CONTENTS
Thursday, April 17, 1997
Bill C-95. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 9845
Bill C-96. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 9845
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.) 9845
Bill C-97. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 9846
Bill C-406. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 9846
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9846
Bill C-46. Report stage 9848
Motion for concurrence 9848
Bill C-46. Motion for third reading. 9848
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9849
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 9854
Bill C-34. Third reading 9854
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9854
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9858
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9864
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9868
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 9872
Bill C-38. Report Stage 9872
Motion for concurrence and second reading 9872
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.) 9872
Motion for third reading 9872
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9873
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 9877
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9878
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9879
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9881
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9881
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9881
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9882
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9882
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9882
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9882
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9883
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9883
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 9885
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9885
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9886
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9886
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9886
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9886
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9888
Bill C-38. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 9888
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9896
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 9900
Bill C-77. Motion for second reading 9900
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, by unanimous consent considered in committee and
reported.) 9902
Motion for concurrence 9902
Motion for third reading 9902
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 9902
Bill C-95. Motion for second reading 9902
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.) 9905
Consideration resumed of motion 9907
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9912
9845
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 17, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the Banff National Park management plan.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health.
(1005 )
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has agreed
to adopt the report on preventive strategies for healthy children.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a
comprehensive response to this report within 150 days.
In presenting the report let me acknowledge the fine work of all
members of the committee, representing all three parties in this
House and thank them sincerely for their diligence in what we
believe to be an important contribution to the issue entitled
``Towards Well-Being: Strategies for Healthy Children''.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as chairman of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts, I have the honour to present the
eighth report of that committee.
Pursuant to order made Thursday, February 20, 1997, the
committee has considered Vote 30 under Finance in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998 and reports the
same. A copy of the relevant minutes of proceedings, which
includes this report, is being tabled.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-95,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organizations) and to
amend other acts in consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-96, an Act to amend
the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act
in order to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the
Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and
Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
9846
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-97, an act to amend the Labour
Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health and safety and to
make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-406, an act to amend the Criminal Code,
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Immigration
Act, to provide for new offences relative to the spread of HIV and
AIDS and to require mandatory testing of inmates of a penitentiary
and immigrants for sexually transmitted diseases in order to reduce
the spread of the disease.
He said: Mr. Speaker, every bill I present in the House starts with
a sad story and my criminal transmission and mandatory testing for
HIV and AIDS bill is really no different.
(1010 )
In September 1992, Margot Blackburn from Dunham, Quebec
was raped in a church by a convict who was on a day pass from a
prison.
In 1994 Mrs. Blackburn presented a 50,000 signature petition to
the justice minister who responded by putting criminal rights ahead
of victims rights and refused to amend the law to force rapists to
undergo AIDS tests. Mrs. Blackburn has described the last five
years as hell on earth.
My bill should give Mrs. Blackburn and all victims some hope
that this travesty of justice can be reversed. It introduces a number
of measures to help control the spread of HIV, AIDS and sexually
transmitted diseases by creating new offences for the criminal
transmission of HIV and AIDS, introducing mandatory HIV tests
for 13 designated criminal offences, requiring regular HIV testing
of prison inmates, creating a health focused prison for inmates who
test positive and, by adding HIV and AIDS to the tests required by
immigrants and refugees.
The bill puts the rights of victims ahead of criminal rights. It
places the health and safety of prison guards ahead of prisoners'
rights. It also will stop the spread of HIV and AIDS, improve the
health and safety of Canadian citizens and save lives.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
constituents in the county of Essex, the county of Kent, the county
of Lambton and of course, the city of Windsor.
The petition is with respect to the issue of pay equity in the
federal public service.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions today.
The first petition comes from St. John's, Newfoundland. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that
police officers and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily
basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also
state that on many occasions the families of police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty are often left without sufficient
financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of the families of police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the
family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families who choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
present a petition prepared by the students at the alternate high
school in Ladner, British Columbia. I applaud them for their
interest in the affairs of this House.
The petition states: ``We the residents of the municipality of
Delta, British Columbia draw the attention of the House to the
following: that there is escalating youth unemployment and
alienation leading to more crime and suicide each day; that there is
a lack of motivation largely due to youth unemployment leading to
more drug and alcohol abuse; and that job finding programs which
exist are either not easily accessible, not readily available to high
school youth or overly directed at a select group of participants.
9847
Therefore your petitioners call on Parliament to support
community based job finding programs for youth like Delta Youth
Services''.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 87 citizens of
Guelph-Wellington.
These constituents call on the government, particularly the
minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, to immediately suspend negotiations on social
housing with the province of Ontario and to resume negotiations
only if the minister proceeds under publicly declared principles
established with the input of co-operative housing stakeholders.
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple
of petitions I would like to present this morning. One is signed by
thousands of residents of my hometown of North Bay, Ontario.
The people of North Bay humbly pray and call on Parliament
that there be no further downsizing after 242 jobs are lost over the
next 18 months at 22 Wing. Also, the petitioners request that 22
Wing and Squadrons 21 and 51 stay in North Bay, that the
government announces the retention of the air base before the next
election, that the prototype computer system for air surveillance
comes to North Bay in 1998, that the permanent Canadian location
site for the new surveillance system remains in North Bay, and
there be greater community consultation before any further assets
or jobs are terminated, including the underground site.
(1015 )
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure to present a petition.
Members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada in my riding
of Nipissing humbly pray and ask the government to guarantee that
Treasury Board representing the employer negotiates in good faith,
including open and honest bargaining practices; to guarantee that it
does not abuse its power by legislating any part of the collective
agreement negotiated and signed by both Treasury Board
representing the employer and the Public Service Alliance of
Canada representing the employees; to guarantee that the pay
equity issue be resolved before the next election; and to guarantee
that this settlement will not result in further job cuts.
The petitioners request that the petition be read and supported by
a democratically elected member of Parliament in the House of
Commons prior to the next federal election.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present two petitions to the House.
The first one is signed by 99 of my constituents. The petitioners
call upon Parliament to maintain the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada which prohibit assisted suicide and to
vigorously enforce those provisions.
They also request that Parliament not change the law in any way
which would allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or
passive euthanasia.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is signed by 52 of my constituents. The petitioners call
upon Parliament to urge the federal government to join with the
provincial governments to make national highway system
upgrading possible, as is being done in the United States and
Mexico.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition signed by approximately 100 citizens
of my riding of Algoma, mostly from Elliot Lake and Blind River.
The petitioners are concerned that 30,000 nuclear weapons exist
on earth at the present time. They quote former UN
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali as follows:
The most safe, sure and swift way to deal with the threat of nuclear arms is to do
away with them in every regard.
Inasmuch as Canada is a part of the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons agreement, the petitioners believe that we should pursue
negotiations in good faith and take effective measures that will lead
to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to
nuclear disarmament altogether.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
9848
9848
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-46, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (production of records in sexual offence
proceedings), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gagliano (for the Minister of Justice) moved that the bill
be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Are we moving to the vote on Bill C-46 at third reading?
The Deputy Speaker: We are now at third reading stage.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we understood
the government was to make a few remarks in opening the debate
and our speaker was to follow. We do not have a number of
speakers but there are some remarks we would like to make on the
matter.
The Deputy Speaker: It might be easier if the parliamentary
secretary spoke and then members of the Reform Party.
(1020)
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure today to rise to speak in support of Bill C-46, an act
to amend the Criminal Code regarding the production of records in
sexual offence proceedings.
I have outlined the specific amendments proposed and have
described the problems the amendments seek to rectify when I
addressed the House on February 4.
I applaud the efforts of the justice minister in crafting
progressive reforms to Canada's sexual offence laws, reforms that
reflect the charter guarantee of equal protection and benefit of the
law.
As a society we do not tolerate abhorrent behaviour. We rely on
our criminal law for protection. We rely on our criminal law to
prosecute vigorously those who contravene the law.
Sexual offences are unlike other offences. They are the most
invasive, violative and degrading offences that a person could
experience. Any one of us could become a victim of crime, but we
all know it is more likely that a woman or a child will be the victim
of a sexual offence.
Outdated attitudes in sexual offences and the women who are
victimized by sexual offences are changing but are changing
slowly. Many myths and stereotypes persist in society and within
the criminal justice system in relation to sexual offences.
This creates a climate that undermines our confidence in the
justice system designed to be fair and just. As has been pointed out,
sexual offences are unique in the sense that there are rarely any
witnesses.
Consent and credibility are the central issues in the prosecution.
There appears to be more of a stigma associated with being a
victim of a sexual offence than being charged with a sexual
offence. The complainant's credibility and character are under a
microscope.
Sexual assaults and other sexual offences are grossly
underreported. The true rate of sexual assaults can only be
estimated through victimization surveys but police statistics
provide some indication. Approximately 110 sexual assaults were
reported annually per 100,000 population, but only about 10 per
cent of all sexual assaults are reported.
We should not be proud of these statistics. That so many sexual
assaults occur in a year is shocking. That so few are reported is
even more shocking.
I am proud to be part of a government committed to improving
the criminal justice system, committed to enhancing public safety
and committed to removing many of the barriers that impede a
victim's access to the justice system.
The plundering by the accused of some of the most personal and
private records of the complainant is more than simply
embarrassing. It is an assault on the complainant's dignity,
personal autonomy and integrity.
I want to be able to say with confidence that the law will protect
us from crime and that the law will provide for the prosecution of
offences consistent with the principles of fundamental justice
which are fair to both accused persons and victims. The
amendments proposed in Bill C-46 go a long way to meeting this
goal.
The legislation will ensure that relevance is the basis for
demands for records. In all other criminal proceedings courts seem
to have no difficulty in determining whether evidence is relevant or
whether materials requested for production or disclosure are
relevant.
In sexual offence proceedings it appears that false statements by
defence counsel about why they apparently need certain records are
enough to warrant a violation of the complainant's privacy. We
cannot seem to rid our society of these attitudes.
9849
I welcome the proposed legislation which will guide the courts
in determining whether the records are relevant and in ensuring
that only the relevant parts of such records will be produced to
the accused.
I would like to focus on a few significant features of the bill. The
bill includes a preamble which has become a fairly familiar feature
in new legislation. A preamble is an effective way to assist the
courts in interpreting legislation and to clearly state Parliament's
intention in bringing forward these amendments.
The preamble in Bill C-46 refers to our concerns regarding
violence against women and children and the need to ensure and
promote the charter rights of all people. It recognizes the impact
that compelled production of private and confidential records has
on complainants and witnesses. In other words, it squarely
addresses the mischief the amendments seek to rectify.
(1025)
The preamble notes the need to ensure that requests for the
production of such records is carefully scrutinized and determined
with regard to the charter rights of both the accused and the
complainant or the witness.
The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that there is no
hierarchy among charter rights. Competing or conflicting charter
rights must be accommodated and reconciled to the greatest extent
possible. The amendments proposed reflect the goal of
accommodating charter rights that may come into conflict.
The minister has emphasized that the amendments are narrow in
their focus. While they require the accused to demonstrate the
likely relevance of the records and require the court to carefully
scrutinize applications for records in accordance with detailed
substantive and procedural provisions, the new production regime
applies only to sexual offences.
The extensive consultation process the Minister of Justice and
his officials followed has revealed that the overwhelming majority
of applications for records occur in sexual offence proceedings.
The case law bears this out. A wide range of personal records is
sought in sexual offence proceedings that is simply not requested in
other prosecutions. Therefore this type of production regime
appears not to be necessary or warranted to govern the production
of records in other criminal proceedings.
While the amendments apply only in sexual offence proceedings
and are carefully drafted and tailored to sexual offences, they will
protect a broad range of records. The legislation will define a
record generally as any form of record that contains personal
information for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The definition is capable of encompassing a variety of records in
any form and adapting to new situations that present themselves in
the future.
In addition, the definition specifically includes certain records to
ensure that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that they are
captured by the production regime.
I commend the Minister of Justice for his initiatives. Bill C-46
reflects a fair and balanced approach to a difficult problem. In
developing the legislation, the minister has listened attentively to
the views of those most affected by the production of records:
victim service providers, equality seeking women's groups, crown
attorneys and the defence bar. The legislation has benefited from
their participation. Yet no one view has dominated.
In conclusion, Bill C-46 is an excellent example of a law which
puts into practice the values we promote as parliamentarians:
fairness and equality. I would appreciate the support of all
members in the House for Bill C-46.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak in a debate on legislation whose
purpose is to make some contribution towards reducing violence
against women.
The subject is of particular interest to me, as the official
opposition critic for the status of women. The purpose of Bill C-46
is to regulate the production of records of victims of sexual assault,
most of whom are, unfortunately, women and children. This bill
became necessary following a judgment handed down in December
1995 by the Supreme Court of Canada in the O'Connor case.
This was a case of sexual assault in which a man accused of
sexually assaulting four young girls demanded access to the school,
medical and counselling records of the complainants. In a majority
decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, in some cases, the accused
had the right to access the complainant's records.
We should see this in the context that existed at the time. For a
number of years, victims of sexual assault had been protected by
new provisions in the Criminal Code which provide that the
accused cannot attack the reputation of the victim, especially the
victim's sexual reputation. You will recall that these provisions
were adopted following decades of abuse of victims by the
accused. The latter could, and most often did, try to tarnish the
credibility of their victims by putting the latter's sexual past on the
public record. Thus the myth was maintained that a woman who
was no longer a virgin deserved to be raped.
(1030)
Times have changed. Women have gradually acquired equal
rights, including the right to sexual freedom. The battle has been
long and arduous, and it is not necessarily over. We see this
regularly when certain judges publicly vent their private thoughts
about women.
9850
Women had won a measure of judicial protection. This
protection is important because it provides an incentive for women
who are victims of sexual assault to press charges. It is also an
incentive to persevere, once the initial charge has been laid. Legal
protection also allows victims to minimize, to the extent possible,
the impact of the aggression against them, by encouraging them
to find help within the community and from professionals.
This context of legal protection is vital to the women's struggle
and explains the importance of having laws that afford the accused
a full and complete defence but also protect the victims' access to
the courts. This access guarantees equal rights for men and women.
How can we talk of equality between men and women, when men
can continue to sexually assault women with impunity, because the
women refuse to report the assault for fear of having their private
lives dragged out for all to see?
If we want a society where men and women are equal, we must
take every means at our disposal to ensure they enjoy the same
right to integrity and security. The best guarantee of these rights,
despite its imperfections, continues to be the legal system.
On the subject of rights protection, I will address the first bone
of contention: that of the balance between the rights of the accused
and those of the victim. The bill, in its preamble, refers to the
accused's right to a full and complete defence and the victim's right
to privacy and equality. It also mentions that a balance must be
struck between these rights to the extent possible.
These last words and the notion of balance underlie the
arguments of the parties opposing this bill. On the one hand,
defence lawyers want greater access to victims' files, basing this
request on the fact that the accused has an absolute right to make a
full answer and defence. The philosophy behind this is that it is
better to let 1,000 guilty individuals be set free than to have one
innocent person sentenced unfairly.
On the other hand, according to those speaking on behalf of the
traditional victims of sexual assault, that is to say, women, hardly
any lawsuits are instigated on the basis of false accusations, and the
right of women to privacy and to not be assaulted demands that
access to records be strictly forbidden. Where is the middle ground
between these two extreme positions? How can a balance be struck
between the rights of the accused and those of the victim? At
present, it would appear that the rights of the accused are better
protected. Let me explain.
As we all know, the right of the accused to a full defence has
been entrenched in the Constitution since 1982. But this right was
already afforded enough protection by the courts before the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted. As I said
earlier, it is already part of our judicial standard to protect the
innocent against wrongful conviction at any cost. Indeed,
especially since passage of the charter, the courts have developed a
whole slew of rules and criteria to provide even greater protection
for the right to a full defence. A whole series of rulings have been
made on this provision of the charter, with still more to come.
But much less known is the right to privacy and the right to
personal safety, which have not yet made it into our legal and
popular culture. Because fewer judicial decisions having a strong
impact have been made on this subject, it is wrongly viewed as less
important, when in fact, both rights are mentioned in the charter
and nowhere does it say that they are less important. Why is this? I
think this is, unfortunately, a reflection of the lesser prominence
traditionally given to women's rights.
As Toronto Star journalist Michele Landsberg pointed out, have
we ever heard of a police officer testifying at a trial and being
required to disclose his medical records or to talk about his sex life
in order to establish his credibility as a witness? In fact, a number
of witnesses who appeared before the committee made the same
comment.
(1035)
Why have women traditionally been subjected to such
humiliation, if not because they were not given the same
credibility? Yet, as this journalist noted, there is no such invasion
of the victims' privacy in other criminal cases. Whenever women
and sexuality are involved, our society has always felt the need to
impose constraints on women. Yet, their right to privacy is
protected under the charter.
