the old economy,
information flow was physical: cash, cheques, invoices, bills of
lading, reports, face to face meetings, analog telephone calls, radio
and television transmissions, blueprints, maps, photographs,
musical scores and direct mail advertisements. In the new economy
information in all its forms becomes digital, reduced to bytes
stored on computers and racing at the speed of light across
networks. Using this binary code of computers, information and
communications become digital ones and zeros. The new world of
possibilities thereby created is as significant as the invention of
language itself, the old paradigm on which all the physically based
interactions occurred.
(1650)
To put this into the context of a child, ask this question: What is
technology to a kid? One of the Apple people, Alan Kay, once said
that technology is technology only for people who are born after it
is invented. Twelve-year-old Niki Tapscott would agree. She is the
daughter of Don Tapscott. When asked if she would participate in a
consumer of the future panel at a technology conference she
lectured her father: ``Okay, Dad. I will do it if you want me to, but I
do not understand why you adults make such a big deal about
technology. Kids use computers to do stuff. We do not think of
them as technology. Like a fridge does stuff. It is not technology.
When I go to the fridge I want food that is cold. I do not want to
think about the technology that makes the food cold''.
Lest we get the impression that this is only happening in Canada,
a debate is raging and we are concerned about it. British television
giants have joined forces in a digital revolution that was announced
on February 1. The Financial Post reports the story on the BSkyB.
If it is successful in winning the licences for the digitized
communication, the shareholders have agreed to meet among them
a peak funding requirement of up to 300 million and the company
is expected to be profitable within five years.
What will it do? It will offer an initial 15 channels, including
subscription channels, from the British Broadcasting Corporation.
This is the most exciting development in broadcasting, according
to them, since the introduction of colour. We are on the brink of a
revolution in entertainment, information and communications. We
are not given the details, but we are told very clearly that the digital
economy is upon us and we would do well to observe it.
Shaw Cable, which is one of the companies involved in this
convergence and is making some telephone offerings, received a
licence last Friday. The licence is to provide direct to home satellite
service for customers in Canada. This program would be allowed to
launch using U.S. satellite space only on an emergency basis.
Notice that none of the companies which has applied for direct to
home television-and there are four of them now-has delivered
any direct to home television programs because they have not been
able to secure transponders on space satellites. They will have to
migrate back to a Canadian satellite if space becomes available
when another satellite is launched. However, they have been
granted emergency access to a transponder on an American
satellite.
I want to speak on that area in a little more detail. There are
examples of this happening in Britain. It is happening in Canada. It
is happening all around the world. Let us go into the DTH business
a bit.
It is an alternative service to traditional cable. It is off air and
large satellite dish television reception. It is an alternative. It
differs in that the size of the dish is small. It is approximately 18
inches in diameter. The signal is digital and the number of channels
is much higher than on conventional cable. These small dishes and
the accompanying satellites that transmit the signals were
commonly referred to as death stars a couple of years ago. Today
they are being recognized as a way to provide an alternative service
that is less expensive than the other way around. The satellites are
known as direct broadcast satellites or DBS.
7599
The Americans have a healthy DTH market, but in Canada there
is as yet no operating service. We have licence providers, but none
is currently delivering signals. This has created a service vacuum
since Canadians want the service but have no legal means of
obtaining it. The so-called grey market is the result. It contains
approximately 250,000 Canadians and some estimate it at 300,000
Canadians.
(1655)
Canadians are obtaining the hardware, setting up a U.S. postal
address either by themselves or through an intermediary and
subscribing to service from a U.S. company. The equipment is
generally legal. Receiving the U.S. signal is not. Equipment
capable of receiving the U.S. signal today may not be able to
receive a Canadian signal when one becomes available.
We can see how important the whole telecommunications
industry is. We need to recognize other areas that are not being
dealt with. Canadian DTH providers would like to be broadcasting
but there is currently no available satellite space.
We have four licensed DTH providers in Canada. They are
Expressvu of Mississauga, the Star Choice network of Lindsay and
Power DirecTv of Toronto. Shaw Communications of Calgary is a
fourth company and was just granted a licence, as I indicated a
moment ago.
The government continues to erect protectionist walls on culture
and issues rather than letting Canadian programming compete on
its own merits. I really want to underline this. The Americans
refused to play ball vis-à-vis American joint ventures in our orbital
slots unless they get concessions on culture, which in turn leaves
our DTH providers out in the cold.
The Canadian market is so small it brings into question the
economic viability, if you will, of any company trying to launch a
satellite service to serve this market alone without then being able
to sell excess capacity to U.S. firms for use and service to the U.S.
market.
There are other examples. The local multi-point
communications system which the hon. member from the Bloc
referred to just a moment ago is an excellent service that is
available. We can talk about the personal communications system.
These are all virtual fibre systems. They are wireless. They use the
digitization of information into these compact little bytes of
information.
We would do well to listen very carefully to what is happening
and we need to be sure that we are ready to take advantage of these
developments in technology.
Canada is ahead of the Americans in the technology itself. The
chief proponent and developer of the multi-communications
system is WIC, Western International Communications. It is the
main licencee for the technology in Canada and has pushed R and
D to the point where we are to see its introduction on a wide scale.
Direct competition between LMCS licencees and resellers will
take place in markets across the country and we will see that
developing very soon.
As these various ways of communicating come into existence
and as they are appropriately licensed and may compete with one
another, that will be a far more significant competition than the sort
of competition that is being talked about by this amendment to Bill
C-51, the Bell Canada bill.
As far as the remaining spectrum goes, of the local multiple
communications systems that have been allocated already, two of
the remaining four frequency blocks are scheduled to go to auction
in two years or so. The remainder will be disposed of by auction
after that.
I should note here that the first of the licences that were granted
were granted on the basis of a licence fee and not auction. One
would really question whether the best possible arrangement was
made and whether the government realized the kind of revenue it
could have realized had it gone to an auction system.
We would have preferred something much more forward
thinking where the competitive attitude being used in most aspects
of this technology would be extended to all areas of the licensing
process.
I want to refer now to the Internet. The Internet is one of these
very significant applications of the telecommunications system.
The Internet enters into all of these discussions in one form or
another. All of these take knowledge, from the direct broadcast
satellite, the DTH, the LMCS, the local multiple communications
or the personal communications all the way to Ma Bell, to which
this bill refers, are capable of delivering Internet service. All of
them are in varying capacities.
Add the cable companies now and emerging services into the
mix and it becomes clear that the Internet or more important, data
transmission, is the one key driving factor in today's
telecommunications marketplace. Currently the Internet is
basically a glorified E-mail network. The worldwide web portion is
in its infancy compared to what it has the potential to become.
However, in order to reach that potential it must be free from
government interference.
(1700)
The threat of regulation periodically raises its ugly head. Most
recently the chair of the CRTC has threatened to regulate Internet
in order to promote Canadian content. She has made comments
with respect to requiring Internet service providers to obtain
licences in order to operate their services. Licence fees would be
applied toward a multimedia production fund according to her.
Other threatened forms of regulation include stringent anti-crime
7600
and intellectual property provisions, encryption technologies and
others.
Let me make it abundantly clear that it is absolutely essential we
have privacy provisions so that individuals can have the assurance
that information they put on the Internet if it is confidential and
personal it indeed can remain that way. There have to be very
stringent areas there. Something like that would be far more
significant than bringing a bill forward that would release Ma Bell
to be able to develop certain broadcast programs.
The net has become accessible to the public and has become a
medium for free speech. It has been entirely self-regulating in its
policing. No one who has any reasonable knowledge of the net
foresees any serious regulatory regime imposed by governments of
any form as being either viable or successful. This is the danger of
where we are running. The physical structure of the network as a
method in which information is transmitted is essentially
borderless. One would have to cut off a country's telephone system
from the rest of the world in order to shut the Internet out and even
that might not work.
Therefore, we are on the brink of a very major concern, not only
of individual Canadians and their privacy but rather that of
government itself.
In terms of policing the Internet, the most successful methods
today have been a voluntary adoption of a code of conduct by
providers themselves as well as blocking software for individuals
and families. Ratings systems similar to those used in the movie
industry are beginning to emerge. Microsoft and Netscape are
among the biggest proponents of these initiatives. This gives
parents in particular the power to block access to questionable
material their children might be curious about.
This becomes a very significant issue because this now puts the
onus on the individual. It raises the question of what kind of
orientation we would have toward life, what kind of orientation we
would have to the values we hold and what are the kinds of things
we would like to have influence our lives and particularly our
children's lives so that they develop the kinds of attitudes and
commitments to freedoms, to freedom of speech and to what is
good and just in the way we think they should develop.
The heritage department and its minister are major roadblocks to
competition.
In conclusion, I think we should underline this particular issue. It
is not the individual or the government that are the intruders here
but it is a commission of the government that is acting in an
absolute position where it becomes the guardian and has been the
guardian for years of a monopoly position in telecommunications.
Industry Canada is wisely adopting an open standards approach
to the introduction of new technology like LMCS and PCS.
Unfortunately the providers of these new services will require
licences in order to start broadcasting and the CRTC will
undoubtedly stick its nose in and disturb the competitive process.
I would like to now refer to a recent conclusion that was drawn
by one of our columnists in a national newspaper. It was Terence
Corcoran who said on November 8, 1995: ``The Canadian
Roadblock to Telecommunications Competition, CRTC, continues
to stand athwart the Canadian information highway, causing much
concern and mounting anxiety among its potential builders''. He
goes on to explain exactly what has happened here. That is where
the impediment lies. It is not in repealing sections like section 7 in
the Bell Canada Act. Important as that is, it is only a very small
beginning.
In the final analysis, the Broadcasting Act and the
Telecommunications Act as they are now constituted represent the
biggest competitive barriers of all. The CRTC simply applies these
acts in its deliberations on licences. That is not the only thing; it
goes a little beyond that. Amalgamation of these two statutes is
desperately needed in order to provide for a more expansive and
competitive telecommunications market in Canada.
To get to that point we must conclude that Canadian cultural
protectionist arguments of the past no longer work. Witness the
current battle pitting the international trade minister and the
industry minister against the Deputy Prime Minister. We know that
battle is an open one and the conflict is very vicious.
(1705)
Our current market problems originate to a large degree with
those people who consider themselves as cultural engineers at the
heritage department and in the CRTC. Canadians can compete with
anyone in the world. Our neighbour to the south may be large but it
is no further ahead technically, so there is no reason for us to fear it
on that score.
The nationality of capital is irrelevant as long as we control how
that capital is applied and what it does when it is applied. It is only
the behaviour of capital that should be of concern to us and that is
the concern we should address. The Canadian government retains
the right to determine that behaviour and we must jealously guard
that it is in the best interests of consumers where the application of
that capital should go. We should be as businesslike, as efficient
and as profitable as possible as we enter into each of these areas,
not only into the convergence of telephone and cable companies,
but into the wireless technologies which could get us all the way
into direct to home television and so on.
It has been a teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy little movement here now.
It is a good one but we need to go much farther. I encourage the
government to move quickly and with dispatch into those areas that
will bring us the control we need so we can become true
7601
competitors not only in the communications field but in all of the
manufacturing and other services Canadians can provide.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
could never be as eloquent and as knowledgeable as the previous
speaker, my colleague from the Okanagan, who has gone on at
great length about the technicalities and the intricacies of this new
technological world we live in.
I caught his point that technology is only applied to the new stuff
that arrives. This is not new technology to young kids; this is how
the world works. They have never seen a different world than the
one we are in today. It is truly amazing to see how they have
embraced the new technology as we call it, this electronic world,
this wired world we are in.
We of the older generation have a hard time catching up and
keeping up with the young folks. At the same time this government
has a hard time keeping up with the changing world we live in. The
changing world is a competitive world which is the thing this
government still has not come to terms with.
Competition provides the best check and balance to any service.
Competition in the private sector ensures that it does not matter
what product or service you are selling, it ensures that you have the
best quality and the best service at the best price. If you cannot do
that, somebody else will come along, steal your market and you are
gone.
However, the government is hanging on to the CRTC, the
regulatory body that looks back to the rules that were created back
in the seventies and says that the market has to be apportioned to
this player, that player and the next player. It is not just the CRTC;
we have seen it in so many other industries.
The opportunities of competition must be allowed. Bill C-57 is a
small first step, and I emphasize small. What does Bill C-57 say in
its entirety? It says that section 7 of the Bell Canada Act is
repealed. That is it. That is the entire bill. One short simple
sentence is the entire bill. Therefore, allow me to say that this a
very very small step forward. However, we have to congratulate the
government in that it is allowing a little bit of competition for Bell
to enter into the competitive world. Surely it could have done a lot
more thinking and had a lot more initiative to allow the electronic
industry to get into the competitive world.
(1710)
An example is telephone company in the province of Alberta,
AGT, Alberta Government Telephones. It was owned by the
Government of Alberta, regulated by the Government of Alberta. It
had a monopoly. It was told how much it was allowed to charge. Of
course, because it was a monopoly it was strictly on a cost-plus
basis: this is how much it cost to operate the service, this is how
much profit it made; divide that by the amount of subscribers
which equalled the charges it would collect. That was the regulated
system.
A few years ago Alberta Government Telephones when it was a
department of the government had over 12,000 employees. Today
we have competition in Alberta and AGT is providing better
service today with half the number of employees. I wonder what
happened to the other 6,000 whose jobs are no longer relevant
because AGT now has to live in a competitive world.
Prices have come down dramatically. I mentioned service.
Several years ago AGT sent a bill every month. If it was not paid,
the service was cut off. That is simple. It was regulated and had a
legal right to do that.
Last week I got a telephone call from AGT's successor, Telus.
They phoned me not to say that my bill was overdue but to say:
``Let me tell you about our latest offering on how we can save you
money on your telephone bill. If you subscribe to this particular
package of services, we feel that we can reduce your bill by about
35 per cent every month. The cost of overseas calls is going to drop
dramatically. It does not matter what time of the day or night or
what day of the week you call because the prices are coming
down''. Whereas before when it was regulated if someone wanted
to call during business hours, nine to five Monday to Friday, they
charged an arm and a leg. No sales, no discounts, nothing for high
volume, nothing for customer service, nothing to respect the
consumer, nothing to respect the person who is paying their
salaries. The government allowed them to squeeze it out of the
consumer.
Now when there is competition, they are phoning me to offer me
a better deal because they know the competition may contact me
and do something even better, so they have to be on their toes. I
now have a choice. Choice is what ensures that we get value for our
money.
Think of the airline industry some years ago when the airline
industry was deregulated in the United States. It was said that the
planes were going to fall out of the sky, prices were going to go sky
high, and the airlines were going to gouge the consumer because
with deregulation they could charge what they wanted. But prices
dropped like a stone. And I am glad to say that last night I was
reading the Economist on the airplane. There was an article on
airline safety which said that safety has not been jeopardized in any
way, shape or form because airlines have been deregulated.
We have the best of both worlds. Safety has not been
compromised. Prices have come down dramatically. Service has
been improved. The consumer gets a better deal because the
government gets out of his hair.
That again is repeated all through many industries. We just saw
the softwood lumber deal the Minister for International Trade
struck with the United States. Now we are into the regulation of
softwood lumber. Now every mill has its quota and can ship
according to last year's shipments. They cannot go out there and
say: ``Boy, I can reduce my prices. I can do this more efficiently. I
7602
can do a better job than my competitor. I can get some market
share''. No. Government regulations say they can ship what they
shipped last year but they cannot ship any more. There is no
incentive for competitive efficiencies.