Now that I have raised this issue, I want to deal specifically with
the justice minister's bill. Through this legislation, the minister
wants to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and
those of the victim. Under the existing legislation, an accused can
ask for a wide variety of records, simply on the grounds that such
records might be relevant. The existing legislation is also silent on
several issues. For example, what records are involved, what
conditions can be set for their production, what information must
be included in the subpoena, and what must be done with the
records while waiting for the appeal process?
Bill C-46 seeks to deal with all these issues. Under the bill, the
accused will be required to specify the reasons why he feels that a
given record might be useful for his defence. In other words, the
bill seeks to prevent an accused from going fishing.
I know that a number of witnesses representing sexual assault
victims groups, including victims consultants, were hoping that an
accused would not be given access to any confidential records.
However, we all know that this is very difficult to achieve because,
according to some experts, such a provision would not pass the
charter test.
Therefore, the production of records could potentially violate
women's right to have access to social and health services that are
essential to their physical and psychological well-being. Indeed,
the possibility that the content of a session between a woman and
her therapist might be disclosed to the judge and the defence
lawyer may prevent many women from getting the care and support
they need to overcome the consequences of a sexual assault. This
9851
view was shared by all the witnesses who appeared before the
committee.
They all said that women would seek certain therapeutic services
less frequently.
Given what is at stake for victims of sexual assault and given the
fact that the information contained in records will very likely not
be relevant to the accused's defence, I think that the defence should
be required to show that access to confidential records is probably
necessary for a full defence of the accused, and that the benefits of
producing records substantially outweigh the prejudice to the
complainant's constitutional rights.
Like many of the groups that appeared, I would have liked to see
a number of amendments to this bill. I introduced several in
committee. You will not be surprised to hear that they were all
rejected by the largely Liberal committee. Does that surprise you,
Mr. Speaker?
I sincerely believe, however, that these amendments were very
realistic and, more to the point, that they reflected the suggestions
made by witnesses, by those who very often accompany the victims
of sexual abuse.
One of the first amendments sought was inclusion of the
preamble in the body of the bill. The groups that made these
recommendations include the Regroupement québécois des centres
d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, the
Ontario action group to combat violence against women, the legal
action and education fund for women, and METRAC.
Several of these witnesses told us that certain judges are only too
ready to express their true feelings about women publicly.
(1040)
That is why it would have been desirable to include the preamble
in the body of the bill, in order to counteract these sexist myths and
prejudices which are still clearly present in our judiciary system.
For a clearer understanding of the message of this preamble, I am
going to read it. It is worded as follows:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada continues to be gravely concerned about the
incidence of sexual violence and abuse in Canadian society and, in particular, the
prevalence of sexual violence against women and children;
Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence has a particularly
disadvantageous impact on the equal participation of women and children in society
and on the rights of women and children to security of the person, privacy and equal
benefit of the law as guaranteed by sections 7, 8, 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms;
Whereas the Parliament of Canada intends to promote and help to ensure the full
protection of the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for
all, including those who are accused of, and those who are or may be victims of, sexual
violence or abuse;
Whereas the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
are guaranteed equally to all and, in the event of a conflict, those rights are to be
accommodated and reconciled to the greatest extent possible;
Whereas the Parliament of Canada wishes to encourage the reporting of incidents
of sexual violence and abuse and to provide for the prosecution of offenses within a
framework of laws that are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice and
that are fair to complainants as well as to accused persons;
Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that the compelled production of
personal information may deter complainants of sexual offenses from reporting the
offence to the police and may deter complainants from seeking necessary treatment,
counselling or advice;
Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that the work of those who provide
services and assistance to complainants of sexual offenses is detrimentally affected
by the compelled production of records and by the process to compel that
production;
And whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that, while production to the
court and to the accused of personal information regarding any person may be
necessary in order for an accused to make a full answer and defence, that production
may breach the person's right to privacy and equality and therefore the
determination as to whether to order production should be subject to careful scrutiny.
You can see then, from reading this preamble and the reason it
was included in the Criminal Code as introduction to Part VIII on
crimes against persons, that it is hard to understand why the
committee rejected the recommendations made by a number of
witnesses and by the Bloc Quebecois.
I understand very well that the Criminal Code must not be
unduly burdened, and that many of the principles are covered in the
general provisions, that being the argument that is normally used.
However, considering that the objective was to change attitudes, it
would have been preferable to accept this amendment.
A preamble was included in the case of the young offenders bill.
So why not do the same in the case of this bill? Does this mean that
attitudes are harder to change where women are concerned? Does
it?
Including this preamble in Bill C-46 would be a major step. The
preamble not only has great educational value for the legal
profession and the general public but would also have been very
helpful in the case of court challenges by counsel for the defence,
because the preamble could have been invoked to guarantee an
interpretation that considers the constitutional rights of women as
well as those of the accused.
The purpose of including this preamble in the Criminal Code
was to recognize the negative impact the production of confidential
records has on the lives of women and the importance of
guaranteeing respect and support for their constitutional rights.
9852
A second amendment would also have been desirable to limit
access to the victim's confidential records. This amendment would
have required the accused to prove that access to confidential
records was ``probably essential'' instead of ``likely relevant'', the
term used in the bill. The burden of proof would have been better
served by the concept of the balance of probability than by the
principle of likely relevance.
(1045)
The balance of probability is a legal concept that increases the
onus on the person who wishes to obtain the record to provide
specific proof. However, I admit I am pleased that the government
has agreed to review the impact of this bill in three years' time. The
amendment was welcomed by all members of the committee. It
was proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, and I know that a Liberal
colleague tabled a similar amendment. The committee was
unanimous because the amendment reflected the preferences of the
majority of those who appeared before the committee.
We will be able to check whether certain fears about the
enforcement of this legislation were founded. I will name a few: a
reluctance to have personal journals and diaries included in the
definition of ``records''. Including it would lead the courts to
permit access to other personal documents written by the victim,
unlike institutional records. This is one fear expressed by the
various witnesses heard.
There is also the fear that victims would have less contact with
groups or individuals that exist to help them, that women should
not have to choose between justice and therapy. There is the fear
that, once a subpoena has been issued, counsellors or therapists will
lose contact with the victim, their client, and that this will serve to
further isolate the victim. There is the fear that judges examining
records will be insensitive. It is felt that personal and psychological
records are not relevant in a trial and the reasons given for
examining them are often trivial and are intended to further
intimidate the victim.
There is also the fear that women will not lay charges more often
for fear of having their private life made public. There is the fear
that the defence will try to obtain psychological or personal records
to show that the complainant had reason to lie about the sexual
assault, that she entertained malicious intent with respect to the
accused or that she had already wrongly charged him.
The evaluation, after the law has been in effect for three years,
will provide the means of assessing its impact on victims and the
various consultants in the community.
In Quebec, there are far fewer requests for access to victims'
files than in other provinces. However, there is some concern about
the phenomenon and people are keeping an eye on the potential
catch up that could occur in Quebec in this practice. This is why
passage of this bill will significantly limit access to the victim's
records-and this concern came out during committee
hearings-although we would have liked to further restrict access
to certain records.
Parliament should have set up without further delay a legal and
procedural framework to create a real balance between the right of
women to security, integrity and privacy and the right of the
accused to a full and complete defence. Bill C-46 is attempting to
partially close a door that never should have been opened.
This is why we will support the principle of this bill. However,
we will be watchful and keeping a sharp eye on the bill's
implementation so we can assess the concerns expressed to the
justice committee. I am sure that passage of this bill represents a
major step forward, because the situation was not desirable for the
victims of sexual violence.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is debate on third reading of Bill C-46. This is a bill intended to
strengthen the protection of privacy and equality rights of
complainants in prosecution for a variety of sexual offences. This
added protection is gained through restricting defence lawyers'
ability to apply for production and disclosure of private documents
such as medical, counselling and therapeutic records.
The bill's proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would
permit applications for a complainant's records only at trial stage
and then in a two step process.
(1050)
First, the accused would have to establish the likely relevance of
the records to an issue at trial or a witness' competence to testify. If
the accused did establish that the records were likely to be relevant,
the records would be ordered to be produced to the trial judge. The
judge at that first stage would be the only person who would see the
records.
In the second stage the judge would review the records in
private, taking into account their likely relevance and the charter
rights of both the complainant and the accused. The judge's
decision would determine the extent to which the accused would
have access to the records. The determination would not affect the
test for admissibility of any matters that the accused sought to
introduce as evidence in the trial.
The job of the opposition is to scrutinize government measures
and government proposals that are brought forward, to hold the
government accountable for the measures that are brought forward
and to act as a watchdog, a check and balance on the power of
government as it brings forward legislation that will affect citizens,
their rights and their lives. We take our responsibility as opposition
very seriously.
9853
I said in my remarks at second reading of this bill before it went
to committee I would be watching carefully to see what evidence
came forward at committee, what concerns were raised and how
the bill was viewed by those most affected.
In principle the Reform Party supports very strongly legislation
that provides increased protection to law-abiding citizens and
victims of crime. We have made a very strong case for increased
protection for victims rights. On April 9 we had an example of an
individual who was affected in this type of instance. I refer to a
case in Edmonton where a 13-year old girl's counselling records
were directed to be given to the 27-year old man accused of
sexually assaulting her.
The mother of the girl said: ``My daughter was invaded a year
and a half ago and now it starts again. It just feels that as victims we
don't have rights''.
Reform has urged the House and the justice minister repeatedly
to enact a victims bill of rights and we have given a substantive
draft of the measures such a bill should contain. So far the
government and the justice minister have not taken those urgings to
heart and have not put into place a victims bill of rights which
would give legal standing and protection to all victims, not just
victims in sexual assault cases.
It is very clear that there is real concern from people who have
been sexually assaulted about continued victimization by the
justice system which can force the opening of very private matters.
As a corollary to their first victimization a second one takes place.
The unfortunate consideration, though, is that not all
complainants are victims. Sometimes accused individuals are
victims because they are wrongfully accused and are put into a
situation where they need to prove their innocence. I do not think I
need to belabour the fact that for a man who is wrongfully accused
of sexual assault and sexual misconduct the affect on that
individual, his life and also the lives of his family members and
those who are close to him is very serious.
(1055 )
We must be very careful that we balance in the legislation, as I
have said before in discussing the bill, the interests of the right to
privacy and the right to equality of victims of sexual assault with
the right to liberty of the person and the right to make a full and fair
defence of individuals who are wrongfully accused of these actions
and who are really the victims.
That makes for a difficult balance. I am sure all members of the
House, the justice committee and the justice minister are very
anxious to have a proper balance in this situation.
The bill includes a preamble emphasizing Parliament's concern
about sexual violence against women and children. I think there
would be very few people in the country who would not be
wholeheartedly in favour of providing protection for women and
children against the kinds of terrible violence we have talked about
in the House over the last few days. I am not going to repeat some
of the situations that innocent citizens and innocent women have
had to face.
Bill C-55 could have allowed violent offenders who have
perpetrated sexual assaults and sexual crimes on women and
children to be designated as dangerous offenders and to be kept out
of society indefinitely.
For reasons which mystify me, this bill omitted sexual predators
and sexual offenders from the list of individuals who could be
designated as dangerous offenders. Again, I would urge the
government to rectify what I think is a very serious omission and
which is very much at odds and variance with its purported concern
for the safety of women and children.
I would now like to make a couple of comments about the
committee hearings on this bill. One thing that did concern me is
that there was only one submission on the bill from the viewpoint
of those representing accused persons. There were many excellent
submissions from groups and individuals concerned about the
rights and protection of complainants and victims of sexual assault.
These submissions came from individuals and groups that have
gone to tremendous lengths and have a tremendous depth of caring
and compassion in a very practical way, particularly for women and
children who have been victimized by sexual assault and very
personal invasion.
I commend these individuals, as I think do all members of the
committee, for the work they are doing to encourage, support and
assist victims of sexual assault in these life shattering situations.
We appreciated the submissions, there was only one submission
expressing concern about the right to a full and fair defence of
individuals who may be wrongfully accused of these terrible
crimes. I would point out that I am not entirely satisfied with the
kind of analysis and viewpoints of the bill on this side which we
need.
There was an amendment to this bill at committee stage which
also troubled me. Not only would a record have to be applied for in
a procedurally correct manner and not only would the record have
to be shown as relevant, but a third test was added by amendment
which said that the production of a record, even it if relevant,
would be ordered only if in the best interests of justice.
It seems to me that if a record is relevant in a judicial
proceeding, surely it would be in the best interests of justice that it
be produced. That is a matter that leaves the bill open to a charter
challenge.
(1100)
I was concerned about that. I raised it at committee. The
department officials responsible for drafting the bill pointed out
that they wanted to tie the application for records back to some of
9854
the balancing concerns and balancing rights that are the whole
reason for the bill. I accept that explanation.
I am a little concerned, though, that the way the bill is drafted
leaves an argument open that if a document is relevant but still
withheld in a judicial proceedings, withholding it would be
improper. The defence counsels I have talked to about this have a
similar concern.
The department officials were very anxious and very careful to
make a good balance in this bill. I was satisfied that they did a very
excellent job and consulted widely. I was very impressed with the
care, the concern and the ability they demonstrated in drafting this
bill. They are to be commended and the minister and his
department are to be commended for this.
A couple of other concerns about the bill are that there are major
cost implications because not only the complainant but the record
holder or agency that has dealt with a complainant is entitled to be
represented by counsel at hearings into the production of records.
The question is who will pay for that counsel. That was raised.
The department had thought through that and had some
suggestions. That is a practical matter that is really up in the air
regarding how that will really take place in practice and who will
cover that area.
There is also a concern that these cases will be extended
considerably because of the extra hearings and the extra provisions
in these kinds of cases for examining records and making
applications and that sort of thing.
Senior counsels who might be prepared to take on these cases on
a legal aid basis would be more inclined to withdraw because of the
time commitment, leaving only more junior counsels to represent
complainants, going up against senior crown counsels.
These are some practical things that were raised, and rightly so.
On balance the intent of the bill is appropriate. The bill is as
carefully balanced as the officials and the drafters could make it.
It is appropriate to raise some of the concerns that I just talked
about. Defence counsel and the criminal bar are very unhappy with
how far this bill takes us in putting barriers up to the production of
material that could be relevant in a full and fair defence.
It is fair that it is mentioned, but the one thing that does give us
some help is the amendment that was put in by committee to
review the bill after three years. We will be watching very closely
how this bill operates in the real world. Then we will be prepared to
push strongly for changes if we see the need.
On balance, after committee hearings and after speaking to a
number of people directly concerned by this legislation, my party
will be supporting this bill. We will be watching to see how it
works out in effect.
We want to make sure that the balance is appropriate but we
should let this go ahead to see whether it does give the protections
needed to innocent victims of a very terrible crime.
(1105 )
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Ron Irwin (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved that Bill C-34, an act to establish programs for
the marketing of agricultural products, to repeal the Agricultural
Products Board Act, the Agricultural Products Cooperative
Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to make consequential
amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): He said: Mr.
Speaker, once again I rise to address Bill C-34. I am pleased to
reiterate my support and that of the Bloc Quebecois for this bill,
which the agricultural sector has been anxiously waiting. However,
the official opposition's support should not be viewed by the
government as an unconditional endorsement.
I want to make it clear: We support the principle of this bill, and
most of its provisions, but we still have reservations about the
budget allocation.
Therefore, I want to explain our reservations. The Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food spent a long time
discussing the benefits, and particularly the gains that could be
achieved by the agricultural industry, both in Quebec and in the rest
of Canada.
The major irritant at the root of the Bloc Quebecois' opposition,
or at least its reservations, had to do with the budget allocation. The
development of the advanced payments program is a major aspect
of Bill C-34.
Since I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware of the
situation in the agricultural sector, I will try to shed some light on
the issue. Bill C-34 provides that $120 million will be allocated to
the advance payments program, in equal parts, over the next three
years.
Needless to say, these funds are absolutely necessary to ensure
the survival, or at least the financial viability, of farm operations.
9855
In many cases, the final payment for a given crop can take weeks or
even months to get to farmers while payments for costs associated
with operating the farm get to them in no time.
At this point, I would like to give you a specific example. Take
maple syrup producers for instance. The sap runs for two, three or
four weeks maximum. Of course, producers must invest large
amounts of money before and during this short period. As we
know, preparations often start right after New Year's day, and this
involves tapping the trees and getting the tubing ready, along with
all the other equipment that will be used in the sugar bush.
(1110)
During these tree or four weeks of intense work, maple syrup
producers must invest large amounts. A portion of the production
will be sold at retail to people visiting the sugar bush. But for the
most part the crop is sold wholesale, in barrels, and often maple
syrup producers have to wait for months, if not years, to receive
final payment.