(1715)
As we enter into the technological world where competition
worldwide is beating down our door, we must be able to respond
with high tech research development and be the leader in the world.
That is why I find that the responsibility of this government in the
last few years we have been here is absolutely appalling.
A few weeks ago we had the mini series on television about the
Avro Arrow and how in 1957 Canada was at the forefront of
aeronautical technology.
We were at the forefront and the Prime Minister of the day said
enough of that, we do not want to lead the world, and we scrapped
the Avro Arrow.
The previous government had signed a $5 billion program to buy
helicopters. Yes, I know it was expensive, but it was going to put
Canada at the front of research and development, at the front of the
technology frontier on helicopters in the world. Through that $5
billion investment we were going to be competitive in the high tech
industries in the world. Then along came the Liberal government
which said ``enough of that, we would not want to have that''. So
we scrapped the $5 billion program at a cost of $700 million. We
are going to get nothing for our $700 million other than some
cancelled contracts; no research and development, no leading edge
technology. Now we are buying some helicopters from abroad so
that we lag behind rather than lead the rest of the world. This is a
shameful record indeed.
The point I am trying to make is that government has to be
accountable. Government has to set the playing field. A
government must allow competitive forces to play the game
otherwise we will never, ever be able to compete in this world. I
can assure members that if we are to maintain our prosperity in this
country, if we are to maintain our standard of living in this country
we have to be at the leading of technological innovation.
When we look at the developing world it is learning very fast
how to build build products on production lines and to send imports
into this country that are cheaper and better in many cases than
what we can produce. However, we have the advantage of
education and if we use that advantage of education to develop our
technology, to develop our research, to ensure we are at the
forefront, we will have something to sell around the world. We will
have something which will provide high paying jobs. We will have
something which will give people exciting and challenging careers
for the rest of their lives.
Those are the types of opportunities that we should be out there
selling rather than an infrastructure program of jobs, jobs, jobs that
failed miserably the last time around. These types of opportunities
should be grasped, not just with a simple one line bill that states
that Bell Canada can now compete in the television industry as well
as the telephone industry.
I urge the government to take note that time is rapidly passing it
by. The door of opportunity is closing fast. If we are to stay ahead
of the world, to lead the world and maintain our standard of living,
the high tech industry is something that we must embrace and we
can embrace it only through competitive advantage. If we think
that some bureaucratic regulator has the key and the knowledge in
order to keep Canada at the forefront, this government is wrong.
That is why we need to open the doors to more and more
competition.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1720)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from November 5, 1996 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary
measures in relation to members of certain administrative
tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to welcome everyone back to the House
in the new year. I would also like to mention the fact that this
month is a holy month for Canadians of the Muslim faith. It is
called Ramadan.
This is also my first intervention as a Liberal candidate for the
new riding of Brampton Centre. I wish people in Brampton Centre,
7603
my new riding, all the best. I hope I will be given the chance to
represent them after the next election, which I hope will be held
sometime this year or next. Whenever it comes, we will be ready.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill
C-49, the administrative tribunals act. The bill will result in the
elimination of some 271 governor in council positions and annual
savings to the taxpayers of some $2.5 million.
This is the second bill to introduce changes resulting from the
agency review. The agency review, as a whole, will result in the
elimination of over 800 governor in council appointments.
The changes that Bill C-49 proposes continue the efforts of the
government to reduce the deficit by eliminating duplication and by
ensuring standardization of service and accountability to
Canadians. These are the hallmarks of this government.
By approaching the business of governing with a business like
approach the government is ensuring that Canadian taxpayers are
getting the best use of their tax dollars. The savings outlined in this
bill reflect the commitment of the government to provide services
in a manageable and affordable manner.
Bill C-49 should receive the support of all parties in the House.
The Bloc Quebecois should support the bill because it will reduce
duplication. The Reform Party should support the bill not only
because it will reduce duplication but because it will lead to a
reduction in government expenditures which will result in a saving
to the taxpayers in every region of the country. All other parties
should support the bill because in the end it will mean savings to all
taxpayers and a more efficient system for the delivery of
government services.
I urge my fellow members in the House to support the passage of
Bill C-49. I hope Reform members will stop interpreting the
speeches of members of Parliament, discuss the issues sincerely
and support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak to this bill on the remedial measures in
relation to administrative tribunals. It makes us realize that the
government missed a great opportunity to transform the
administrative tribunals and ensure their impartiality.
For several years now, whenever decisions have been made, we
have realized that maybe people were appointed members of
administrative tribunals without having the required qualifications,
that maybe they were appointed because of their political
affiliation, because of their party background during the years
preceding their appointment. With this bill, the government had the
opportunity to rectify some important aspects of the administrative
tribunals, to clarify the situation and to ensure the independence of
members of these tribunals.
(1725)
At first, one might think that administrative tribunals is a rather
uninteresting subject, but when one considers which tribunals are
involved and what they deal with, one realizes how important these
tribunals are. For example, let us take the agricultural products
review board, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the
Competition Tribunal, the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission.
Speaking of the CRTC, let us not forget the controversial
decisions taken last year, which raised questions about the
connections between the government and the companies who were
presenting projects, about how they were able to influence the
government, to lobby. This example alone should suffice to show
that with this bill the government has missed an opportunity to get
rid of patronage appointments and restore the independence of
these tribunals.
The measures provided for by the President of the Treasury
Board are of two kinds. First, they increase political influence on
the removal for cause of members of these tribunals, the so called
disciplinary measures. It will work this way: The chairperson of a
tribunal will request an investigation and make a recommendation
to the minister, who will study it at leisure. Nothing in the act
compels the minister to go along with the recommendation if
certain criteria are met.
There is no such condition, even if there were a recommendation
by the chairperson of a tribunal saying that an individual is in a
difficult situation because he or she has become incapacitated or
has acted dishonourably or irresponsibly, or because his or her
responsibilities and other activities were incompatible. Even if
such a recommendation were made by the chairperson of a tribunal
to the minister, the minister is free to decide whether to act on it or
not.
In that sense, the government did not live up to its
responsibilities because it did not specify what criteria the minister
must use in approving recommendations made by the committees.
So, there seems to be some illusion in this, a little smoke screen
to hide the facts, which are that the government still has, and has
even increased its political control over the appointment and career
path of members of administrative tribunals. In that sense, the
government goes directly against the recommendations made by
senior officials in the administrative process.
For example, on July 8, 1995, the president of the Quebec Bar
Association was very clear in that regard when she stated that ``the
lack of job security may have an unexpected psychological impact
on the decisions of a person who may be more concerned about
pleasing the government than about rendering a fair judgment''.
This quote is taken from Le Soleil of July 8, 1995. It is very easy to
read between the lines how the government will continue to use
disciplinary measures against members of administrative tribunals
7604
or how it will appoint the presidents of these administrative
tribunals. The government has included in the legislation an
important subtlety: from now on, tribunal presidents will be
designated rather than appointed. Therefore, under political
pressure, they could be removed at any time by the government.
This clearly is an attack on the independence and impartiality of
these tribunals.
In our system, it is also important that decisions be fair and
appear to be fair so that it can be demonstrated that they were made
in a climate and in conditions that are both desirable and
acceptable.
When we look at the list, we see that there are all kinds of
administrative tribunals. Some, such as the Veterans Review and
Appeal Board, will make decisions affecting individuals who are in
difficult situations and who do not always have the ability to defend
themselves easily. If those having to make these kinds of decisions
cannot act independently of the political power and of the people
who appointed them, their decisions may be influenced by policies
and political pressures.
I think we have seen in the Canadian federation that the more our
judicial system is independent of the political power, the better it
can play its role and lead to satisfactory results and decisions.