With this advance payment scheme, producers will be receiving
a reasonable payment on the fair value of the syrup. This also
means that advance payments for crops provide balance in the
financial management of farm operations. Need I point out also
that, in many cases, this represents the operations' lifeline? It is the
difference between an anxiety ridden operation and a prosperous
one and the profitability of farms, which are the pride of rural
areas.
You can see that a farmer has to be able to count on a higher
authority to guarantee the investments required to run a farm.
From a strictly analytical and non-partisan point of view, the bill
introduced by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is
certainly very laudable and full of good will, but certain features of
the bill leave me wondering about the minister's real intentions and
motivations with respect to the main idea behind marketing these
agricultural products.
As I pointed out in my speech last June 17, just before the House
rose for the summer, there is a rather obvious inconsistency in the
way the government markets these crops. Let me explain.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will use huge sums of money
to facilitate the marketing of annual crops, but this money already
comes from the income protection programs envelope. This is a
rather huge inconsistency. In my humble opinion, the government
is trying to hide the cuts it is forcing on a category of taxpayers,
who are already in a precarious financial position.
This brings me to the agriculture department's unfair treatment
of farmers, particularly dairy producers. I remind you that on
August 1, 1995 we cut the price paid for a hectolitre of industrial
milk by 81 cents. On August 1, 1996, the same thing: another 81
cents cut per hectolitre, with another 76 cents to come next August
1-in a few months-until it is all used up, or in other words until
August 1, 2001, when there will be no milk subsidy left, when it
was $5.43 per hectolitre to begin with.
I will give you the example of an average Quebec farm, since
Quebec alone produces 47 per cent of industrial milk in Canada. An
average farm, a family farming operation, producing 1,900
hectolitres of industrial milk yearly, will lose $1,500 a year, or over
the five year period of regular cuts, an average of $7,500. That
represents a drop in income of between 5 and 5.5 per cent.
(1115)
Often, that 5 per cent in question is the only net income that is
left in the dairy farmer's pocket at the end of the year, with which
he can treat himself to a little outing, a little trip.
Unfortunately, the government across the way is taking care not
to speak of this cut. For instance, between 1994 and 1995, when the
subsidy was $5.43 a hectolitre-a hectolitre being 100 litres-that
meant that the government was paying about 5.5 cents per litre in
industrial milk subsidies. As of August 1, 2001, that figure will be
down to zero.
Do you know what this means for the dairy producers of Quebec,
the 26,000 dairy producers of Quebec? It means a cut of $108
million, for Quebec alone. For all of Canada, $228 million. Since
Quebec produces 48 per cent, you will see that, first and foremost,
it is the Quebec dairy farmers who are being penalized most
heavily.
The Minister of Finance has made more cuts in the Department
of Agriculture than in all of the other departments. Between the
1994-95 budget and next year's 1998 budget, cuts in agriculture
will be 35.5 per cent, close to three eighths of the total cuts. In Bill
C-34, the principle of interconnectedness is being used, linking
what has been forecast as revenue and what will be given in
anticipated payments, to what must be guaranteed as income if the
crop should fail.
In other words, it is a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
There is no fresh money, no new money. Together with the cuts in
subsidies for producers of industrial milk, this will inevitably lead
to a price increase for the processors.
I want dairy producers to listen carefully to these figures.
According to a study, every time we increase the price of butter by
10 per cent, and butter costs more than $3 a pound today, the price
goes up 30 cents. Will people eat more butter? No. It means a 7 per
cent drop in sales.
9856
The problem in Quebec is not that we have trouble supplying
the processing plants, on the contrary. Every dairy producer would
be delighted to keep an extra cow or two. Of course he would,
but if we raise the price of industrial milk, instead of keeping an
extra cow he will have to get rid of one, which means a difference
of two cows. As you know, not the first cow in the herd but the
last one makes money. The last cow is pure profit. Thanks to her,
the farmer can buy a few extras, like other skilled workers in our
country.
I have another example which concerns cheese. The same thing
will happen if we increase the price of cheese by 10 per cent. I see
the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture who is
being very attentive, and I suggest that he get in touch with me if he
does not understand the figures and also that he listen carefully.
(1120)
So in the case of cheese, if we increase the price by 10 per cent,
there will be 4 per cent drop in sales. Here again, increasing the
price will mean be a drop in sales. Mr. Speaker, you do not seem to
care about the problems facing dairy producers, and I think that is
very unfortunate, because these people do not work five but seven
days a week.
The morning milking and evening milking and taking care of the
livestock goes on week in, week out, even on Sundays, even New
Year's Day, Christmas and Easter. Farmers cannot afford to lose,
and we have no right to make them lose, 5.5 per cent of their
income. We have no right unilaterally to cut subsidies that were
introduced by the central government in the first place in the early
70s.
I think this is an important point, and if the parliamentary
secretary does not agree, let him argue otherwise: on average, the
overall budget of the Department of Agriculture invested only 9 per
cent last year in Quebec. The current average would seem to be11 per cent. One year when the department was particularly
generous farmers in Quebec, it invested up to 17 per cent in
purchasing goods and services or setting up research stations, 5 or 6
of which were closed two years ago. That was the best it did.
However, Quebec's agricultural activity represents 17 per cent of
total gross agricultural activity in this country. However, when
processing plants-which is where value is added, that is the value
added in the processing of cheese, yogurt, butter and ice
cream-are included, Quebec contributes 24 per cent to Canada's
agricultural economy. Yet, only a meagre 9 per cent is invested in
Quebec, while the average elsewhere is 11 per cent. It is shameful,
a scandal.
When I meet the producers in my riding, I regularly explain the
unfair treatment we have been getting, not just once in a while, but
every decade. I would go so far to say that it dates back to the
supposed union of Upper and Lower Canada, which took place in
1841 and predates Confederation in 1867; at that time, the debts of
Upper and Lower Canada were combined. Upper Canada is Ontario
today, Lower Canada is Quebec. The debts were combined, and
everyone was made to pay.
Ontario, Upper Canada, had 12 times the debt of Quebec, and,
obviously, its infrastructures, its port in Toronto, roads and
railways were also 12 times more developed than in Quebec. The
situation could be likened to that of a wolf whelping four cubs. As
you already know, the first cub to suckle will be the strongest, the
most vigilant and the most vigorous of the entire pack. By 1841,
Ontario was already ahead and has retained the lead.
Another example of unfairness occurred two years ago when the
government in Ottawa did away with the WGTA in the west. When
the subsidy to industrial milk producers was cut here, it was cut,
and of course no compensation was paid. However, when the
WGTA, the Western Grain Transportation Act, was eliminated to
permit savings of $860 million a year, the government invested
$2.9 billion, not $2.9 million, in order to save $860 million.
(1125)
This amount of $2.9 billion was divided in three. First, $1.6
billion was allocated to grain producers, based on the size of their
farms, the number of bushels sold the previous year and so on,
depending on the geographical location of the farm, if it were close
to this or that. A cheque for $1.6 billion was issued but, listen to
this, no TP4 or T4 was issued. This means it was tax free, clear,
which is rather unusual. It takes some doing, does it not?
The federal government paid out substantial amounts without
those at the receiving end having to include them in their income
tax return. That is what I call money paid under the blanket.
In addition, $300 million in adaptation funds have been
earmarked for upgrading roads and railways, silo construction,
rentals and so on. A $1 billion loan guarantee has also been
established to help certain foreign countries that may want to buy
western grain but cannot afford to do so. This all adds up to $2.9
billion.
As you can see, once again, Agriculture Canada has created
inequity between farm producers in the west and the east, not just
in Quebec, but also in the maritimes and, of course, in Ontario.
In a sense, Bill C-34 will benefit those producers who have to do
without an income for extended periods because the money comes
in all at once, come harvest time. I gave the best possible example,
the easiest one to understand, since we are now at the very end of
the maple syrup season. A maple syrup producer can try to sell all
the production at once, but maple products will be on the market
throughout the year.
9857
In conclusion, while this government may be trying to improve
things, it has a weakness, and I will remind the public of that
weakness in my speeches during the upcoming election campaign.
That weakness is a lack of fairness. The government does not seem
to know about fairness.
As André Pratte, from the daily La Presse, wrote so well in his
book entitled Le syndrome de Pinocchio, Canadians politicians
have unfortunately lost all credibility, because they have abused
voters' confidence for too long.
A poll conducted a while ago by a specialized magazine showed
that, out of some 30 professions in Canada, politicians came next to
last at the bottom of the list, just before used car dealers. Doctors
and police officers were at the top of the list. Lawyers, because
their job is often rather difficult, came pretty close to politicians.
Come to think of it, a number of members here are lawyers by
training. So, politicians were very low on the list, just before used
car dealers. Incidentally, new car dealers did relatively well.
Granted, a Ford salesman will extol the virtues of that make, at
the expense of Chrysler and so on. But the bottom line is that
politicians did very poorly. Unfortunately, I became one by
accident, but I will do my best to avoid catching the Pinocchio
syndrome. My children often tell me: ``Daddy, someone else in the
House of Commons has the same name as you''. I tell them:
``Listen, he is the king and his Deputy Prime Minister is the queen
when it comes to that syndrome''. We saw this with the GST, when
they promised to scrap it. To us, scrapping something means
throwing it out, destroying it, sending it to the scrap heap.
(1130)
So, when the Prime Minister said he was going to scrap the GST,
we understood that he was going to abolish it and perhaps find
another clever way of coming up with the $19 billion that the GST
brings into the federal coffers. Remember what he said he meant:
``If you understood that I was going to scrap it, you misunderstood,
and if you did not understand, you were not listening. And if you do
not understand, you are idiots''. This was the answer given by the
Prime Minister over Christmas when questioned by several
members of the public chosen at random from across Canada.
So, not surprisingly, politicians do not rate very high with the
public, and yet an election campaign is going to be launched in a
few days. There will be more and more of these distortions of the
truth. The President of the Treasury Board, who visited Thetford
Mines in my region on the eve of the 1995 referendum, said he was
giving Quebec much more money than this province was paying.
Year after year, we pay $30 billion in taxes of one sort or another to
this institution called the federal government. And the President of
the Treasury Board tried to make us believe he was giving us too
much. If we are costing this government, this Treasury Board, this
minister, too much, they should let us leave, for heaven's sake. I
have never seen anyone so anxious to hang on to something that
was costing him so much.
I am sure that, when you look at the figures for each department,
Quebec is not receiving its fair share. I just gave the example of the
Department of Agriculture, which is giving us 9 per cent compared
to an 11 per cent average. Last year, Quebec received 9 per cent of
the overall envelope of the Department of Agriculture, when it
represents 24 or 25 per cent of the population, pays 24 per cent of
taxes and generates 17 per cent of direct agricultural activity. When
you include processing plants, it is easily 24 per cent. We could
come up with more examples of such unfairness if we took the
trouble to look for them.
When all is said and done, we are going to vote in favour of Bill
C-34. We will support it, although it is not a perfect bill. I told you
how they came up with $120 million by taking it from somewhere
else. This is not new money. They take it out of another envelope,
the one for farmers, and invest it to generate advance payments.
However, as requested by many farmers and farmers associations
which called my office to ask us to support Bill C-34, we will go
along with the consensus that exists among farmers across Canada.
Because after all, there are some good things in this bill.
The government could have ended up with a far better bill if it
had bothered to accept the amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois. These were very sound amendments, as the
parliamentary secretary may recall, we moved in the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. However, if they do not
initiate it, it is no good, and if they do, it is.
I remember this week that when we were discussing Bill C-72,
we were talking about the majority of grain producers to be elected
to the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. A majority,
that is what it said in the bill.
(1135)
I said: ``Listen, let us write down a number. Out of 15 members,
they could elect nine. That is a majority, nine out of 15. Or we
could put eight, which is still a majority. To avoid any
misunderstanding, we will set a figure''. I set the limit at 12. I
presented an amendment to the amendment. The Reform Party
agreed with the Bloc Quebecois; the Liberal Party, all eight
members, including the parliamentary secretary, voted against it
because it was not their idea. Thirty-six hours later, unanimous
consent was requested to present an amendment that would set the
majority at 10 out of 15, which is what it says now in Bill C-72: 10
out of 15 to be elected by the grain producers.
This is an improvement, but 36 hours earlier, it was the Bloc
Quebecois that came up with this idea, and even my colleague
from Malpeque voted against it, to the eternal shame of the farmers
of Prince Edward Island. But 36 hours later, the Liberals came
back, sweet as you please, and suggested 10. So 10 out of 15, 66 per
cent. I said: ``Let us see whether our colleagues opposite have any
9858
guts. Sixty-six per cent, 12 out of 15, 75 per cent, let us split the
difference, and I presented an amendment to the amendment: 11.
The Canadian Wheat Board, I should point out, was not
established 60 years ago, during the Depression, for eastern
farmers, to please the members of this House, for consumers or for
tractor sellers-there were none then, or very few. The Canadian
Wheat Board was established during a Depression in the 1930s, to
support grain growers who were declaring bankruptcy one after
another and to ensure their grain was properly marketed. It was for
them. Since it was for them, they should have control. The
government, however, sees it as an opportunity to make three or
four political appointments.
I proposed 12. Thirty-six hours later they came back with 10.
The next day, during deliberations I proposed 11. We looked each
other squarely in the face, and my Liberal colleagues voted against
it. My Reform Party colleagues joined with the Bloc, and agreed on
11. However, as the Liberals have total control, and committees
often being nothing more than a charade, time wasted, it was a
good thing in this case, because we at least made them aware with
our arguments and ended up with 10 in the bill, which is none too
many.
If the Liberal Party paid more attention to the official opposition,
bills would often be more acceptable and would have a better
impact on the farming community.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-34, the Agricultural Marketing
Programs Act.
To refresh the memory of those who are watching, this bill
combines four separate agricultural acts and one program into a
single act. The Agricultural Marketing Programs Act will provide
for the marketing of agricultural products.
The four acts it combines are the Advance Payments for Crops
Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, the Agricultural
Products Co-operative Marketing Act and the Agricultural
Products Board Act. The program is the cash flow enhancement
program.
I would like to review the three main parts of the bill before I
address some of the things that we, as Reformers, would like to
recommend. The new act incorporates the existing provisions of
the current Advance Payments for Crops Act and also the Prairie
Grain Advance Payments Act into the advance payments program.
That will guarantee interest free loans. The new program will now
include adjustments and a phase-in period to allow producers
marketing wheat and barley through the Canadian Wheat Board to
be eligible as well.
(1140)
The second part of the bill is the price pooling program. The new
act incorporates the existing provisions of the current Agricultural
Products Co-operative Marketing Act that provides for price
guarantees for agricultural products marketed by a co-op. Also the
new program's administration and approval process will be
clarified, modernized and streamlined since approval is now the
minister's responsibility rather than that of cabinet and Treasury
Board.
The third part of the bill is the government purchases program.
The new program incorporates the current provisions of the
Agricultural Products Board Act which offers government
purchases, sales and importation of agricultural products and
abolishes the agricultural products board.
The new act also provides for the recovery of administrative
costs, creates offences, requires reports to Parliament and makes
consequential amendments to other acts. There will be a mandatory
legislative review of the act five years following enactment, which
is a good idea for all legislation.
The Reform Party agricultural policy supports maintaining the
advanced payment for crops program since the program has been
shown to have a stabilizing influence on the marketplace, while at
the same time maintaining an acceptable level of default exposure
to taxpayers.
Reformers agree that the three different pieces of cash advance
legislation should be consolidated into one to save administrative
costs. We have proposed amendments that include, first,
entrenching the limit on the government's contingent liability in
the act or allowing the agricultural standing committee to review
any increases; second, allowing farmers to access emergency
advances of an interest free basis but only as part of the overall
$50,000 interest free portion; third, eliminating the government
purchases program because it is incompatible with the competitive
market driven, modern, Canadian agricultural economy; and
fourth, treating all agricultural organizations equally in terms of
defaulted advances by not allowing the Canadian Wheat Board a
special two-year exemption.
Unfortunately the Liberals have only kept about 25 per cent of
the election promises that they made on agriculture in the 1993
campaign. I have gone through the red book and it is very difficult
to even find them buried in all of the other 100 and some pages of
rhetoric. One of their promises was to provide interest free cash
advances. By voting against Reform's amendments, the Liberals
are voting against their own promise.
I just listened to my colleague from the Bloc talking about the
committee process and the amendments that are often brought to
improve legislation. Very often these suggestions are not accepted
because they do not come from the government side. That is
unfortunate because the Liberals promised to allow committees
9859
more say in legislation. That has really not happened which is again
another broken election promise.
All of Reform's amendments were voted down in committee,
even though the reason for sending the bill to committee before
second reading was to allow MPs to make substantive changes. The
Liberals' red book promise of giving MPs a greater role in drafting
legislation has really become a hollow promise. The red book at
pages 91 and 92 states the promise to allow MPs a greater role in
drafting legislation. It was a very hollow promise. It has not
happened in 3.5 years.
(1145)
If the Liberals on the committee were truly committed to the red
book they would have voted for some of Reform's amendments to
make substantive changes, in particular the amendment in which
we actually do what the Liberals claimed they would do in their red
book.
Having kept only 25 per cent of their promises on agriculture in
the 1993 campaign is very serious. We have to take everything
together, but let me give an example of what they said in the red
book at page 15:
Governments have little room to find new revenues from the tax side; indeed, the
long term objective of all governments must be to reduce the tax burden.
The fact is the government has collected $24 billion more in tax
revenue. Unfortunately that is a very serious broken promise.
Let me turn to page 57 where the Liberals buried a few of their
promises with regard to agriculture. They said they would develop
new domestic and international markets for Canadian food
products. They were to reduce input costs to make farming more
viable and to introduce a whole farm income stabilization program.
I am quite familiar with the area of reducing input costs. I live on
a farm and have close ties to the farm community. I listen on almost
a daily basis to the concerns of farmers. One of their very critical or
serious concerns is the high input costs they experience. Many
input costs have taxes built right into them.
For example, fertilizer is made from natural gas and natural gas
has a high tax component. A very high tax component is built right
into the product they must use to produce their product. Instead of
reducing costs and the size of government, government taxes to
support big government.
The high cost of transportation is another serious concern of
farmers. I have looked through the red book and I have yet to find
anywhere any indication that the Liberals were to remove the Crow
subsidy as soon as they were elected. I believe this was a shock to
farmers. Very often it was not just the promises they made but the
things they did once they got into power that people had no idea
they would do. That is very serious.
The Bloc member talked about the cynical attitude of the public
has toward politicians. I agree. We have to be held accountable.
There must be some mechanism built into our democratic structure
whereby the constituents may hold their MP more accountable.
That is a very key change Reformers will make when we form
government.
I will now talk about some of our amendments. We propose a
limiting of the governments contingent liability. The government is
increasingly allowing the review of government policies,
regulations, expenditures and contingent liabilities by bureaucrats
rather than elected officials.
I asked a question of the Library of Parliament dealing with how
much legislation has come before the House in the last while that
has taken away power from the elected people and given it to
bureaucrats. It is a question that had not been asked previously. The
people doing the research were shocked and amazed as they began
to go through the legislation to find that routinely legislation before
the House was taking away the power of those elected to run the
affairs of the country and giving it to bureaucrats.
(1150 )
The bill before us does the same thing. That is a very serious
matter. That was one of our concerns with regard to the Canadian
Wheat Board. There is no reason farmers cannot completely
control their own affairs. It does not have to be under the thumb of
the agriculture minister where he an appoint the CEO and control
the affairs of the wheat board completely. It should be run from
Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, those most affected by it.
The standing committee with all its expertise should review any
increase in the contingent liability under the cash advance program.
The agriculture minister would simply have to notify the
committee of his intention to raise the amount well before it may
be needed and hearings could be held to quickly determine whether
an increase is actually needed.
Reformers would like to comment on allowing interest free
advances. The Liberals voted against a Reform amendment in
committee to provide interest free spring advances. It was one of
their own election promises. They have not fulfilled it. Nor do they
agree with Reform's amendment.
Let me now deal with the aspect concerning the limiting of the
government purchases program. The government purchases
program provides the minister with a wide ranging authority to
buy, sell or import agricultural products to stabilize domestic
market conditions or to conclude sales to other governments or
government agencies.
9860
Although there are no resources budgeted to the program the
government has been unable to adequately justify extending or
continuing it by entrenching it in new legislation. The extensive
powers encompassed by the program have not been used since
1985 and have only been used a couple of times in the past 20
years. Most important, the intent of this type of program is
incompatible with the competitive market driven modern
Canadian agricultural economy.
For instance, exactly what are the unusual market conditions for
perishable crops as specified in the government's literature as
grounds for using the program? The government should fully
explain its rationale of continuing to have a potentially controlling
hand over Canada's agricultural economy.
Let me now deal with the treating of all producer organizations
equally. Under the new act the portion of each defaulted advance
that will be the responsibility of the program administrator or
producer organization will be based on the historical defaults of the
organization. The liability amount will vary from 1 per cent to15 per cent depending on past performance.
Reform supports this change but opposes the two-year delay for
the Canadian Wheat Board. Although the government claims the
Canadian Wheat Board needs time to make the necessary
administrative adjustments, the principles of equity and fiscal
responsibility should be respected.
I wonder if some of the political tactics the government is using
is to deflect attention away from its more controversial bills. I often
look at what has happened in the last few weeks as we prepare for
the next election. We have seen a sudden increase in spending by
the government in certain areas. Is this spending increase a way of
deflecting attention away from what it has done previously,
especially in Saskatchewan? The gun control bill has been of
concern to many people. Also there is the gay rights amendment.
Some of so-called good news bills the agriculture minister
announced are maybe an attempt to make people forget what has
happened over the past 3.5 years. If there is anything Canadians
really want it is more control over their own affairs. They want us
to work together as MPs to improve legislation and to make sure it
is effective. That really has not happened.
My greatest concern is that agriculture has had a lower priority
with the government. Very little was done to help farmers. The
removal of the crow rate subsidy without any warning, without any
opportunity for adjustments to be made in the transportation area,
has been a very serious blow to farmers. It will have a devastating
effect on the farm economy. The government should have done
what was necessary to bring down the input costs of farmers before
it made some of these other moves.
(1155)
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to bring forth the government's concerns on Bill C-34
during this debate.
Bill C-34 will establish the agriculture marketing programs act.
It is a major piece of legislation put forward by the government to
help Canadian farmers compete in the global marketplace by
modernizing Canadian cash advance and price pooling systems.
The new act is intended to replace the Prairie Grain Advance
Payments Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act, the
Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act and the
Agricultural Products Board Act. The four acts were created at
different times to meet different marketing needs. They were
however all designed for the same purpose: to support and
encourage the efficient and orderly marketing of agricultural
commodities.
The bill will fulfil a red book promise to restore a statutory,
interest free cash advance program for agriculture that was
discontinued by the previous government. Although the cash
advances were reimplemented each year on an ad hoc basis by
cabinet, cash strapped producers could never be sure in advance
whether the provisions would be renewed or whether farmers
would be left high and dry.
The reinstatement of the statutory interest free cash advance
program is important because farmers do not have the luxury of
choosing when they plant or harvest their crops. Sometimes they
cannot control when they have to sell. They may be forced by
financial pressures to sell their products immediately after harvest,
at a time when prices are often at their lowest.
With the legislation the government is helping to alleviate some
of the financial pressures farmers face, as well as the actual
uncertainty caused by waiting for a government to announce
whether interest free cash provisions will be temporarily reinstated.
In the spring of 1995 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada started
the process of reinstatement by initiating consultations with more
than 160 producer groups on advance payments and orderly
marketing legislation. We held further consultations in the winter
and summer of 1996. The department wanted to have all
stakeholder concerns about the bill and the concerns that financial
programs would act in favour of and help farmers do what they
intended to do.
The consultations produced many good suggestions which the
government has incorporated including the idea of combining four
programs into one. The producers said that they found four
different acts too confusing. They also said that the four existing
acts did not treat all producers equally and that some commodities
were not covered at all. The new legislation eliminates those
inequities and anomalies.
9861
Farming is a risky enterprise. Success depends a lot on different
conditions over which the farmer has no control. The agricultural
marketing programs act will bring a little more certainty to
Canadian producers at risk. It will give them a measure of control
and flexibility which would otherwise not be there. It will keep
them competitive with their international counterparts.
The new legislation represents real progress for taxpayers and a
more effective use of their tax dollars. It will also mean progress
for farmers who will get a more stable environment as we restore a
statutory interest free cash advance system. It will give them a
measure of control and flexibility they have been without since the
late eighties.
The bill will help farmers to be competitive in international
circuits with their counterparts. It will be good news for all of
Canada because the more Canadians farmers succeed, the more
jobs are created for Canadians in agriculture and the agri-food
sector as well as industry across the country.
I will be voting for the bill. I urge all members of the House to
vote for it as well.
(1200)
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we saw that the pilotage issue was not
addressed in the marine bill. I know farmers would have
appreciated very much if that issue had been resolved and they
could have expected lower costs in shipping their grain.
How does the parliamentary secretary feel about these exorbitant
charges by pilots when they are really not needed these days with
the global technology and the positioning technology that we have
that can be used instead of them? It is still on the shoulders of
farmers to pay $53,000 per trip, an average of $5,200 a day per
pilot. Those are things that farmers would appreciate having
resolved, giving them a break and reducing to some extent the costs
of their shipping charges.
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Speaker, clearly this government has stood for
doing what it can in order to make our input costs, costs of
transportation and other costs as reasonable and equitable as
possible for the farm community.
There is absolutely no question that if costs are exorbitant that
issue has to be examined and dealt with in a reasonable way. The
premise that costs are not fair is one that is not necessarily agreed
to by everyone in this country. However, where those costs are
unfair we certainly have looked at it, examined issues and tried to
bring our costs in line with where they should be.
However, that question really does relate to another piece of
legislation. At this point in time the focus is on cash advance
payments and the restructuring of four bills which will treat all
people, all the farm communities on an equal and fair basis. That is
a really critical issue.
I know that after the consultations that have gone on across this
country almost everyone is united. Bill C-34 is a very important
bill to all of us and it is one that we must have in place in order to
be fair to all Canadians on an international competitive basis as
well as on an agricultural competitive basis within the country.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and address this
issue. We have looked at different types of legislation and I know
that a lot of the farm problems are not just in one or two of the bills.
The problems we have tried to address are in at least six, seven or
eight acts that the minister of agriculture has jurisdiction over. We
have to take into account that just by addressing a few of the acts
does not resolve the problems that farmers have.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned this act more or less
amalgamates three acts, the Advance Payments for Crops Act, the
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the Agricultural Products
Co-operative Marketing Act. Amalgamating these four programs is
going in the right direction. There is no doubt about that. If we can
take the bureaucracy out of farm acts or out of farm legislation it is
only going to be a benefit for farmers.
The Reform Party is very much in favour of reducing the costs of
administration, reducing the bureaucracy and the red tape that
farmers have to deal with when they conduct their business. I think
I made it clear yesterday in committee that harmonization of
chemical registration and food inspection is a very important issue
as well as these acts.
It is only fair to show how unfair sometimes our legislation deals
with farmers. When I look at the millers' testimony before the
standing committee here just a few days ago they were allowed to
import U.S. grain without wheat board control and as far as milling
or processing their product was concerned. But when farmers find a
market for their American unlicensed grains they are growing in
the U.S. at $2 a bushel higher than in Canada, they are thrown in
jail.
(1205)
That is not a fair way to treat one sector of our economy. We
allow one thing to happen that is beneficial to the value added
industry but then the producers of the raw product who are trying to
capture the market are denied access to that market. Those are
things that farmers object to and those are things that farmers will
take into consideration when they go to the polls in the next
election.
We support maintaining the advanced payments for crop
programs since they are shown to be a stabilizing influence on the
marketplace while maintaining an acceptable level of default
9862
exposure for taxpayers. Farmers are pretty honest generally and try
to do their very best to keep their end of the bargain.
We see that the Liberal government is very short on keeping
promises. It is very easy to make quick promises but to implement
them is a little harder to do. One of those promises was there would
be a spring cash advance which should be interest free. I know the
member for Malpeque argued for it strongly but being a Liberal
backbencher he does not seem to have that much clout in having his
own government listen to him.
We in the Reform Party were supporters of that issue, saying it
should be increased at least to $50,000 and included in the other
advance programs so that farmers were treated equally. There are
some Liberal backbenchers who do get the right idea sometimes
but because there is not a democracy on the government side of the
House they have very little clout or impact.
We saw that happen on the backtracking issue when every
member on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
said that it should be stopped and it was costing us millions and
millions of dollars. We wasted something like $60 million of
taxpayer money by backtracking grain before it finally was done
away with by scrapping the western grain transportation act.
Those are things that farmers would appreciate action being
taken on when brought before the House, and not just a quick
promise before the next election that we will look at this in the
September sitting of the House or in the new Parliament, which is
what I heard yesterday when I was talking about the pilotage fees
that were charged to grain transportation.
The Reform Party proposed some amendments to this bill which
would have ensured a more responsible implementation of the bill.
One dealt with regulations made by governor in council that dealt
with government contingency liability in the legislation. We see
that it is the direction this government seems to want to take, that
more things should be done by order in council rather than by the
House itself. This is a very bad direction in which we are going. In
the next election taxpayers and voters will make that message very
clear to this government.
We wanted to have the regulations presented to the House of
Commons, but no one would listen. No one seems to care. The
attitude is ``we are the government and we do as we please''.
We wanted farmers to have access to that emergency advance but
no, as we heard, the government would not allow it. We wanted the
government to eliminate the purchases program and treat all
agriculture organizations equally.
When I look at certain issues that have come before the House it
astounds me that at times we just look at one of the industries and
forget that it is affecting the other industries.
(1210)
When we saw offshore beef coming here a year or so ago,
increased from the GATT allocations of something like 75,000
tonnes to 115,000 tonnes, we forgot how many jobs that took away.
Our farmers had to export their cows into the U.S. to get them
slaughtered. That took away at least three jobs to every one we
created by bringing in this extra offshore beef.
Not only that, the countries that were shipping this beef into our
country have an export balance that is positive. We had to borrow
that money to finance these imports. To me that is not the way to
run a business or a country.
When we look at running this country, it should be run on the
basis of a business. If it is not going to show a bottom line that is in
the positive then we should scrap it.
Also one of the Reform amendments was voted down because it
was not really very advantageous politically at that time. It may be
different now.
This shows that the Liberal red book promise to give MPs a
greater role in drafting legislation is a hollow promise and one
more broken promise that Liberals will have to explain to the
electorate.
We wanted to have the committee become more democratic. We
wanted to have the committee read the red book and then
implement the promises. The record is there. It will be of real
advantage to us on the campaign trail to once in a while wave it and
say here are the promises, see how they were kept.
It will be a pleasure to have the back-up material that we will
really need in this next election. Sometimes these promises, if they
are put down in writing, have a disadvantage for people later.
I have to admire my colleague from Yorkton-Melville when he
started mentioning a few things on the wheat board issue. We see
again that in the last six months or so we have a real problem in
getting our grain moved.
The wheat board blames it on the railways. The railways blame it
on the weather and the Liberals probably blame it on God, the last
one who seems to get blamed by this government when there is no
other excuse.
Where we will wind up, who will take the responsibility remains
to be seen. It was astounding that in the last year, in the spring of
1996, the Canadian Wheat Board cancelled the C quota on barley
because it said that there was a shortage of grain, that there was
nothing to sell.
We had thousands of hopper cars sitting empty on sidings, not
knowing what to do with them. All of a sudden when a new crop
comes in we find out we have a record carry over of feed grains, a
record carry over of durum. We have had all these empty hopper
cars sitting around doing nothing and nobody taking any action.
9863
We were promised when the WGTA was done away with that
the Liberals would guarantee our grain would be moved. They
would keep track of the situation and they would put on certain
regulations or rules that the railways would comply with.
It has not happened. Reading the latest report from one of the
railway companies, it says that in the last month it shipped around
or backtracked 2,000 empty hopper cars from terminals that were
never loaded in the first place.
We can see what a mess the whole transportation system really is
in. This government is failing to correct it. We are trying to correct
some of the problems with these bills. We will have a partial
success but I do not think it is nearly what farmers desire or what is
needed in the industry.
(1215 )
We now have a situation where the transportation system is not
working. Canadian farmers who are within trucking distance of the
U.S. could have a viable market opportunity there but it is denied
them because we have a monopoly that does not want to co-operate
when certain situations are run into or when market conditions
develop during the year.
I know for a fact there is a tremendous demand for our feed
grains in the U.S. In my little area of Morden-Winkler, over
200,000 bushels have gone into the U.S. by truck in the last week or
two because of a market that was found by a few farmers. They
have developed that market to a point where it is becoming quite
lucrative.
This is the type of farm policy we need, where farmers take
control of the situation and direct the government to provide
through regulation the guidelines that make it fair to everyone.
That has not been happening. Again I point to the witness we heard
from just recently, the millers. They can import their grains from
the U.S. without any restrictions while farmers do not have that
freedom because they have to go through the buyback program. As
we heard at the standing committee hearings, the buyback program
is not what farmers want. It is not fair to all farmers and should be
changed.
It is really sad how much farmers distrust government and
bureaucrats. It is very hard for them to believe what is happening in
the House. A very humourous incident happened on April 1. I do
not know if the House has heard about the story in Grainews which
stated that the the agriculture minister had announced a new
bio-diesel initiative and created a government crown corporation
called Petro Canola.