(1730)
This decision will also have an impact on the future. When we
speak of the Competition Tribunal or of the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal, it will be crucial to appoint people with
unquestionable qualifications, and to avoid all political
interference through the appointment of people who get these
positions as a reward for their involvement in party politics and not
because of their qualifications.
We have seen the consequences of this in the past. Decisions of
bodies such as the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and the
Competition Tribunal will have a great impact on the future.
Let us take example of the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal. Let us say that a person is appointed to the tribunal and
that, after two or three decisions, it is realized that the person has
the tendency to make decisions that are protectionist in favour of
Canada, while the government is a proponent of free trade. A
recommendation could be made to the president of the tribunal to
the effect that the person has failed in his or her duty, that he or she
did not seem to be completely independent.
A recommendation could be made to the minister who would be
able to decide according to his government's policy and not only to
the relevance of having someone who is competent, who can make
honest and impartial decisions and who will prove to be competent
in the future. A minister may well be tempted for short term
considerations to choose someone who think just like him, who
will interpret the laws just like he does.
The role of members of administrative tribunals is not to please
the government, but to make decisions according to the spirit of the
law and giving satisfaction to the parties involved. Whether they
win or loose, they must be told that the decision was based on the
legislation and is not the result of some secret negotiations or
political pressure, which would be unacceptable.
The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety
Board is another example of affected organizations. Transportation
is an area where people need clear, apparent and impartial justice.
The proposed changes will not allow that. These changes will
rather have the effect of increasing political interference in these
appointments and in the disciplinary measures that can be taken
against members of administrative tribunals.
This is particularly true of the second aspect where the
government is proposing to designate the chairpersons instead of
appointing them. The chairperson of an administrative tribunal is
somewhat like the director general of a tribunal. He or she is the
person who can most influence the actions of these tribunals. If the
chairperson is always worried that his or her decisions could
irritate the government, he or she will be in a situation where he or
she will tend to make decisions that will please the government, but
which, in the long run, will tarnish the reputation of the
administrative tribunal.
For all these reasons, I move, seconded by the member for
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That'' and
substituting the following:
``Bill C-49, An Act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to
members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain
federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now
read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.''
This will give the parliamentary committee a chance to do its
homework so that the government can give us a bill that will be
more in line with what is needed to ensure the effectiveness of our
administrative tribunals.
(1735)
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
whole aspect of tribunals, administrative tribunals or quasi-judicial
bodies, has been the subject of much debate in this House. If one
looks to the very near past, one such debate centred around the
Immigration and Refugee Board.
7605
A fundamental question has to be asked about the existence of
these boards. What they really seem to do is take accountability
away from the minister and the department that have these
particular types of board.
I know, Mr. Speaker, you were sitting on the other side of the
House here and often this debate would rage around the
Immigration and Refugee Board and the abuses that took place.
Many of the people who were appointed were, to put it mildly,
Liberal supporters of the party. They were dumped in there because
somebody owed them a favour. That was and still is, I might point
out, the whole essence of the Immigration and Refugee Board. It is
an entity that should not even exist as far as I am concerned.
However, a fundamental question must be asked regarding the
establishment of these administrative tribunals. What is the real
purpose of each board and why does it exist?
I have spoken often in the House and asked several questions of
ministers. In particular I will reflect on the former immigration
minister since I was a critic at that time, and put questions on
accountability to him. What would his reply be? His reply was
consistently the same. ``I am sorry but that quasi-judicial body out
there was put into place for a good reason,'' he said. That good
reason, according to the minister, was that he did not have to make
the decisions any more. It was just an entity in which he had no say
or could make no statement on how an outcome or decision was to
be made.
We have seen the decisions that the board has made. Who are the
board members? For the most part they are Liberal and
Conservative friends. They are owed a favour and are stuffed into
this highly paid job. The job pays $86,400 a year. That is $20,000
more than parliamentarians make on their basic salary. There is
something wrong with the system when that form of patronage
exists.
The decisions and results of the board impact not only on the
taxpayer who has to pay the bill but on the whole immigration
process. It brings the whole matter into disrepute. In fact, the
decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board bring the
immigration policy and process into disrepute.
I will digress from the Immigration and Refugee Board, and
address something in this bill. This bill is supposed to be a
wonderful, cost saving effort on the part of the government to deal
with the patronage issue. However, I do not see it that way at all,
not when we look at the availability of the number of appointments
that can be made. There are 2,225 available positions to put friends
into. Both past Liberal and Conservative governments and again
today the present Liberal government have been packing that
particular board again with a bunch of friends.
Mr. Reed: What are friends for?
Mr. Hanger: What are friends for, one of my colleagues across
the way asks. I guess that is the attitude over there. It shows itself to
be that, given the fact that they are all Liberals. Most of them do
not really seem to have any other qualifications.
(1740 )
Eighteen hundred appointments have been made into these
quasi-judicial bodies by the present government. That is out of
2,225. The bill states that 271 jobs will be eliminated. Wow. Out of
2,225 appointments 271 jobs will be eliminated.
Let us look at the facts. Those 271 jobs were not there anyway.
They were vacant positions for the most part. In some cases some
of these boards will no longer exist. The fact still remains that too
many of these appointments take away accountability from the
minister.
Let us get back to the former minister of immigration. The new
minister does not say anything really different. I have heard that
minister say very similar things when asked about a decision the
board has made. ``It is out of my hands'' the minister will say.
Whose hands is it in? Is some non-elected entity making decisions
that impact on the taxpayers and in some cases their safety, if we
want to reflect to the National Parole Board? That is happening.
Decisions are being made by quasi-judicial bodies because
ministers no longer are accountable for those decisions, they say.
Let us look behind the scenes now of both the Immigration and
Refugee Board and the parole board.
A whole industry feeds off these two boards. The parole board
costs $25,163,000 to run. That is just the surface cost. The National
Parole Board is not quite as expensive but certainly comes close. It
is in the neighbourhood of $70 to $80 million to run each year.
There is the decision process that is impacting on people. Look
at the uproar. When Reform first came into the House in 1994 we
attacked the parole board because of the decisions that were being
made. People were dying as a result of that quasi-judicial body, an
unelected group of people who had no concern really for what was
happening in the community.
It is only due to the pressure of the Reform Party that anything
was changed. Even then the changes were superficial. The
Immigration and Refugee Board has been ripped right out of the
hands of the public. They have no say on how decisions are being
made and no one to really go to and say to the minister: ``You made
a bad decision there''. He says he is not accountable any more.
As a result, there is a great rage that sort of turns around and
around in the public's mind about both the parole board and the
refugee board operate. They are not doing their job. The refugee
board is taking good positions away from individuals who would
rather immigrate here and try to go through the process in a legal
way as opposed to ones that the refugee board allows. For the most
7606
part, those positions are being filled in an illegal way: people
coming here and claiming status knowing full well that they are not
legitimate claimants.
In conclusion, if we are to gain any respect or consideration back
in Parliament regarding both the parole board and the Immigration
and Refugee Board, we could well look at scrapping both of those
boards. Their duties should be put closer to the people, the
immigration department for the Immigration and Refugee Board
and in merit release committees that will deal with parole issues
because they would be a lot closer to the community.
(1745)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to add my voice to that of my colleague, the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, in vigorously condemning the
intentions of the Liberal Party now ruling Canada in the spirit of
Bill C-49. The act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures
in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, as
written, is very worrisome.
Now that Parliament has reconvened, the constructive criticism
of the official opposition will again, I hope, bring home to the
public the lack of originality that has characterized the Liberal
government since its election in October 1993.
Bill C-49, like most of the bills put forward by the government,
shows once again the lack of rigour and transparency that are
becoming the trademark of the Liberal Party of Canada. Not only is
the government once again getting ready to back the most flagrant
cases of patronage, but it will also be giving itself the means to
override the application of justice in administrative tribunals.