I received a number of calls from my constituents wondering
whether this could have really happened in Ottawa. When I first
heard about it I thought it had to be crazy. I wondered why anybody
would even believe something like that.
I will read a few comments from that article so members have an
idea how the farm community feels about Ottawa and how much
trust they have in politicians. The article states that the Prime
Minister has a better plan than the old national energy program
from the early 1980s. ``We are setting up refineries near Ottawa on
both sides of the Ontario and Quebec border to provide a balanced
industry. The western farmers get the benefit of growing canola and
eastern Canadians get the value added benefit of a new industry. It
is an everybody win situation''.
It really sounds like it could be something that is viable,
something some bureaucrat or politician dreamed up. The article
then goes on to say: ``The PCB''-which is this new Petro Canola
crown corporation-``will buy canola from western Canadian
farmers at an average of 15 per cent below the world price but they
will have the benefit of a guaranteed market''. I guess after having
been tied to a monopoly under the Canadian Wheat Board farmers
really believe that they will be asked to sell their products under
lower than world market prices.
I could see them maybe falling for that bit of bait but the article
then goes on to state: ``The board will then ship the canola east at
the subsidized magpie rate, refine it and sell it back to western
farmers and other users of diesel fuel''. On reading that everyone
should have realized that it just could not happen and, if it did, I am
sure that we would have more provinces wanting to separate.
However, this is the kind of problem that we as farmers have
been living with for a lot of years. I just want to make it clear to the
parliamentary secretary and to members in western Canada
especially that the farming industry is still the industry that drives
the whole economy.
(1220 )
Once we lose the farmers and the farming industry there will not
be much left to save in the western provinces, or probably in the
whole country. That is why it is very important that we start to
work as a unit in the House to protect farmers, food processors and
marketing agencies in a manner which will put more money into
the pockets of farmers.
The cash advance program, as far as interest free loans on certain
amounts are concerned, in my opinion, is the right direction. But
when a farmer has a disaster and is probably in dire need of some
cash in the spring, to make him pay interest on the first $50,000 to
me is totally ridiculous. I do not think that is what farmers really
want or that it will benefit the farming industry as a whole.
The Reform Party is very strong on making agriculture a very
viable, market driven industry and farmers should be paid for their
labour and should get a fair price for what they produce.
9864
When I see the cost of producing a bushel of grain today and
I see how much more efficient farmers have become and how their
production has increased every year and their increased capability
of feeding the world population and then they get hammered at
every corner by government or by regulations, things must change.
One example I brought forward yesterday was past management
and the harmonization of rules and regulations between the U.S.
and Canada. Last year I noticed an article in one the farm papers
which said that Ontario farmers illegally brought into the country
about $11 million worth of chemicals to use on their corn
production and a blind eye was turned to that. It did not seem to
bother law enforcement officers or government officials that this
was happening.
Then another farm paper stated that farmers went to jail to try
and get an extra dollar for a bushel of grain. Something is wrong in
this country.
Bureaucrats and politicians have been doing this for a lot of
years. In 1992, before I was elected to the House, I know Grandin
wheat was being smuggled into the Canadian system. Some
farmers were for it and others were against it, but a blind eye was
turned to the breaking of the law.
When customs officers wanted to intervene and uphold the law
because some farmers were not just breaking the law but probably
making huge profits, they were told by Ag Canada and by other
officials in government to just turn a blind eye to the issue. ``We
will not prosecute''.
I came to the House to make sure that it was run in a fashion that
upheld the laws of the country. When I see certain issues such as
that one not being addressed and issues such as advanced payments
again nailing the farmer who has had a disaster in his production
cycle, we need a different government in Ottawa. Over the past 25
or 30 years we have discovered that Tories and Liberals are the
same. They are only concerned about getting the bucks into the
east. The west might as well disappear.
That is why 52 Reformers are here. The slogan was: ``The west
wants in''. We are here and we are going to stay here.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments, as I always do. He is
very knowledgeable about agriculture and the agriculture
legislation that comes before this place.
Of the 50 Reform MPs that were elected this term, seven are still
actively farming or were active farmers prior to being elected to
this place. A number of Reform MPs speak with a certain amount
of knowledge about agricultural issues and the hon. member for
Lisgar-Marquette is one of them.
(1225)
In the few minutes I have I would like to relay something which
happened to me as the member of Parliament for Prince
George-Peace River recently in connection with the Canadian
Wheat Board. I will relate the story to my colleague and ask him to
comment because I know he has done a lot of research and has
taken some strong positions with respect to reform of the Canadian
Wheat Board.
There was a bill before the House, which for some mysterious
reason has not come back since the Easter break, called Bill C-72. I
wanted to ascertain if there was a consensus of the farmers in my
riding so that I could speak with authority in the House of
Commons and vote accordingly.
I approached the Canadian Wheat Board. I had about 10
questions which I wanted to ask specifically about the bill. I wanted
to ask those questions of Canadian Wheat Board permit book
holders. Obviously, as anyone who has done polling or surveying
will know, you do not want to dilute the results on an issue such as
this by surveying ranchers or dairymen or other people who would
not be in the business of exporting grain. It was key to having the
most accurate results possible for my survey to target Canadian
Wheat Board permit book holders.
I called the office of the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg and
explained to them that I wanted the mailing list for all Canadian
Wheat Board permit book holders in the B.C. Peace region, for
both north and south Peace. They explained to me that they could
not give out the mailing list under any circumstances. It had to be
kept secret.
I explained who I was. I faxed them a copy of my questionnaire.
I was not trying to hide anything. I was not trying to ask loaded
questions or anything like that. They still would not help me, as the
elected member of the people of that region.
I then said: ``Out of my member's operating budget I will send
you the questionnaire, pre-sealed, in envelopes. All you have to do
is print out the labels, put the labels on the envelopes and send them
out. I will pay someone at the Canadian Wheat Board office in
Winnipeg for however many hours it takes to print out the labels,
affix them to the envelopes and mail them out''. They still refused
to provide that service, even if I was going to cover their costs.
Therefore I could not accurately poll the permit book holders in my
riding on the issue.
I find it very deeply troubling that an organization such as the
Canadian Wheat Board, which is supposedly there for the
betterment of farmers, would not allow a member of Parliament,
regardless of political stripe, the opportunity to accurately survey
constituents on such an important issue.
That is the story of one of my experiences with the Canadian
Wheat Board. It is very secretive. It is well known that the
9865
Canadian Wheat Board, like CSIS, does not have to comply with
access to information requests. Farmers and Canadians are
becoming increasingly troubled by that.
I want to ask my colleague if he has had the similar experience of
running up against a brick wall with the Canadian Wheat Board and
not being able to access a mailing list so that he could properly
survey constituents.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
question.
As the House probably knows, I have been a critic of the
Canadian Wheat Board, not because it is the Canadian Wheat
Board and that it has a job to do, but because it is such a closed
shop. It does not give farmers the right to direct its affairs. It does
not give farmers the right to really look into its books to see what is
going on.
I would like to point out to my colleague that about a year and a
half ago, when I was serving on the subcommittee on
transportation, we had the advisory board appear before us. At that
time barley was being shipped to Thunder Bay, put in boxcars and
shipped to California to fulfil some prearranged contract sales. It
was very foolish to ship it all the way to Thunder Bay and then by
rail to California instead of going through Vancouver and down the
coastline. A lot of money could have been saved for the Canadian
farmer.
(1230)
I saw the article and phoned the Canadian Wheat Board after the
advisory board was before us. It mentioned that boxcars were going
from Thunder Bay to California. According to our transportation
policy boxcars were supposed to be going to Churchill and not to
Thunder Bay. The hopper cars were supposed to be going to
Thunder Bay.
I had my researcher contact the Canadian Wheat Board on the
issue. I wanted to find out how many boxcars were being tied up in
shipping grain to California instead of going to Churchill where
there was a need for them. My researcher was informed that the
information was not to be divulged to the public. It was none of my
business. As a member of Parliament I was trying to reorganize the
transportation system and trying to make government agencies
such as the wheat board accountable to the producers, the people
who really depend on it. I was told that the information was not for
my perusal. It could indicate something was going on that should
not be going on.
The port of Churchill was in desperate need of grain. We could
ship grain through that port for $35 a tonne cheaper than we could
do it through Thunder Bay. That is the way the ball bounces for
farmers. I am getting disturbed over those issues. They will be
looked at in the next election.
We have had 25 or 30 years of Tory and Liberal governments that
have neglected farm organizations and farmers. They have more or
less directed their focus on eastern interests. The St. Lawrence
seaway cannot function without grain going through it. There is no
interest on the part of the government to produce the grain as
efficiently as it can or transport it out of the country as cost
effectively as it can to compete on the world market. All it is
interested in is buying votes for the next election. I think that will
change. I thank my colleague for the question.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-34. We will support the bill because
enough in it should be presented to farmers.
Why is the bill coming before the House now for final debate? It
has been around at least two years. For some time farmers have
been calling for the legislation to pass. It has been let sit. It was not
of particular interest to the government to deal with it in spite of a
very light legislative load before the House.
The government has debated very little of importance since
Parliament was called. Very little of importance has passed. In spite
of that these pieces of legislation, Bill C-34 and Bill C-38, were
forgotten somewhere in a stack on the parliamentary secretary's
desk or something. That is unacceptable.
The government has shown a lack of caring and a lack of interest
when it comes to farmers. We will raise its record with farmers
across the country. They can compare it to what we have proposed,
pushed for and presented in our agriculture policy sheet since the
last election. We have presented many ideas. Farmers will see the
choice is very simple to make and will choose Reform.
(1235)
Why was the legislation brought forward now? Why was it
forgotten on the parliamentary secretary's desk? I cannot answer
the questions. There is a rumour that I find difficult to believe, but
it could be true there is to be an election. I would not expect it
because there are still six months before the four-year mandate is
up. I suspect the election will be called between six months and a
year and a half from now. That is what normally happens.
A government only calls an election early, especially this early
after only 3.5 years, if it is afraid of holding off a little longer. The
government has a lot of reason to be afraid of calling the election
after four years, as is normal. It was given a five-year mandate.
Calling an election after 3.5 years would mean an extra election
over a 10-year period and extra cost. What does an election cost?
Maybe $400 million, with all the costs to taxpayers. It is
somewhere in that range. There will be an extra $400 million spent
over a 10-year period and for that reason I doubt the rumour is true.
9866
Let us say that the rumour is true and an election is called in
the next few months, or maybe even the next few weeks. I have
even heard that rumour. Why would it be that the government held
off on the legislation until now? Why would that be?
Could it be that the government is absolutely terrified farmers
will reject them en masse because of Bill C-68, the gun control
legislation? It has been widely rejected across the country by
farmers and by many people in cities and small towns. It is a bad
piece of legislation. Farmers will be considering that piece of
legislation very carefully when they go to the polls in rural areas.
Could the legislation have been forgotten on the parliamentary
secretary's desk deliberately? Not caring about the situation it
could put farmers in, it was put aside on the minister's desk to be
kept until just before an election call to try to make farmers forget
that the $120 million figure that comes the legislation. That is not
what it will mean to farmers but it is the political figure that will be
thrown around. Could this have been saved until just before
election time to cover up for Bill C-68?
Or, could it have been left and forgotten on the parliamentary
secretary's desk because farmers remember Bill C-33, the
legislation that gives special rights to homosexuals? We now have
to pay benefits for any of my staff who claim they are in a same sex
relationship. This us what Bill C-33 led to. This was widely
rejected right across the country and very strongly in rural areas.
Could the bill have been left on the parliamentary secretary's
desk, on the bottom of the pile in the dark, until just now? Surely
the government would not be so blatantly willing to cost Canadians
an extra $400 million for an election that should not be held until
after four years. However, let us say that it is the case. Is the
legislation being used to cover up some very bad pieces of
legislation rural areas would rather the government had forgotten?
That is the reason it was been left on his desk.
I will talk a bit about the bill. Later I will talk about some related
issues. Most Reform MPs will support the legislation. We have
some very grave concerns about it that I will talk about. Some
members have already spoken about the bill and what it deals with
regarding advance payments and so on. They have also talked
about what it is not.
(1240)
The concerns of the Reform Party and the changes we tried to
make were in four main areas. First, we say a limit should be
entrenched on government contingent liability instead of just an
open ended liability. Most taxpayers do not accept an open ended
liability. An upper limit should be entrenched in the legislation, or
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food should review any increases in the legislation on a
regular basis rather than just having orders in council. Orders in
council have the power to act on their own. Under the legislation
the minister has the power to determine an acceptable liability
without it ever coming to Parliament. That fits in with the lack of
democratic process the government has shown over the 3.5 years it
has been in power.
Second, farmers should be allowed access to emergency
advances on an interest free basis but only within part of the
existing $50,000 interest free portion. That did not happen either.
Third, we have pushed the government to eliminate the
government purchases program which allows government under
certain completely unspecified circumstances and with unspecified
crops to buy crops. This supposedly helps farmers out of serious
situations. It has not been used since 1985 and we really do not
know what it is to be used for. It has not been defined in any way. It
is bad legislation when it has no guidelines.
Fourth, we pushed throughout the process for all agricultural
organizations to be treated the same with regard to this legislation.
That has not happened. Which body was given a two-year reprieve
from enactment of the legislation? The Canadian Wheat Board.
Why would I be surprised by that?
Wheat board commissioners run the board. Farmers have
absolutely no say in what happens with the board. We do not even
know what is going on inside the wheat board. Everything is kept
top secret, a level of secrecy equal to CSIS and the privy council. It
is unbelievable. It is the only organization given a two-year
reprieve from the legislation. It is no surprise. Government
members are in bed with wheat board commissioners.
The wheat board serves a very useful purpose for Canadian
farmers. I have always supported it as a marketing agency.
However farmers accountability. They want to know what goes on
inside the wheat board. They want some answers when they have
questions. They want the auditor general to have access to what
goes on inside the board. For Pete's sake, the auditor general
cannot even get at it. We get no answers.
Only through a leaked document did we find out that
commissioners who are fired or choose to leave are paid a
severance package of up to $290,000. It is unbelievable.
Why was that the only organization the government decided to
give a two-year reprieve in the enactment of the legislation? It is no
surprise but it is not acceptable either. Those are the changes we
have pushed for regarding Bill C-34.
(1245 )
Again we support this legislation because it is something that
farmers want. We believe that the advanced payments do provide
9867
some stability in the whole grain marketing industry. We believe
that is required and it has been our policy all along. We support it
for that reason but it is unfortunate that the changes we proposed
were not dealt with.
I have already talked a bit about why this has come up now. Of
course I cannot say why and I would not want in any way to guess
at motives. However, the timing is really strange. Could it be that
this government is really concerned with the problems in other
areas of agriculture which have been brought about directly as a
result of its action and inaction?
For example, we have a problem in the grain industry right now.
I have neighbours who right now should have all of their supplies
on hand for seeding. They should be starting to seed two to three
weeks down the road. However, they do not have the money to do
that because they have not been able to move their grain. Why can
they not move their grain? This government, in the three pieces of
legislation that dealt with grain marketing, has failed miserably.
An example is the elimination by this government of the Crow
benefit, the Crow subsidy as it was called, which the Reform Party
supported. However, our policy was that it should go into a trade
distortion adjustment program so that it would be there to help
fight the trade battles such as those provided by the European
Economic Community and the export enhancement program in the
United States. That was our policy that we ran on before the last
election. We said that the money should go into that but we
recognized that the Crow subsidy was doing a lot of damage
moving grain out to central Canada so that all the value added took
place in central Canada or in fact encouraged exports through a
subsidy so that processing would take place outside the country.
That does not make any sense, so eliminating it made sense.
However, there were changes that had to take place before this
move was made and they just did not happen.
The same types of changes should have been made when CN was
privatized. The same types of changes should have been made with
the new Canadian transportation act. Those changes are changes
which would have made the transportation system much more
effective. It would have brought competition into the system and
allowed for competition. It would have dealt with the car allocation
problem which just has not been dealt with in any way after 3.5
years of this government knowing when it first came that it was a
huge problem. It knew car allocation was not working. We had a
special subcommittee set up to deal with that but it just did not
happen. Therefore the car allocation system is failing dismally. The
wheat board as too much control over car allocation. That is a big
part of the reason why we do not have grain moving properly now.
As a result of action and inaction on the part of this government,
I have neighbours who just are not going to have the money to buy
the inputs to seed this year's crop. They go hat in hand to the banks.
Some banks in some cases will lend the money. In other cases,
because of the drought situation that we have had for many years in
our part of the country, there are many bankers who will not lend
the money to farmers. We are going to have farmers who will not
be able to seed their crops this year. For many of them it is going to
mean the end of their farming careers and the loss of their family
farms in many cases.
Why? This government did nothing to allow competition in the
system. It did not put in a series of incentives and penalties so that
railways and grain companies would perform. It would not put in
place, as we recommended, a system of final offer arbitration to
deal with disputes with captive shippers. We talked about it under
the new Canada transportation act and the privatization of CN and
the legislation that eliminated the Crow or the debate around that
issue.
(1250)
We proposed this. We said let us do it. At the committee we
proposed the changes that would have given captive shippers the
power to deal with the railways and with grain handling companies
when they did not perform. Unfortunately those changes were not
made.
We have a system that predictably is not working. We predicted
that this system would not work with the changes that this
government put in place. It was predictable, unfortunately. It has
happened.
Now we have grain farmers in a very serious situation where
their grain is left, in some cases, in piles on the ground and will
spoil. In other cases the bins are full but they cannot get money to
seed the crops.
Of course, the wheat board did not help this situation out with its
price forecast set extremely high when farmers went into planting
last year. Of course, now we are finding that the actual price that
farmers are getting for their grain has dropped off to such a low
level that it certainly has not helped the problem.
That is the problem and it is the reason that this government
brought this legislation up now. It wants to cover up for its inaction
and in some cases for its actions since the last election.
Do the Liberals want to cover up that they have delivered on less
than 25 per cent of the promises they made in the area of
agriculture? That is the case.
While I support this legislation I want farmers to recognize, as I
am sure they do, that this is an election ploy. They were left in the
lurch for I do not know how long. It seems to me it has been two
years since the legislation was proposed. Farmers will recognize
that is why this legislation has been held off the table for so long.
9868
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that presentation by my hon. colleague from Vegreville
was very informative. I cannot believe how much information he
packed into a short 20 minute presentation to the House of
Commons today.
I notice the rapt attention from the Liberal members opposite. I
hope it was not just an act, that they were really paying attention
and drawing in the expertise and the knowledge this hon. member
has on these important topics.
As I indicated earlier, the reality is that in the Reform Party we
have quite a number in our caucus who were actively farming and
who know the difference between a bushel of wheat and a potato.
I am not sure that there are some on the other side who know the
difference or even for that matter care that much about the
difference. They try to talk about how much they care about the
plight of the western farmer but I really do not see it being brought
forward in any substantive legislation.
As my hon. colleagues have said, we are supporting this piece of
legislation even though it does not go near even far enough to
address the real issues that are out there in the farm community, the
farm community in western Canada and the grain producers of
western Canada specifically.
Since my colleague has gone to such trouble to very eloquently
articulate his concerns not only about this piece of legislation but
about the situation facing grain farmers in particular, I would
certainly like to hear more.
He made some reference during his speech that he would not
really want to imply why the government is bringing forward this
legislation presumably at the 11th hour. He did remark that there
are rumours rampant that we are going to go into an election when
there is really no need to at this point.
The government has no pressing concern why we could not have
extended the legislative agenda to ensure that all proper avenues
were taken to properly debate and bring forward amendments on
legislation and improve it. Instead it waits and waits and then just
before an impending election it will rush ahead with this bill as
well as with a few others.
(1255 )
I would ask my hon. colleague if he could expound a bit further
on what he suspects are the possible motives for the government's
inaction for so long. Now all of a sudden it has hurried its
legislative agenda in the last week or two.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am not in any way going to try to
guess the motives. Look at the situation and the rumours that an
election will be called in less than six months. Some say it will be
called on April 27. That has been mentioned a lot. But that is early
and I think Canadians are going to punish the government if it does
call an election six months before the earliest acceptable date of
four years. Farmers are also going to punish them if the
government does that.
I am wondering why the government is raising this now, why it
has been put ahead of a lot of other legislation which it stated is
very important to it. I would guess that the reason is the Liberals
want to deal with the negative reaction to their so-called gun
control bill. It is really a bill that imposes penalties on law-abiding
gun owners and makes things extremely difficult for them. It
overrides normally accepted judicial principles. The legislation
puts in place gun registration which will cost by some estimates at
least $500 million. That is money that is not available for health
care or other things that are really important to Canadians.
Maybe the Liberals are trying to get people to forget about that.
Maybe they are trying to get farmers to forget about other
legislation that has hurt them very dramatically, legislation such as
on transportation which was a dismal failure.
We called for changes to that transportation legislation which
would have made things better for farmers. Unfortunately it was
not put in place.
The government says it puts agriculture at a high priority. There
are two other pieces of legislation which really affect farmers quite
dramatically and which are on the table right now. One is Bill C-65,
the endangered species legislation. It is another piece of legislation
that if it is rammed through before the election is called it will
really put farmers in a very awkward situation. I am mentioning
farmers because we are talking about an agricultural bill right now.
Any land user or owner could be put in a very awkward situation by
this endangered species legislation which allows government to
mandate that land users, land owners will have to spend money to
fence off an area to protect an endangered species or lose the use of
their land completely without compensation. That is the key. There
will be no compensation for losing the use of their land. There will
be nothing to help pay for the cost of fencing the land.
This will not only affect farmers. Think of someone who intends
to build a business in an industrial park and a habitat for an
endangered species is found in the park. The endangered species
legislation can require that the land will never be used for
development. The value of the land could be lost almost entirely.
Would they be compensated for that? No.
That is another piece of legislation that maybe the Liberals want
farmers to forget about. Or could it be the wheat board legislation?
I did polls in my constituency and there was one done in the
constituency of Beaver River concerning the wheat board. I tabled
the results with the agriculture committee of the survey done by
Tele Research out of Edmonton. In Beaver River 92 per cent of
farmers wanted a choice in marketing grain. They want the wheat
board to remain but they want the monopoly removed. They want
9869
what many call a dual marketing system. They want choice in
marketing.
(1300)
Bill C-72 does not give them that choice. The plebiscite that the
government held on barley marketing did not even have the option
of choice on the ballot. Farmers either have to market their barley
through the board in a monopoly situation, or the board would be
abolished. That was the choice.
Maybe with this legislation the government is trying to cover up
Bill C-72 which is not supported by farmers. It will not give
farmers any substantial control over the wheat board. It will make
it more difficult for farmers to change the board and to remove the
monopoly.
Bill C-72 was rammed through committee. It is a very complex
bill. It deals with the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a very
complex and secretive organization. I did not feel that I was given
enough time to look at each clause as we were going through the
bill. I examined the clauses ahead of time and was prepared, but I
do not believe the proper amount of time was given at committee to
go through the clauses and lay out arguments. The legislation is
being rammed through. Farmers do not want it. Maybe the
government is trying to cover it up with this bill.
It is not that this bill is a big deal for farmers. Advance payments
have been around for many years. This is not putting anything new
in place, it is just changing the legislation to ensure that advance
payments will not be eliminated.
My best guess why this legislation has come up now is because,
according to the rumours in the media, an election will be called
some time in the very near future, some time like Sunday, April 27
at one o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-34, which will
establish the agricultural marketing programs act. The bill will
consolidate a number of programs. I believe the consolidation
which the government has undertaken is good. It will cut out some
of the bureaucracy in the department of agriculture. Specifically it
deals with the advance payments program which I would like to
address in detail and give some background on to explain why the
advance payments are necessary and how they have developed over
the years.
Many farmers take advantage of the cash advances program. I
did so myself. For those farmers who want to pool their product
and continue to use the Canadian Wheat Board, it is a useful tool
for the future.
The Canadian Wheat Board does not always move product in a
timely manner. It does not always suit individual needs. There is a
reason for the cash advances program. I know that farmers take
advantage of it so they do not have to worry about marketing their
grain early in the fall when they need cash flow. There are those
people who are happy to have the Canadian Wheat Board do their
marketing for them. One of the tools which they use to manage
their cash flow is the cash advances program.
However, a number of farmers in western Canada are not happy
with the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact they have used other
methods to find ways of getting around marketing their grain
through the Canadian Wheat Board. Some grow commodities that
the wheat board does not handle. They want out of the system.
They want choice. They want to be able to sell their grain when it
best suits them. They do not want to be part of the cash advances
program and they would not use it.
The chair of the agriculture committee was in the House earlier. I
believe he will be speaking on the bill at some point. He was in
Grand Prairie with the agriculture committee to discuss Bill C-72.
One of the farmers on one of the panels during that morning said
that only one-third of his income came from Canadian Wheat
Board crops and that it was becoming less and less over the years.
(1305)
A neighbouring farmer to me, Terry Balisky, is a big farmer in
the area. He is well known for managing a good operation. He went
on to say that over the years he is getting out of crops that the
Canadian Wheat Board administers or controls gradually and is
getting into crops over which he has more management.
The chair of the committee asked him a very good question:
``You are not growing crops under the Canadian Wheat Board. Is it
because those crops are just not doing well in the world market or
are there other reasons?'' Terry did not have answer for him.
I asked him about that when we were having coffee later and he
said: ``I was thinking about that and I really did not answer that
question properly. It is really all about timing''. In his view the
Canadian Wheat Board does not serve his needs because of the
untimely manner in which it moves crops. It is not just the cash
flow. Sometimes he has grain in the bins on his farm and that grain
is carried over for more than one year. He finds that he can manage
his operation far better by going to non-Canadian Wheat Board
crops. It does not serve him well. I have heard other farmers say
that as well.
When the western grain marketing panel was in Edmonton I
listened to farmers making representation. The marketing panel
travelled across western Canada at the behest of the minister of
agriculture to find out what farmers wanted in terms of grain
marketing in the future. I believe at this point that farmers want
leadership. We were hoping that we would get that kind of
leadership from the grain marketing panel in its recommendations
to the minister of agriculture. Then he could act on the
recommendations once the panel had listened to farmers from
across western Canada in the Canadian Wheat Board designated
marketing area. It
9870
would give him its recommendations after listening and the
minister would act.
One farmer I listened to was from the riding next to mine, Prince
George-Peace River, B.C. His name is Gary Scott and he is
another good farmer from that area. He was telling the panel that he
basically grows no product now that requires Canadian Wheat
Board control. I will summarize what he said.
He did not say that the Canadian Wheat Board does not function
well for his neighbour. Many farmers want to use the Canadian
Wheat Board. He was not telling the panel that the board should not
be there. For his operation-and I know this is a big farmer and
does a good job-the board does not serve him well. Different
operations have different needs.
He said he might have a situation where he needed cash flow to
make a payment in October and there are limits on how much can
come out of the cash advances program. He might need to move
some product at that time and even if he had to take a little bit less
for it he was paying down a payment. One of his neighbours down
the road has been in business for 35 years, has everything paid for
and he does not have the same need. Therefore there are different
needs in the farming community.
He was trying to say that there needs to be choice in grain
marketing, a choice that reflects the different needs of farmers. My
son and I and our families farm 1,500 acres in the Peace River
country of Alberta. In my situation I would be happy to let the
Canadian Wheat Board market my product but my 30-year-old son
does not want that option. He wants to be able to go out and market
his crops. He is a university graduate with some marketing skills. I
wonder, what is wrong with that? There is something wrong with
this picture when we will not allow that to happen. Surely we live
in a free country and choice should be what this is all about.
In fact, we have choice in probably 97 per cent of the economy.
We have a $750 billion plus GDP of this country. How much of it is
under a monopoly situation? Not very much.
In the areas where there are monopolies such as public utilities
or private utilities, where there is no competition, governments
have done a fairly good job of putting in a public utilities board.
Some avenue for redress has been put in for the public. That is not
the case in grain marketing on exports sales of wheat and barley.
(1310)
Just as my neighbours are using the board less and less, the board
does not handle all the product that my son and I produce on our
farm. We grow canola. It is a major crop. In fact it competes head
to head with wheat in western Canada as to which has the highest
sales volume per year. We grow fescue which is a lawn seed
product. We grow rye from time to time. We grow peas and clovers.
Farmers in western Canada are growing many commodities that are
not marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board. We seem to be doing a
pretty good job of handling those. In fact, I am glad of that choice
and I think that those farmers who want to also market wheat and
barley should be allowed to do so.
To get back to the history of what has been happening in western
Canada, we need to look back just a bit beyond that. I would go
back to the Uruguay round of the GATT. It took some eight or nine
years to finally conclude the negotiations in 1992 when agriculture
was brought under trade rules for the first time.
We have had trade rules for industrial products, goods and
merchandise for a long time. After the second world war Canada
was instrumental in working at the general agreement on tariffs and
trade to establish trade rules. It was in our interest. After all in this
last year 40 per cent of our gross domestic product was derived
from exports. It is growing. Canada is a trading nation and we need
some trade rules to work by.
I was glad when we finally reached an agreement under the
Uruguay round of the GATT and agriculture was brought under
trade rules for the first time. In fact we had a massive trade war in
agriculture products raging at that time. Canada was devastated in
that process.
While I believe that our agriculture producers can match or
better anybody else in the world in terms of production, I know
quite well that we cannot match their treasuries, especially the
treasury of the European Union and the treasury of the United
States. While our governments made a valiant effort to support
farmers during that time, which was greatly needed and
appreciated, we know that the long term solution was to have some
phase down of that trade war and some rules in agriculture.
After the signing of the GATT, agriculture was brought under
trade rules. Because it was the first step in that process we were not
able to accomplish everything we wanted to do. It was a step in the
right direction. Canada's border closures in the area of supply
management were changed to tariffs. In other areas of agriculture,
we were asked to phase down subsidies and tariffs over a scheduled
period of time at a scheduled rate in concert at the same rate as all
the other member countries that signed the GATT.
This was a phase down of tariffs and a phase down of subsidies
world wide and I applaud that. Almost immediately following the
introduction of trade rules in the GATT the trade war that had been
raging in agriculture products pretty well came to an end. The
export enhancement program in the United States is basically not
9871
used. Canada in fact moved faster than anybody else. We phased
out the GRIP program. We got out of the subsidy in transportation,
the Crow rate. We were the model student in that whole program of
the GATT. We phased down faster than anybody else.
I do not personally have a problem with that, although I guess
some people would have said that we should have matched our
phase down to that of other member countries.
We had already benefited from the old free trade agreement with
the United States in the area of beef. In the 10 years of the free
trade agreement with the United States the beef market is now
continental, with a North American price. Exports have risen about
50 per cent in the beef industry. It is just a perfect example of a
market driven industry and the beef producers in western Canada
are saying: ``Please don't give us any subsidies. Don't give us any
programs that might attract the Americans' attention to us to say
that our industry is subsidized and therefore they have some reason
not to deal with us''.
(1315 )
Things have improved greatly with trade rules in agriculture, but
the one area for which I fault the Conservative government of the
day in 1992 is supply management. It defended article 11 of supply
management which was border closures. It did not want it
converted to tariffs.
The Liberal government elected in 1993 continued with that and
found that it was isolated at the GATT discussions in Geneva along
with Japan and Korea. I believe it was a deliberate move. It could
go there to argue that it would not give in to anybody else and that it
would keep border closures. However it knew all along that it could
not win the argument. It looked good at home politically but it
knew it would be hit with tariffs, which is exactly what happened.
When I talk about leadership I believe the same thing is
happening this time around. We have a built in agenda for work on
the second phase of agriculture that will take place at the World
Trade Organization in 1999. There is a working agenda. The
Canadian government is playing the same game this time. It is
playing the game of knowing there will be massive reductions in
the tariffs on supply management. It knows that state trading
enterprises such as the Canadian Wheat Board will be reviewed. It
is not just on the agenda for Canada. It is on the agenda for a
number of member countries such as the United States. These
issues will be raised during the talks.
I am concerned the Canadian government is saying there will be
no changes at all when it knows that state trading enterprises such
as the Canadian Wheat Board will probably be hit, because there is
no competition and they are monopolies, with having to be
transparent. That is the trade-off to not having any competition.
People say that Cargill in the United States or Cargill in Canada
does not have to show its books. That is true but there is
competition. We do not have to deal with Cargill. There are a
number of grain companies we can deal with. The Canadian Wheat
Board has a very closed system and quite frankly cannot stand up to
transparency.
I would suggest a proactive approach, showing some leadership
and giving 10 per cent of farmers who want to market their grain
outside the board the ability to do so. What is wrong with that?
A letter published in the last edition of Maclean's magazine from
a farmer in western Canada essentially said the same thing. It was
from Ken Motiuk of Mundare, Alberta. It appears on the guest page
under ``The Road Ahead''. He wrote:
Western Canadian farmers are preparing to seed another crop.
Farmers fight the elements annually. They own and operate sophisticated farm
equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They have adopted new
technologies. They manage annual cash flows that approach millions of dollars on
larger operations. But they are not considered smart enough to market their own
wheat and barley.
Farmers must cede that responsibility to the bureaucrats at the Canadian Wheat
Board in Winnipeg-government employees with no investment in the business,
people who have never bottom-lined a business, people who don't manage their own
pensions because the government even does that for them. In the consummate
wisdom of our political masters in Ottawa, those people are more capable than we
are of selling our wheat and barley. If we see a better price across the border, it is
inaccessible. We can only long for it, like an adolescent with a forbidden magazine.