What we see in Bill C-49 is simply scandalous. The government,
through the President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, will be supporting the contravention
of the most sacred of the principles underlying our political system
by interfering with the notion of the independence of the judiciary
with respect to other organs of government.
We have already seen the Liberals' arrogance and their lack of
regard for the precepts of our parliamentary system, but the tabling
of Bill C-49 is beyond all understanding and shows the
government's unbelievable contempt for the public it is supposed
to be serving.
During the holidays, we did a lot of visiting back and forth
between friends and family. As my uncle said: ``We are going to
take advantage of the fact that the member for Frontenac is here''.
One of my nephews, a student at Laval University, told me how he
had read in a magazine last month about a survey of the public's
level of confidence in 28 liberal and professional or
semi-professional occupations.
They were physicians, lawyers, engineers, teachers, new car
salesmen, used car salesmen, architects, businessmen, retailers,
farmers, and of course politicians. Do you know that in the poll on
how much our fellow citizens trust us, we came second last? We
got 4 per cent, just ahead of used car salesmen.
When we look at what the government has been doing for the
past three years, I believe that the Prime Minister himself and his
cabinet have greatly contributed to the lack of trust in politicians.
We only have to think about the Airbus fiasco. The government
tried to sue the former Prime Minister and had to apologize 14 or
15 months later. A first for a government. On top of it all, we are
paying the court fees. If you add up Mr. Mulroney's legal fees and
the government's expenses, the total bill will be well in excess of
$5 million.
(1750)
Was this a case of political vindictiveness? The question was
asked today. Who in the cabinet is responsible for this nasty piece
of work which is further discrediting this country's politicians?
We only have to think about the appointment of Quebec's
lieutenant governor who had to resign a few months later. Another
ill conceived appointment by this government. Every time the
government makes a new Senate appointment, my office receives
hundreds of letters and telephone calls in protest.
Since the Senate cannot be abolished without their unanimous
consent, people would like no new senators to be appointed and, in
time, as the population is aging, there would no be no senator left
and the government would not be any worse off for it.
And then, there is the Prime Minister's fumbling over the past
few years on the issue of the GST and his infamous red book. He
said: ``I never said that. You did not understand. You read it
wrong''. They showed him the video tape, they played it back, but
he said: ``This is not what I meant. You are thick, you never
understand anything I say''.
And yet, his deputy prime minister had the courage to resign last
spring because she had promised she would if the GST was not
scrapped within one year. It took some prodding, of course, but she
eventually resigned, and getting her re-elected after her mock
resignation has cost the Canadian treasury $500,000.
With her quizzes, her famous CIO, the Canada Information
Office, and her flag program, the Deputy Prime Minister has done
much that explains MPs' drop in popularity in the polls.
7607
Luckily, Mr. Speaker, that is not your kind of politics and you
have always acted in such a way as to maintain the public's respect
for political figures. I wish this government would mend its ways.
Bill C-49 before us this afternoon is a disgrace. It is outrageous
for the government to be allowed to remove people designated to
sit on a decision-making board or tribunal. They will appoint
yes-men and women and tell them what to do and what to say, like
puppets. ``Yes, that is right. Yes, 5 per cent. No, say 4.9 per cent
instead''.
This borders on indecency. When a democratic government has
reached this point, there is cause for serious concern and one might
wish it would disappear from the political scene.
On two occasions, Canadian voters elected a party that brought
disgrace upon this country. Only two members of this party were
re-elected. There is no doubt that the Liberal Party should pay for
misleading the public with false promises about the GST. And then
there was the infamous Airbus affair, an unprecedented occurrence
in the annals of politics.
(1755)
According to historians, never before in Canadian history had
the federal government brought biased, unfounded action against a
former Prime Minister and so soon after the fact. Proceedings were
instituted at the beginning of 1996 while the alleged wrongdoing
took place in 1992. That was a first.
I think we must join with the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup in wishing that this bill be hoisted
for at least six months. In the meantime, let us hope that the
government will call an election or review Bill C-49.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-49. It is the
administrative tribunals act but it should be known as the bill which
attempts to deal with patronage appointments to administrative
tribunals.
It is important that we set the stage for this debate by looking at
the Liberal government's red book promise on how it intended to
deal with this area. On page 92 of the red book it is stated:
A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the
institutions of government-and make competence and diversity the criteria for
federal appointments. Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal
program.
If Bill C-49 is one step in a series of initiatives designed to
address the patronage problem, I suggest it is very much a baby
step. If this is the best the government can do to address the policy
expressed in the red book, it should be withdrawn and the
government should start over again. This legislation is simply
another type of window dressing which we see so often in this
Parliament. It tends to mislead Canadians into thinking that
something is being done when in fact very little is happening.
Let us examine the bill for a moment. It still leaves over 2,000
patronage appointments which can be dealt with by order in
council. In fact the government has a special patronage
appointment office in the PMO which deals with these
appointments. It does not deal with the accountability factor. It
reminds me very much of the old administration to which my
colleague referred a moment ago, which was the Conservative
government of the last Parliament. It was in office for nine years
and patronage became very much a way of life, much as it has been
for a century in this country.
It reminds me of the story of an MP who represented a riding in
western Canada. He was a Conservative member in opposition for
four years and then in 1984 he became a government member. One
of the local companies in his riding suggested that maybe they
could get some of the government's legal work through farm credit
and that type of organization. This fellow said: ``Oh, no, we would
never do that. We are going to be squeaky clean''. About two weeks
after the government took power he took one of the law firm
partners out for lunch and said: ``Boy, was I naive. What do you
want?'' That was it and the gates were open to patronage
appointments. We heard what Brian Mulroney said about that in the
last Parliament and we are hearing it all over again this time
around.
What happened to the process? What happened to the ideal in
this country that jobs are awarded on the basis of competence and
ability? What is wrong with that kind of process? Nothing at all. It
happens in business all the time. It is a very admirable quality that
we should try to achieve in the House of Commons.
What happened to the openness of process that was promised on
page 92 of the red book? ``Open government will be the watchword
of the Liberal program''. We have not seen much of that happening.
What about competition for these jobs? What about fairness of
process? It simply is not happening.
During the three years that I have been here I have certainly had
my eyes opened as to how the system really works. Let us examine
what has happened in the last three years.
A very competent minister of the government, the former
Minister for International Trade, Roy MacLaren, was talked out of
running again. They asked him to step aside so a byelection could
be held. It is my understanding Mr. MacLaren was not very happy
about that, but then he learned there was a little reward at the end of
the line for him. He could become the British high commissioner.
Of course we already had a British high commissioner whose term
was not up until July, and this was in January. Poor Roy needed
some interim job to tide him over and he was able to get a tidy
7608
little contract with the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade just to get him by.
(1800)
It seemed that it was the foreign affairs area which really got
rewarded that time around. André Ouellet, the former Minister of
Foreign Affairs, one of our colleagues in this House the last time
around, was talked out of running again to allow one of those bright
stars to come in from Quebec. We are not sure how brightly shining
they are right now but that was the idea at least. Mr. Ouellet was
talked into stepping aside. Of course there was a little reward for
him at the end of the tunnel too: chairman of Canada Post
Corporation, which happens to pay $308,000 a year. That seemed
like a fairly good amount. There was more.
Some of our other colleagues on that side of the House also got
their rewards. They were asked to step aside and take appointments
to the Senate, the great Senate, the heaven of patronage-haven,
heaven. Jean-Robert Gauthier and former Acting Speaker Shirley
Maheu got their rewards. I often tell my constituents that being
appointed to the Senate is the only time someone can get to heaven
without actually dying. That is what happens here. That is the kind
of reward we see in this country.
With that kind of example being set, it is common knowledge
that candidates from the Liberals and Tories when they are in
power, candidates who may not make it into the House of
Commons are also rewarded. They get appointed to the Canadian
Grain Commission and every other job we can possibly think of.
It is no wonder Canadians are cynical about the process. We
simply must get back to a process of accountability with people
who actually have the competence to take these jobs based on past
performance in other areas of life. They should not automatically
go to people who were former members of Parliament, or people in
power, or political candidates. There are a lot of competent people
out there who would like a shot at being involved with these
judicial boards.
There should be a fair and open process that addresses this issue.
We simply do not have it now. This bill should be defeated. It
should be scrapped. If the government cannot come up with
anything better than this, I suggest it should face the Canadian
public at election time. Quit tinkering. Bring something
substantive forward or do not bring forward anything at all.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw the attention of the House to the parallel between Bill
C-65, which was previously before the House, and Bill C-49.
As the official opposition critic for the Treasury Board and
Public Service Renewal, I would like to remind the House that Bill
C-65, which was an Act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal
agencies, was first introduced on December 14, 1995, and that Bill
C-49, debated in the House of Commons in October 1996, deals
with administrative tribunals and aims at reorganizing and
dissolving certain federal agencies.
Members will remember that Bill C-65 was supposed to change
and reorganize 15 federal agencies and dissolve 7 others. The
expected changes were to lead to the abolition of 150 governor in
council appointments and savings of $1 million, but the federal
debt keeps increasing by more that $100 million every day. Bill
C-65 was expected to reduce patronage and the waste of public
funds; however, as reports published in the Globe and Mail on July
8 and December 21, 1994 indicated, under the Liberal government,
political appointments were as rampant as ever.
(1805)
The savings resulting from the minister's bill, Bill C-65,
represented only one-eighteenth of one per cent of the savings
associated with the 45,000 public service positions that were
abolished.
Why would the minister be interested in reorganizing and
dissolving certain federal agencies to realize savings of $1 million
a year which have a minor impact on the federal budget compared
to the savings associated with cutting 45,000 jobs?
In some cases, eliminating any legal reference to advisory
boards in order to reduce the number of political appointments and
giving lower levels of authority the liberty to decide if such
advisory boards are necessary leave some doubt as to the Liberal
goverment's commitment to administrative transparency.
In the case of Bill C-65, which was aimed at eliminating any
reference, for example, to the National Library Advisory Board, it
seemed that the director of the National Library had every intention
of keeping a similar board with more or less the same members.
This is just an example. In the case of Bill C-65, there were no
savings and a little more power to the director of the Library. Will
the House of Commons have the right to examine appointments to
such advisory boards, which in fact will no longer be legally
constituted? How about administrative transparency in a case like
this?
That was Bill C-65, an omnibus bill that created the illusion of
transparency and deprived the government of the right to examine
appointments to advosory boards which will no longer have legal
status. Under the cover of administrative rationalization, this bill
reduced the power of Parliament and opened the door to an even
greater number of patronage appointments, something the Liberals
are very good at.
7609
Coming back to the bill before us today, we can draw a parallel
with Bill C-65 which dates back to 1994. Bill C-49, regarding
which an amendment has been proposed today, brings major
changes to the way administrative tribunals operate.
We are told its purpose is to standardize the disciplinary process
in administrative tribunals as well as the procedure for appointing
the heads of these tribunals, to dissolve seven federal agencies and
restructure or decrease the size of thirteen others, and to
standardize pay terminology and make a number of other
amendments.
Bill C-49 could have resolved the fundamental problem of
partisan appointments to administrative tribunals. Instead, the
federal government chose to return to a not-so-glorious past in this
regard, rather than modernize the entire appointment process, as
the Government of Quebec is getting ready to do.
At a time when the public is so cynical about politicians, the
President of the Treasury Board of Canada has introduced even
more partisan procedures that will give political authorities
increased control over administrative tribunals.
The bill establishes a new mechanism to remove from office
people appointed to administrative tribunals by the governor in
council. This is in clause 3 of the bill. Also, after certain
procedures, the governor in council will have the power to remove
these people from office for cause, as specified in the bill.
Only after receiving an inquiry report will the minister have the
power to make a recommendation to ``suspend the member without
pay, remove the member from office or impose any other
disciplinary measure or any remedial measure''. This is in clause
14 of the bill. The minister's recommendations are entirely at his
discretion, regardless of the content of the inquiry report.
(1810)
All chairpersons of administrative tribunals will henceforth be
designated instead of appointed. Such an amendment leaves the
chairperson very vulnerable to political pressure from the
government, which can simply designate a new chairperson as it
sees fit. There is a danger that these new measures will further
undermine the credibility of administrative tribunals and in
particular leave them even more dependent on the political arm.
It is unacceptable to introduce measures that are such a serious
attack on the independence and impartiality of administrative
tribunals. It truly runs counter to the transparency the public wants
from a modern and progressive government.
The two bills I have compared today, Bill C-65 and Bill C-49,
dealt successively with the reorganization of certain federal
agencies and of administrative tribunals, but the anticipated annual
savings of one million dollars in the first case and a reduced right
of review by Parliament and an increase in partisan appointments
in the second leave us with the impression of another promise not
kept by this government.
I would therefore like to take this opportunity to support the
amendment put forward today by the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, and seconded by the member for
Frontenac, which reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after ``That'' and
substituting the following: ``Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary
measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize
and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time six
months hence''.
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-49, a bill which purports to do something
about patronage appointments to various tribunals and boards.
My colleague who spoke before me said this bill is typical of the
sort of tinkering around the edges that we have seen in most of the
Liberal legislation that has come before this House. It just tinkers
around the edges of a problem without really getting to the grips of
it, without really solving the problem that is there and that is
inherent in the whole system. It is typical of the Liberals in
government in that regard. Even behind the scenes they cannot
make up their minds what to do next.
I mentioned earlier in the day the book Double Vision: The
Inside Story of the Liberals in Power. Mr. Speaker, I do not know
whether you have had the chance to read the book but it is
extremely interesting and revealing. It tells what has happened
behind the scenes over the last three years. It points to the exact
problem we see in Bill C-49 today, the tinkering around the edges
and the inability to come to grips with the problems.
An example in Double Vision was when the previous minister of
immigration had to make some decisions about cutting costs in the
immigration department. He could not bring himself to cut
anything but the fact was he had to for fiscal restraint. Eventually
he bought the idea of the landing fee for the immigrants even
though he was under attack from some of his colleagues and
advisers as being racist for introducing such a fee.
The fee started off for good fiscal purposes to be around $1,500
or $1,800. It ended up that the previous minister insisted it had to
be under $1,000 in order for him to accept it. Here is this tinkering
around the edges again and not truly coming to grips with the cost
saving and accepting something less than ideal.
I could go on all day about examples from Double Vision: The
Inside Story of the Liberals in Power because it really does relate to
this bill and how it is just tinkering around the edges. I personally
think an excellent motion sometime for this House to debate would
be that this House recognize the valuable service to Canadian
voters performed by the writers Edward Greenspon and Anthony
Wilson-Smith in their writing of the book Double Vision: The
7610
Inside Story of the Liberals in Power, and furthermore, that this
House should encourage all Canadians to read the book prior to the
next federal election.
(1815 )
I wonder if I could ask the unanimous consent of the House to
begin debating this motion immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there consent for the
hon. member to move his motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is no such consent.
The hon. member may continue his remarks.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, it was worth a try.
We could have gone on to some very interesting stuff coming out of
that motion but we will save it for another day.
The hon. member who spoke before me from the Reform Party
mentioned the Senate as being one of the great places of patronage.
I was actually going to bring up the Senate as a good example of a
place where we could begin addressing this problem of patronage.
Bill C-49 actually claims to eliminate 271 positions from the
patronage appointment list. However, none of those positions are
filled. They are all vacant. Therefore, we are eliminating nothing.