Only the chosen ones in Winnipeg are able to access that market for us-after all
appropriate deductions, of course.
And dare not cross the line with your own grain, for Ottawa will spare no cost or
effort to hunt you down and see that justice is served. For the heinous crime of
selling your grain across the border, you can expect to have law enforcement officers
bust into your home in the early hours of the morning, scare your wife and children,
seize your property, manacle you in handcuffs and leg-irons and put you behind
bars. This is justice. For you have broken the law.
The gentleman continued:
My grandfather left Ukraine because the Czar's soldiers would imprison peasants
for hiding wheat.
Does that not sound sort of similar to what we are talking about
here? He wrote:
One hundred years later, here in Canada, we are being imprisoned for not turning
our wheat over to the government for sale.
Don't get me wrong. This is a great country, and we have chosen it as a place to
raise our family and run our business. But if we don't speak up, the bloated egos of
Ottawa and Winnipeg bureaucrats will continue to confiscate our rights and
freedoms.
9872
(1320)
That is a pretty powerful statement. The debate that is taking
place in western Canada is all about choice. The minister of
agriculture has not categorized this debate right. He is saying that
there are those who want to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board and
those who want to keep it. That is baloney.
The people I have listened to in my riding and the people who
appeared before the committee on Bill C-72 as it travelled across
the country did not want to destroy the board. They wanted choice
for those who wanted to market through the board, pool their
product and accept an average price. By all means those farmers
could use it, but they did not want to be condemned to the same fate
if they do not want to use it. I remind members that we have a $750
billion economy. Most of it runs on a free market principle, so what
is wrong with that idea?
I hear Liberal members tell us what is good for us farmers in
western Canada. My colleague from Lisgar-Marquette, my
colleague from Vegreville and I run farm operations. I have been
under the Canadian Wheat Board designated area. I say that we
should let the board exist for those who want to use it but do not
maintain that farmers who want choice cannot have another choice.
Members on that side do not know what they are talking about.
There is only one member over there who has any credibility in the
matter. Most of them are lawyers, supply management operators or
a potato farmer from Prince Edward Island who have never been
under the Canadian Wheat Board system. They have no credibility
in the matter.
Farmers want leadership. They want to be proactive. They want
to function well and to participate in the economy that will take us
into the 21st century. They recognize the trade rules in agriculture
have been a good thing for Canada. They also recognize that there
will be further agricultural reform in the World Trade Organization.
We could benefit from it. We do not have to hide. We do not have to
be afraid of the change that is taking place.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed, bill read the third time and passed.)
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-38, an act to
provide for mediation between insolvent farmers and their
creditors, to amend the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative
Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Farm Debt Review Act, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Hon. Ron Irwin (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in
and read the second time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.)
(1325 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): When shall the bill be read
a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased
to introduce Bill C-38, the farm debt mediation act for third
reading.
The bill will create a new strengthened farm debt mediation
service to replace farm debt review boards. It will maintain the
essential features of the old legislation including the stay of
proceedings and a review of the mediation process. It will be
coupled with and simultaneously implemented with a new farm
debt consultation service.
The legislation reflects the views of farmers, their creditors and
provincial governments across the country. We had many
consultations with all groups. The bill was forged through some 18
months of consultations with farm organizations, leading
institutions, farm debt review boards, panel members, financial
experts, provincial government officials and the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture. They all took part in our consultation
process.
It is a prime example of the government making good on
promises to give members of Parliament and parliamentary
committees more influence in drafting legislation.
Standing committee deliberations included MPs from all sides
and a host of informed and experienced witnesses from both inside
and outside government. The result is that we have before us today
legislation to replace the existing Farm Debt Review Act with a
new, simplified mediation service for insolvent farmers that still
brings the same benefits as before and adds several others. The new
9873
act, along with the consultation service, means reduced overlap
and duplication, streamlined administration of financial mediation
and consultation services, and a broader range of advisory and
counselling options.
The bill recognizes that farmers and creditors are generally
comfortable with the current process that allows mediation with a
view to resolving the debt situations of farmers. It also reflects a
demand for flexibility, an effective and streamlined process that is
immune to the realities of farmers today. It will help creditors. It
will help provincial governments deal with the realities of financial
problems in the overall picture of operating farm debt problems.
We are looking for resolutions that will be helpful to farmers and
creditors.
As recommended by producer organizations, we will have an act
that provides a new appeal mechanism not provided by an old law.
It will give farmers and creditors an impartial review of decisions
related to stay of proceedings. We will have an act that will allow
farmers to engage their financial advisers for the preparation and
recovery plan.
The new farm debt mediation act and complementary farm
consultation service will be funded through the Canadian
adaptation and rural development program or CARD. Funds for
those purposes will help agriculture and agri-food sectors be more
efficient, self-reliant and competitive.
There is one point I would like to underline. The new farm
consultation service provides farmers in financial difficulty with
the same and probably a broader financial review and consulting
service than was ever provided in the preceding acts.
(1330 )
This new service will be more proactive. It will help farmers to
find sources of advice and one on one counselling very early on in
the stage before serious difficulties develop. It will provide
non-farm assessment and diagnostic review for farmers already in
financial difficulty, including three year operational plans which
will be a key to financial recovery for many. In essence it will
provide more extensive services than those farmers get under
section 16 of the act.
I would now like to focus on the administration of the mediation
process. Ten years ago the Farm Debt Review Act responded to
severe debt problems of farmers by establishing farm debt review
boards in every province. They were to assist farmers and creditors
in finding mutually satisfactory financial arrangements.
There are currently some 32 review board members appointed at
the discretion of the minister and by order in council. These OIC
appointees participate in panel meetings between farmers and
creditors and facilitate discussions leading to an arrangement to be
finalized. Under the new debt farm mediation act there will be no
OIC appointments. Mediators who have specific mediation
expertise and experience in agriculture and finance may apply and
compete to be on a list of standing offers to provide the mediation
service under the act.
The existing act also requires that at every meeting with the
farmers and creditors there be a three person panel, a mediator and
two panel members, regardless of whether they are needed. This
often results in unwanted expenses, including per diems, travel and
room and board. The new act does away with this requirement,
allowing experts to be brought into the case only when
circumstances warrant.
I am pleased that we have reached this stage of consideration of
Bill C-38 with the quality input from so many organizations and
individuals. I am pleased that together we have fashioned an act
which preserves what was valued most in the past and builds on a
relevant new approach to the future.
I know that many will welcome the more efficient, more friendly
service we are providing today. It will assist farmers in improving
their financial circumstance and it will promote growth and
prosperity in Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector.
I therefore submit to every member of the House that the bill is
great for Canadian farmers. I hope all members will support the
bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address Bill C-38 immediately after the parliamentary
secretary.
As mentioned earlier, this is an act to provide for the mediation
between insolvent farmers and their creditors, to amend the
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act
and to repeal the Farm Debt Review Act.
Before drafting Bill C-38, the Minister of Agriculture should
have given some thought as to why many farmers experience
serious financial difficulties. Some of them may have a hard time
when they go through a divorce or a separation. This can cause
financial difficulties, and so could, for example, an illness.
Nowadays, the agricultural world has very little to do with the
popular television series currently being rerun on Radio-Canada,
Le Temps d'une paix.
(1335)
Today, farmers must be good administrators, since they manage
small businesses. The invested capital often approaches or exceeds
$1 million. But could it be that these financial problems are also
directly related to the federal government, to its lack of vision
concerning agriculture in Canada and in Quebec?
After watching for almost four years this government mishandle
agricultural issues, it is no surprise to see that, every year, hundreds
of farmers run into serious problems and must declare bankruptcy.
9874
Just before I rose, I was reading the classified adds in the most
widely read newspaper in French Canada, in Quebec, La Terre de
chez nous. When you see so many auctions and liquidations being
held in April, it means there is a problem. That problem is not
just the result of bad management, family problems, or illness:
it is also the result of the terrible conditions being imposed on
farmers by the government, month after month.
Let me give you an example of the problems experienced by our
producers, with the exception of course of those who are in a
supply-managed sector such as dairy, poultry and egg producers,
who are lucky enough to be protected, at last. Still, later on I will
discuss price fluctuations in the dairy industry.
Take, for example, feeder calves. Three years ago, we could
expect to get $1.15 or $1.20 per pound, in the fall, for our veal
calves. One year ago, or seven months to be exact, last fall, it was
possible to buy very fine calves at 50 per cent of what they were
worth two years ago. A farmer hoping to get $700 for his calf got
$350 or $360. We are no longer talking about a drop of 2 or 3 per
cent, but of 50 per cent.
You will reply that cow and calf stabilization insurance is
needed. You are right, but you know how insurance works: the
more you use it, the more premiums go up. Since the government is
also getting ready to cut its share of funding for the farm income
stabilization program, we can expect a large increase in premiums
there too, as well as a decrease in services.
Take maple syrup. This year, the run seems much inferior in
quality and quantity to what it was last year. Prices will therefore
rise slightly, but the maple syrup producer will not receive a fair
wage. Pork production is fine, but reform is another matter entirely.
In the case of softwood lumber, with the agreement the federal
government negotiated with our neighbours to the south, when the
export quota is reached, it will be the same story there as well.
The Canadian Wheat Board, which one of my Reform colleagues
brought up earlier in connection with Bill C-72, and which has a
monopoly, of course, is trying to get the best prices, except that
western grain producers are not free to sell directly to their
neighbours across the border at prices very often higher than what
they could get from the Board.
(1340)
With the exception of producers who operate under a supply
management system, dairy, poultry and egg producers face
uncertainty as a result of fluctuating prices.
Which reminds me, I wonder whether this government will have
the guts to defend supply management at the WTO, since the
American foreign trade representative has sworn she would not
accept the tariffs imposed in the course of negotiations approved in
December 1993 by GATT, now the WTO. She said she would fight
to the death, if necessary, to win her case. The United States seems
determined to go before a WTO panel.
I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he would defend our
tariffs with equal vigour. We shall see if the government is able to
defend our interests. Of course we have only a few sitting days left.
We will have to run again in our respective ridings. So we do not
know who will be in a position to defend us. Will we have a
minority or a majority government? As for who will form the next
government, your guess is as good as mine.
This also brings us to examine the role that could be played by
the Farm Credit Corporation. I hope that when the FCC evaluates
the solvency of a farmer and approves a loan of $300,000 or
$400,000, it does a very thorough evaluation. If approving the loan
is too risky, the right thing to do would be for FCC representatives
to consolidate the loan or simply refuse it.
So in several respects, farmers are like skilled workers or the
owner of a factory, except they should not expect to work only40 hours, five days a week. A dairy farmer has to milk cows twice a
day, seven times a week. If he leaves Friday evening, there will be
no scabs on his farm. He will have to find a replacement or make
arrangements with his neighbour, and next time he will have to
return the favour, because, as I pointed out earlier, there are no
scabs.
So a farmer has to work seven days a week and often 60 or70 hours a week. Unfortunately, in many cases his income is less
than that of a skilled worker who only has to work 40 hours a week
for five days, and in many cases, a little less than 40 hours in four
days. The farmer therefore has to devote a great deal of time to the
operation, often along with his wife and children, in order to make
ends meet.
Recently, this government made its cuts and the agricultural
sector got it in the neck. Taking the example of a dairy farmer
producing industrial milk, the government has found the trick of
reducing his income by an average 5.5 per cent, for the past two
years and the coming three. Then the government wonders why
dairy farmers have to give up their farms, or even declare
bankruptcy.
(1345)
Their income is cut and then they are told what poor managers
they are. You know as well as I that, for a dairy farmer, it is not the
first cow in the barn that brings him profit, but the last ones. His
electricity costs the same, regardless of the number of cows, and
more cows of course require more feed and more hay, but the last
ones you milk will be nothing but profit.
The Bloc Quebecois, like the Reform Party, was vigorously
opposed, while this government, including some of its members
who are involved in the dairy industry, such as the hon. member for
9875
Malpèque on Prince Edward Island, voted in favour of cutting the
milk subsidy. This is an out and out scandal.
In a few weeks, however, the member in question will be doing
the rounds of his beautiful riding of Malpèque, and he will forget
all about this. He will, as André Pratte so aptly described it, be
playing Pinocchio, hiding or falsifying the fact that he voted
against the dairy farmers in his riding and in favour of cutting back
to zero the milk subsidy, which was $5.43, or 5.5 cents a litre. For
an average farm, such as my colleague from Malpèque himself has,
5.5 cents a litre represents a loss of $7,500.
It is not surprising that the dairy farmers, while not necessarily
going bankrupt, will be announcing farm auctions on such and such
a day at such and such a time, in order to get rid of all their stock
and equipment. They are opting for retirement before they are
forced into it. The worst thing is that 48 per cent of dairy farmers
are located in Quebec. So this government is following its usual
practice of going after Quebec first and foremost, which is forcing
our dairy farmers to take a $108 million loss as a result of the
elimination of this subsidy. And so, once again, Quebec pays the
highest price.
The worst of it is that, if milk producers want to get as much
money for their milk, the price of industrial milk will have to be
raised, and that decision rests with the Canadian Dairy
Commission. You do not have to be a lawyer to see that raising the
price of industrial milk will raise the price of butter, cheese and all
other dairy products.
According to a study ordered by the dairy producers of Canada, a
10 per cent increase in the price of butter results in a 7 per cent
decrease in its consumption. When I said, Mr. Speaker, that the last
cow is the most profitable, you seemed to agree with me. So, if
consumption now drops by 7 or 14 per cent, you cannot even keep
one or two extra, but may have to lose a couple. This sort of
situation will bring hard financial times to the farming community.
According to the same study, raising the price of cheese by10 per cent lowers consumption by 4 per cent and further reduces
the size of your herd. The worst is that, when you look at
Agriculture Canada's overall budget, Quebec gets only 9 per cent
of what it invested last year in Canada. In a good year, the figure
goes up to 16 per cent.
Quebec alone generates some 17 per cent of direct agricultural
activity. Add to that the processing of such things as cheese, butter
and ham, and our share climbs to 24 per cent. We pay 24 per cent of
federal taxes, or $30 billion. But we are getting barely 9 or 10 per
cent back year after year. That is appalling.
(1350)
I will be waiting for you, my Liberal friends, when you visit the
riding of Frontenac in the next election campaign and tell the
people of my riding, as the President of the Treasury Board did in
the referendum, that, while Quebec pays $30 billion, it receives
$31 billion or $32 billion. Why is it so important to you that we
remain a part of your Canadian federation if we are costing you so
much?
Mr. Speaker, we must look at who, in this country, got the first
break. We will recall that, in 1841, when Upper and Lower Canada
were joined-Upper Canada corresponding to what is now known
as Ontario, and Lower Canada to Quebec-so were their respective
debts. Upper Canada's debt was 1.195 million pounds, as compared
to a mere 200,000 pounds for Lower Canada. How were the debts
handled? They were simply added up. Living together meant
paying off our debts together. So the French Canadians had to pay
up. At the time, they were referred to as the Canadians, while the
others were called the English. That is how it was at the beginning
of the colony.
When this government abolished the WGTA, the Western Grain
Transportation Act, two years ago, the yearly cost was-I would be
much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture to look me straight in the eye. The yearly cost to the
government was $860 million. What did you do to sugarcoat it in
western Canada, to make this cut more palatable to western
producers? You gave them $1.6 billion. Worse yet, you gave this
money under the table. Farmers were not required to claim it on
their income tax returns. This is appalling.
You have established a $300 million fund to finance adjustment
measures, road upgrading, silo construction and the upgrading and
construction of new railway lines. One million dollars was used to
establish a loan guarantee fund to help certain foreign countries
buy Canadian grain. All this adds up to $2.9 billion. Where is the
equity in all this? For western grain producers, the government is
prepared to pay $2.9 billion to save $860 million. But when the
dairy producers subsidy was cut by $228 million, how much was
paid in compensation? Not a penny.
Mister Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture,
48 per cent of all Canadian milk is produced in Quebec. That is
what your notion of equity is all about. You and I can debate this in
my riding of Frontenac.
The Speaker: I remind the hon. member that he must always
address the Chair and everything will be fine.
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. I got
carried away in the heat of the moment. Through the Chair, I am
sending an invitation to the parliamentary secretary to come to the
riding of Frontenac and debate the issue of his government's
fairness-it will also be an opportunity for him to meet
francophones.
In conclusion, since it is 1.55 p.m. and question period is fast
approaching, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-38. Of
course, I hope our farm producers never have to use Bill C-38. It
would be better if they had a decent income, even though I am well
9876
aware that a bad manager can have problems making the best use of
a loan and paying it off.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like you to convey to the
parliamentary secretary has to do with the appointment of
mediators. For example, look at what is going on in my riding.