A lot of Canadians would feel a lot happier if we could eliminate
271 seats in the Senate, if they existed. I know that perhaps, Mr.
Speaker, in a previous time, prior to being a deputy speaker, you
may have even hoped that there would be a total elimination of the
parole boards. I know that personally you were quite against
getting too tough on crime, but that is a story for another day.
As for the Senate, even that is getting to the point where perhaps
it cannot be trusted as a place of patronage because I know that
Senator Anne Cools-Mr. Speaker, can we use a senator's name in
the House?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member will
want to be careful that he does not speak disrespectfully of the
Senate. I believe that is a rule that he must follow.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Senator Anne Cools is reported in a newspaper article in the
Vancouver Sun as departing frequently from the Liberal Party line.
I am sure that some of those who were involved in perhaps a
patronage appointment in that regard maybe are regretting their
past decision.
The article goes on to explain how she has great doubts about the
Liberal Party's gun control legislation. According to the report she
took part in a shooting exhibition in Edmonton and has the target
with suitable bullet holes in it pinned on the wall of her office.
Right now she is apparently in opposition to the child support
legislation presently before that House. ``Life is not so simple as
women are angels and men are devils,'' says Cools, who, somewhat
to her surprise, has become a darling of the right for her assaults on
the feminist agenda.
Virtue is hers and vice is his. Who could have believed we would
have reached that stage in society where public policy making
would be made on this basis. She took aim at the Divorce Act
which is a bill we have already dealt with and is looking at perhaps
derailing that. That is a patronage appointment perhaps that went
wrong, depending on which side of the House one is on, so to
speak. However, the Senate is a good example of a place of
patronage.
Another problem with Bill C-49 is that one does not even need to
be a Canadian citizen in order to take advantage of this new bill. It
is going to open things up for appointments or arrangements to be
made for non-citizens. All one has to be is a landed immigrant. One
wonders what sort of situation we are going to end up in with that
sort of vague and open policy.
Another area of patronage that is well recognized is the
patronage that tends to follow from Liberal nomination tactics
during the run up to elections. There is another article which
coincidentally happens to be on the opposite side of the page of the
Vancouver Sun. It is headed: ``Liberal nomination tactics under
scrutiny''. It is almost a full page.
It is about the natural patronage that tends to flow from
nomination meetings run by the Liberals. For example, it deals
with Mobina Jaffer, who ran run against me in the previous election
in North Vancouver. I know that the Liberals felt they had a pretty
good shot at it the last time, their best shot perhaps in 20 years, but
they did not make it I am afraid. Now Mobina has been rewarded
with an automatic appointment to the riding of Burnaby-Douglas
which she agreed to take with no competition in return for allowing
another party president, Celso Boscariol to go into the riding she
had chosen. The rumour in the newspaper is that Mobina will get
her reward even if she loses the seat.
(1820)
The entire article concentrates on the aspect of patronage. I
really do not see how Bill C-49 is going to fix that problem because
all it does is eliminate positions that did not exist. It is a bunch of
window dressing, typical of all of the legislation we are seeing
here. We are just not seeing any serious legislation at the moment.
Canadians would prefer us to deal with the Young Offenders Act.
They would rather see their taxes lowered. When I go out on to the
streets and ask them: ``Are your taxes any lower than they were in
1993? Are your streets any safer than they were in 1993? Is the
country more unified than it was in 1993?'' We can go on and on
with a list like that. ``Have members of Parliament fixed their gold
plated pension plan? Is the GST gone? Is the jobless rate down?''.
Canadians would much rather see us address those problems than
7611
some sort of half measure on patronage that really does not even
address the problem.
I plead with members to vote against this legislation. It is bad
legislation. It is inadequate legislation. Let us go back, do the job
properly and clean up the whole thing. That was promised in the
red book. The Minister of Finance does not believe we should take
any notice of the red book. He said he had a hand in writing it but
we should not take any notice of it because he knows what c-r-a-p it
is. I am sorry to use that word, but it was a quote from him.
Just as a final reminder in closing, if members have not already
read the book Double Vision, the truth about the Liberals in power,
please read it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I hesitate to interrupt the
hon. member. I know that he knows it is improper to use props in
the House. I know he would not want to break the rules in that
regard.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this appears
to be my day for speaking.
We must be getting through reams of legislation. Let us talk
about Bill C-49 which is the government's reorganization of the
political patronage industry in this country.
As members know I publish a waste report. I brought one out a
few weeks ago which dealt to some degree with patronage
appointments and the illegal tax evasion scams of some of them.
Having been an accountant in a former life I know that the
government has gone to great lengths to ensure that every dollar a
person earns is a dollar taxable. These things are quite important
because the government needs every dollar it can squeeze out of
Canadians. However, it seems that when it comes to political
patronage appointments it has forgotten to squeeze hard because
there is an illegal tax evasion scam going on. It goes something like
this.
Dr. Victor Goldbloom, the Commissioner of Official Languages,
was asked by the Clerk of the Privy Council to accept the
appointment of official languages commissioner. The job of course
is here in Ottawa.
I have it on the record of the official languages committee when I
asked the commissioner exactly what was going on. He said that he
had no intention of moving from Montreal, where he lives, to
Ottawa. The Clerk of the Privy Council then said: ``You will
therefore be entitled to a second residence allowance''. Since that
date we as taxpayers have been providing him with an apartment
here in town. I understand the rent is somewhere around $15,000 or
$16,000 a year.
In addition to that, he said: ``I prefer to live in Montreal''. Since
his position carries a chauffeured limousine along with it, the
chauffeur goes to Montreal every Monday morning and brings him
to Ottawa and on Friday night takes him back home, all tax free of
course. For every other Canadian commuting to and from work is
not a tax deductible expense. They have to pay taxes on it if their
employer provides that transportation. But not so for the
Commissioner of Official Languages.
Every time an employer provides extra accommodation, the
value of that accommodation is taxable except under very limited
circumstances. The Clerk of the Privy Council gave Dr. Victor
Goldbloom a tax free apartment in Ottawa courtesy of the Canadian
taxpayer and that is illegal.
(1825)
I have it on record at the official languages committee that that is
exactly what has transpired. The government was asked through a
question on the Order Paper a couple of years ago if this was an
isolated experience or does it exist elsewhere. It took me two years
to get the information. I had to rise on a point of privilege two or
three times. I had to badger the government to get an answer to my
question on the Order Paper. You know that yourself, Mr. Speaker.
While the government has a responsibility to answer that question
within 45 days it took two years before it was able to answer the
question.
The reason is that not only is the Commissioner of Official
Languages participating in an illegal tax evasion scam but others
are doing it too. They may have received a patronage appointment
in Ottawa and live somewhere else. They want a housing allowance
tax free. They may be within reasonable commuting distance of the
position but they have to drive a certain distance. They are getting
up to $2,000 a month for travel allowance because they decided
that they were not going to move to where the job they accepted
actually is. This is all on a tax free basis.
Every other employer in the country cannot provide that type of
service and that type of benefit on a tax free basis. Yet we have
found numerous agencies that are paid by the taxpayer that are
participating in this scam. These people with patronage
appointments are in many cases making more than $100,000 a year
and in some cases as much as $150,000 a year and are getting an
additional $10,000 to $25,000 a year tax free.
I reported these people to the Minister of National Revenue. I
have had her verbal assurance today that she will follow through
and ensure that she fulfils her duty to apply the Income Tax Act
fairly and without bias right across the country and also to these
patronage appointments.
7612
It is a disgrace that the people who are appointed by a
government, not because of what they know but because of who
they know and what they may have been, such as a minister or an
MP in a government of a previous day, should be able to latch on to
the taxpayers' purse and then on top of that start some illegal tax
evasion scheme to make it even more generous. It is despicable that
we allow it to continue.
I hope the message goes out loud and clear to every board and to
every person with a political patronage appointment in this country
that there are laws and they apply equally to them as they do to
every other Canadian citizen. That is the type of attitude that brings
disgrace on the political process. That is the type of thing that
destroys Canadians' confidence in government.
That is why this government, like the previous government, has
a serious integrity problem. It has destroyed the trust that people
have in government. People now believe that those who are in
power are in power to help themselves. Unfortunately the facts
seem to prove that to be so.
Government and being a politician used to be an honourable
profession where people wanted to serve their country, serve their
constituents and serve the people of Canada. It is a noble calling
that has been thrown in a trash can by the people who have used the
opportunity to help themselves.
I hope that in a small way this will show a new beginning, that
trust can be won. However, it has to be won through earning the
respect of Canadians by living responsibly, by working
responsibly, by living within the rules, by ensuring that the laws
that we write in this House apply not just to all Canadians out there
but apply to us in here. Surely that is the fair test.
(1830)
If we are prepared to apply a law to Canadians that says this is
how much tax you have to pay, this is how much tax you have to
forfeit to the Government of Canada, then surely that same law
should be applied to us without fear, without favour and without
bias and without writing a special, more lenient rule for ourselves
and for patronage appointments.
That is a small way that we could start to reintroduce integrity
that has been lost and damaged and trashed by succeeding
governments, especially this one right here. How can we have
accountability when we have seen cabinet ministers whose
positions of trust have been compromised by expense reports that
cannot be fully justified by the travel on government business?
It goes a long way to telling the poor people in this country, who
are being taxed to death to subsidize people's grand style of living.
We hear government members say bring out another tax and spend
program, another child poverty program so that they can throw a
few crumbs back to these people, while at the same time feathering
their own nest.
They are the tax and spend programs where people feel they only
qualify for the tax side and seldom qualify for receiving the
cheques side. When they open the paper and find out that here in
Ottawa it is very easy to get on the receiving side that is when the
trust is destroyed.
I hope that Bill C-49, which we do not agree with, will be the
final step and that from here on we start to build integrity into the
system.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the bill before
us, Bill C-49, makes some administrative changes to boards,
agencies and tribunals according to the summary.
Our position is that this bill should be scrapped and done away
with immediately. It does little, if anything, to reduce patronage. It
makes surface changes to administration of boards and agencies
but no real changes to improve accountability.
We need competence and quality in appointments to government
boards and tribunals as well as improved accountability. This bill,
in itself, in our view is simply a blueprint for patronage.
The bill does not affect the cabinet's power to make
appointments. It can still appoint whomever it wants whenever it
wants. In fact, the number of pleasure appointments have
increased, which may open the door to increased political
interference.
The bill says it will eliminate 271 jobs. Currently all 271 jobs are
vacant and we know full well, and acting on common sense, when
someone does not have something they cannot very well take it
away.
There are still approximately 2,225 appointments available to
cabinet. The person in charge of patronage appointments is Penny
Collenette, a patronage appointment in and of herself.
In the red book the Liberals made a promise with regard to
patronage. They said that a Liberal government will take a series of
initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government
and make competence and diversity the criteria for federal
appointments. Open government will be the watchword of the
Liberal program. That was on page 92. This bill flies in the face of
that commitment.
Our commitment in our blue book was that the Reform Party
supports restrictions and limitations on the number and types of
orders in council permitted by a government during its term in
office. That is the way these appointments should be made.
Let us take a look at what the Ottawa Citizen has to say and part
of the list that it provided us on Friday, January 3 on government
appointments. It notes that Deborah Coyne, a constitutional lawyer
who worked as an advisor to former Newfoundland Premier Clyde
Wells during the Meech Lake accord negotiations and who is a
special friend of former Prime Minister Trudeau, will kick off the
7613
new year as a member of the department of citizenship's
immigration and refugee board.
(1835)
It says that Stephen Goudge, a former chairman of the legal aid
committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada and a friend of the
current justice minister, was appointed a judge of the court of
appeal for Ontario. When contacted at his Toronto home, Mr.
Goudge stated that he did not have any comment on his
appointment. He said: ``It would be inappropriate for me to
comment on anything. I am honoured by the appointment. I will do
the best I can''. I am sure he will and he will be well rewarded for
it.
Cabinet order in council documents show that the Liberal
government made 53 such public service appointments on
December 19. They were tremendous Christmas gifts. They
included 27 appointments to quasi-judicial boards administered by
the Department of Human Resources Development, 11
appointments to the immigration and refugee board and the
appointment of five senior judges. Some of the jobs are high
paying. For example, the immigration and refugee board jobs come
with salaries of $86,400 a year.
These patronage appointments prompted an editorial in the
Ottawa Citizen, a paper which customarily is friendly to the
government. I would like to read into the record some of the
editorial. The title is: ``Hypocrisy of Patronage''. The subtitle is:
``Having failed to uphold red book promises to control patronage,
the Liberals are guilty of the sin of hypocrisy''. The editorial states:
What do hundreds of defeated Liberal candidates, campaign managers,
fundraisers, and friends of Jean Chrétien have in common? They've been rewarded
with patronage posts for their loyal service to the Liberal party.
Make no mistake, patronage is alive and well in the Chrétien government. It is
most obvious with Gov. Gen. Roméo LeBlanc (former MP, senator, and election
strategist). It is just as pervasive with the unknown Liberals who sit on countless
agencies and boards.
Granted, the Liberals are not abusing the time-(dis)honored practice as much as
Brian Mulroney did. He shamelessly spread the spoils of power and turned Canada
into a nation of cynics.
Chrétien's political sin isn't that he's acted as cavalierly as Mulroney, but that he
hasn't met the high standards he promised. His is a sin of political hypocrisy. Among
the Liberals' Red Book promises:
The budget for consulting contracts would be cut by 15 per cent. So-called
communications consultants with political ties can reap lucrative contracts by
providing ``strategic'' advice. The Liberals say general spending cuts have saved
enough money, so they have not chopped consulting budgets as promised.
Parliamentarians would be given ``mechanisms'' to review some senior cabinet
appointments. No such mechanisms are yet created, and no excuse given.
All appointments would be ``made on the basis of competence''. So far, more than
1,800 have been appointed. Some, such as LeBlanc, have been highly successful, but
overall quality suffers if the candidates' prime qualification is that they are Liberals.
Chrétien promised this week ``he won't take Canadians for granted'' in the next
election. If so, he should remember it's their loyalty-not that of party
members-that should come first.
Patronage is a problem. That is pointed out in this editorial. They
are not my words, they are the words of a newspaper which tends to
be friendly with the current government. Patronage spoils the
feelings which people have for politicians and their government,
especially when they see candidates who were unsuccessful in
general elections being appointed to government boards and other
bodies which pay well. They look at that with great alarm. It is
taxpayers' money and they wonder how well their money is being
spent. Why should their hard earned tax dollars be used to support
failed candidates in a manner to which the taxpayers would like to
become accustomed?
The bill makes very few changes, for example, to travel and per
diem perks. In section 32(3), this bill will not affect such high
flyers, as my colleague pointed out earlier, as Victor Gloodbloom,
the Commissioner of Official Languages, who commutes between
Montreal and Ottawa. But it will eliminate local commuting claims
for people who used to claim the drive from home to work even if
was just around the corner.
The bill will deal with remedial and disciplinary measures which
will be standardized for administrative tribunals. However, the
power of the minister to interfere with disciplinary measures has
increased. The minister can now decide whether any member of a
committee should be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures,
section 5, or whether they should continue on-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I hesitate to interrupt the
hon. member, but it being 6.40 p.m., it is time to adjourn. When the
debate resumes, the hon. member will have about one minute
remaining in his remarks, which is why I am so reluctant to cut him
off, but we have filled the time.
It being 6.40 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to the standing orders.
(The House adjourned at 6.40 p.m.)