Who was appointed to the employment insurance board of
referees? Nathalie. Who will be the Liberal Party candidate?
Manon. You see, everything makes sense. In small communities,
people all know each other. These are partisan appointments. This
week, I got quite a shock when I asked a witness about the salaries
of the five Canadian Wheat Board commissioners. My colleagues
and friends from the Reform Party were just as surprised as I was to
learn that the commissioners' salaries range from $114,000 to
$144,000 annually.
Occasionally a member of Parliament is appointed to one of
these boards after giving up his or her seat, to make room for
someone who will eventually become minister. The federal
government did that in two Quebec byelections, by bringing in
newcomers who respectively became Minister of Human
Resources Development and Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. It seems the government is about to do the same in the
riding of Beauce, to make room for its candidate.
In the end, who pays for this? The answer is always the same: the
taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I am co-operating with you by concluding
my speech and confirming that, in the interest of our farmers, we
will support Bill C-38.
The Speaker: It being now almost 2 p.m., we will resume debate
after oral question period. We will now proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
9876
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last month I
introduced into the House Bill C-391, which would seek to amend
the Criminal Code to increase the maximum sentence for child sex
offenders to a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25
years.
While it seems doubtful that this bill will pass before this
Parliament completes its work, I want to assure my constituents
that I remain committed to this issue. We must send a strong
message to those who prey on our children that their actions will
result in a life behind bars. A maximum penalty at present of ten
years is simply not enough for someone who steals and
manipulates the innocence of youth.
To my colleagues in the House and to the people of Oxford I will
continue to pursue this issue in the future.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend my hometown of Ponoka played host to the Alberta
SchoolReach provincial championships. I want to congratulate the
winners representing Leduc Composite High School: Joanne
Brownlee, Neil Jackie, Danny Jackson, Colin McIntrye, Taeed
Quaddusi and Evan Saumer, along with their coaches Sandy
Ogrodnick and Mrs. Senio.
Competition was fierce as teams vied for provincial honours. As
one of the judges, I was impressed with the depth of knowledge, the
spirit of competitiveness and the ability of the participants to
articulate their responses. These students are a reflection of parents
who care enough to instil in their children a quest for knowledge
and fair play.
The commitment and confidence shown by these young people
prove that our future is in good hands.
Good luck to the Leduc Composite Reach team in the national
finals. I know they will prove to be a formidable force in
Vancouver but, win or lose, they have made their parents,
schoolmates and communities proud.
* * *
(1400 )
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, April 13 to 19 is national volunteer week, when
communities across the country will pay tribute to their volunteers
and reflect on the countless ways in which they help individuals,
organizations and causes.
Volunteering is a prime example of active citizenship. It helps
build a sense of community, of belonging, of being a part of this
great country. As outstanding citizens whose efforts improve the
quality of life for all of us, volunteers are a crucial component of
every community.
The Department of Canadian Heritage works with a wide
network of volunteer centres and other voluntary organizations to
promote national volunteer week, an integral part of the
department's mandate, to help ensure the growth, diversity and
vitality of the Canadian volunteer sector.
I congratulate all the volunteers in Lambton-Middlesex, soon
to be Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, and throughout Canada for all
the good work they do in our communities.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our youth volunteers will shape the next millennium.
9877
Today I rise to salute a young man from Tatamagouche, Angus
Bonnyman, who is being honoured this week as the youth
volunteer of the year for the province of Nova Scotia. Angus has
volunteered at the seniors nursing home, the school cafeteria,
student organizations and has organized environmental clean-ups.
He was the Truro Rotary Club delegate last year to Ottawa for
Adventures in Canadian Citizenship.
This is the second year that a student from North Colchester
High School has won this prestigious award and I would like to
congratulate the principal and staff for their leadership and
community spirit which they continue to demonstrate to their
students.
Congratulations to Angus and to all volunteers who so
generously serve their communities across Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, April 17 is international hemophilia day.
In this year's budget the finance minister affirmed: ``Our
commitment to the principles contained in the Canada Health Act
is unequivocal. These principles will be maintained''. This echoed
the Prime Minister's promise in the throne speech to ensure the
future of our publicly financed health care system.
Since then the opposition parties have been tripping over each
other to pay lip service to health care. It is one thing to make grand
statements about the importance of medicare but what really
matters is making sure we have the plan to pay for it.
Through good money management our government has provided
the means to preserve and strengthen our social programs. By
meeting and beating our deficit targets every year since taking
office we have been able to put words into practice, committing
some $300 million over the next three years to promote health care
in Canada.
Health Canada supports the outstanding work of the Canadian
Hemophilia Society in improving treatment for bleeding disorders
and ensuring a safe blood supply for all Canadians. Happy
international hemophilia day.
* * *
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the 1950s and 1960s were good years for Canadians. We had the
opportunity for employment of choice, more earnings were in our
pockets and we respected our justice system, and so on.
Since the early 1970s the traditional parties have applied their
Liberal and Conservative political philosophies in such a manner
causing Canadians to lose ground in their day to day lifestyles. For
example, these parties have passed legislation that has eroded the
opportunity for employment of choice to almost none, reduced the
amount of money that we retain in our pockets and so on.
The United Nations may have said that Canada is the best
country to live in but the majority of Canadians are saying even
best can be better. We have been there and we can get there again.
We have the resources and after 20 years of traditional party
mismanagement we have the motivation.
It is time to change our direction and make a fresh start. The
Reform Party has the plan.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to advise that the Liberal government recently signed the 100th
tripartite policing agreement under the First Nations policing
policy with the Shoal Lake First Nation in Saskatchewan. The First
Nations policing policy provides First Nations policing services
that are professional, effective and accountable to the community.
This policy represents the federal government's commitment to
working with First Nations. But in Manitoba only one of these
agreements has been signed and that was with the Dakota Ojibway
Tribal Council. Many First Nations in my riding are ready to talk
seriously with the Manitoba government about tripartite policing
agreements but they are getting nowhere.
It is time for the Manitoba government to get on with the
program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I condemn the
attitude of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and that of the
Prime Minister, who are lecturing the Government of Quebec on
what they think should constitute a consensus in Quebec in the
linguistic school boards issue.
(1405)
This is what 1982 produced: a federal government that treats
provincial legislatures as if they were irresponsible, even in sectors
where they have exclusive jurisdiction.
I therefore have no hesitation in condemning the federal
government's attitude in this matter. There is only one way for the
people of Quebec to achieve their destiny without Ottawa pulling a
fast one: they must choose sovereignty.
9878
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the
headline ``Federal campaign Bouchard's priority in May'',
La
Presse informed us yesterday morning that the premier of Quebec
intended to give the Bloc Quebecois a hand in the upcoming federal
election. This was confirmed by his press secretary, who said, and I
quote; ``We are waiting to see what the Bloc Quebecois would like
and we will accommodate them''.
As a Quebecer, I think Lucien Bouchard has incredible nerve
abandoning his responsibilities as premier of Quebec for over one
month in order to volunteer his services to help the Bloc Quebecois
campaign.
In light of the very difficult social and economic situation in
which Quebec finds itself, the premier perhaps has better things to
do than warm up crowds for the member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie. Is this how they govern? Or, better yet, if
the members of the Bloc Quebecois are looking for a good slogan
for the next election, I could suggest this one: ``I have a passion for
Quebec but Canada is paying my pension''.
* * *
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during the voting yesterday afternoon, some of us seated
on this side clearly heard comments of ``traitor'' ``turncoat'' and
``scum'' from the Bloc Quebecois benches, when the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs rose to vote.
Intolerance and personal insults of this type are unacceptable in
an open and democratic society. These labels are all the more
unacceptable coming from a sector of this House dedicated to
destroying the very country those members have a mandate to
represent.
[English]
Personal insults are the stuff of bullies and have no place here.
The Bloc Quebecois should look at itself in the mirror for the
traitors and sellouts there are. It is certainly not the minister. He
was only calling for democratic hearings that the separatist
Government of Quebec had denied its citizens.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to congratulate Consort, Alberta's very own
singer-songwriter K.D. Lang on her decoration yesterday as an
Officer of the Order of Canada.
My first introduction to K.D. Lang came back in 1985. Playing
for the members of the Alberta legislature, she delivered a high
spirited, foot stomping performance that soon became her
trademark.
Since then she has gone on to build a magnificent career in the
music business, winning numerous awards and honours, including
the Canadian country music awards entertainer of the year in 1989
and album of the year in 1990 for ``Twang''.
A household name across North America, K.D. Lang is just one
of a long line of Canadian entertainers who have not shied from the
challenge of succeeding on the world stage. She is living proof that
Canadian musicians can and do compete with anybody anywhere,
not because of government assistance or policy but because of
doing what they are good at.
To K.D. Lang a hearty congratulations on being named to the
Order of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is a
day of mourning, two weeks before an election may be called. The
people of Quebec must remember that the present Prime Minister
was the one responsible for the isolation of Quebec during the night
of the long knives in April 1982. The Constitution, which does not
acknowledge Quebec and restricts it powers, was unanimously
rejected by the National Assembly of the day.
The people of Quebec must remember that the present Prime
Minister was the one who made a promise in the last referendum
debate to recognize distinct society in the Constitution, a veto for
Quebec, and respect for areas of jurisdiction. That same Prime
Minister reneged on his promises as soon as the referendum threat
was past.
Whether in the next election or the next referendum, the people
of Quebec must remember that the Liberal Party of Canada has but
one goal: to annihilate Quebec's distinctiveness.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom is about human
dignity. Indeed its preamble states: ``Whereas Canada is founded
upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the
rule of law''. I am therefore honoured and privileged to rise today
to mark its 15th anniversary.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reflects our
unique Canadian identity. It enshrines a balance between citizens
individual rights and societal responsibilities and between citizens
9879
and governments. It enshrines a balance between the power of
parliaments and the power of the courts. It enshrines a system of
checks and balances that safeguards against the abuse of power.
The charter is a milestone in Canadian history and a tribute to the
ingenuity of our people. Truly we can all take pride in our charter
which reflects the soul of our Canadian citizenship.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all
know the challenges facing youth today as they make the transition
from their education to employment. We now have at the federal
level a number of programs, funding for those programs and
services available to assist these young people in meeting their
challenges.
In London West we co-operatively organized a youth
information fair that showcased these programs and services
offered and provided young Londoners with valuable work
experience.
Held at the Junior Achievement Centre in London West, the fair
brought together representative youth with potential partners and
organizers of the various programs. Information was provided in
areas of entrepreneurship, service and internship, employment
opportunities and partnering team activities with a group in the
London area called Team London for Youth, a partnership between
business, government, non-government service clubs and the
boards of education.
Throughout the info fair I was really struck by the level of
commitment from those input organizations and their commitment
to helping our youth at the community-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last weekend I attended the NDP convention in Regina as
an observer. Tommy Douglas would not be pleased to see that
special interest groups and unions have hijacked the agenda of the
party he created.
A recurring theme at the convention was that the NDP exists not
to form government but to lobby the Liberals to spend more on big
government programs. The cost to the taxpayer of all the
resolutions passed was never a topic of discussion.
Not only was there a lack of effective debate on the issues
discussed at the convention, there was a complete absence of
debate on other major issues that face Canadians. Where was the
debate on justice issues like the Young Offenders Act, criminal
justice and prison reform and gun registration?
Where was the debate on democratic issues like giving people
more control over their MPs between elections, making Parliament
work better and giving Canadians a direct say in the affairs of their
country? And for a federal political party to remain silent on
national unity during the entire convention was a serious oversight
indeed.
The federal NDP has evolved into something that acts more like
a pressure group-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, on
April 17, 1982, the Government of Canada unilaterally patriated
the Canadian constitution, in spite of the unanimous opposition of
all the political parties in Quebec.
At the time, 73 of the 75 members of Parliament representing
Quebec let their province down and supported the current Prime
Minister and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who said: ``From now on, fate
will favour the Canadian government. Even a united front by the
ten provinces cannot force the Canadian government to move. By
achieving a creative balance between the provinces and the central
government, the federation will last 1,000 years''.
Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois did not exist at the time. But
now, there is, at the federal level, a party whose mandate is to
protect the rights and interests of Quebecers.
Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is here today.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of members the presence in
the gallery of Mr. Martin C.M. Lee, member of Parliament and
Chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
9879
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, exactly 15 years ago, in 1982, the present Prime Minister
9880
was in Ottawa, and the Canadian government patriated the
Constitution against the wishes of the Government of Quebec, the
Quebec National Assembly and the vast majority of Quebecers.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime
Minister the following question: How can he say the Constitution
of 1982 is legitimate, when Quebec, when no government in
Quebec, whether headed by sovereignists or federalists, ever
recognized this Constitution?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since the Constitution Act, 1982 has been in effect for
15 years, we can now judge the tree by its fruits.
This Constitution brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and is popular throughout Canada, including Quebec. It has
reinforced the control of provinces over their natural resources; it
has strengthened the position of French across Canada in its rights
and freedoms-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dion: -it has enshrined equalization, nearly half of which
goes to Quebec, and has also provided for a bilateral amending
process, when necessary, involving the Parliament of Canada and a
provincial legislature.
That is not bad. Of course there is room for improvement. For
instance, we could have a better amending formula, better
recognition of Quebec. There is always room for improvement, but
on the whole, it is quite an achievement.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is rather sad to see members from Quebec applaud the
Constitution of 1982, and I think of the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration who was part of a government that never recognized
this Constitution, and the Minister of Human Resources
Development, a former assistant to Claude Ryan, who condemned
this Constitution. This is what happens to some Quebecers when
they become ministers in Ottawa.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I assume, is the
Acting Prime Minister today. I agree, we must judge the tree by its
fruits. Does the minister want us to forget the past, the role his own
leader, the Prime Minister, has played for 30 years? Does he want
us to forget that the Prime Minister's entire career was marked by
his systematic opposition to Quebec? Does he want us to forget that
this Prime Minister spent his entire career trying to put Quebec
down and put it in its place? How can the minister expect
Quebecers to be proud of what the Liberal Party of Canada
perpetrated in 1982?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the sarcastic remarks we just heard are
irresponsible. I will simply say that we owe this Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms to the Minister of Justice at the time.
I may also recall that, at that time, Quebecers were more inclined
to support the Prime Minister of Canada, as was borne out by the
polls. There has been a lot of mythologizing in this respect. I think
that some day we should have a substantive debate on the
Constitution Act, 1982, and the ensuing benefits for Canada,
including Quebec. I wish they would stop demonizing the current
Prime Minister and that some day we could have an intelligent
debate on the future of Quebec within Canada. It is very difficult to
have one now, considering what was said by the Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would have liked to have this debate with the Prime
Minister on this very day, 15 years after the patriation of the
Constitution. I would have liked that very much.
(1420)
If the minister wants this debate, is he willing to let federal
Liberal members go to every riding in Quebec, and sign this
Constitution on behalf of Quebecers and defend it against Quebec
sovereignists and federalists who never accepted this Constitution?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, they are demonizing the Constitution. They are
incapable of discussing this calmly to see what exactly is so
appalling. If we showed it to the UN, would they say: ``Good
heavens, this Constitution is unacceptable from the human rights
point of view''.
Of course not. They could not do that, nor could they say that the
province of Quebec does not have very broad responsibilities,
compared with what we see in other federations. They could never
say the federation has not been decentralized since 1982. It has
been decentralized in several areas and we are clarifying the roles
of the various levels of government. Only yesterday, in the case of
British Columbia, we signed an agreement clarifyibg the roles of
governments in fisheries.
Good federalism is clarifying roles with respect to manpower,
the environment and social housing. But of course the opposition is
not interested in such a debate. They only want to demonize what
has been done by the present Prime Minister.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 15
years after the Constitution was unilaterally patriated, after two
abortive attempts at constitutional reform, after a series of unkept
promises made on the eve of the 1995 referendum, the federal
government has nothing more to offer Quebecers. It has therefore
decided to take the hard line and fight the Quebecers' right to self
determination.
9881
I would like to ask the Prime Minister or whomever is replacing
him whether he acknowledges that there is a constitutional
problem given that no government in Quebec, federalist or
sovereignist, has wanted to recognize the Canadian Constitution
in the past 15 years?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it would indeed be desirable to reach an agreement
that would enable a Quebec government that believed in Canada to
return to the constitutional fold. There is no disagreement on that
point.
The disagreement is as follows: Do we judge Canada and its
blessings solely on a dispute over certain aspects of the
Constitution? In my opinion, this would be a serious mistake.
Instead, we should look at what Quebecers and Canadians have
accomplished together, at how the country we built together is the
envy of billions of people, and ask ourselves how we got here. We
should look especially at what giving up the solidarity uniting them
in a great federation means to Quebecers and Canadians.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
rather surprising to hear the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs
say that neither Bourassa nor Johnson believed in Canada. It is very
surprising indeed.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Venne: Does the person replacing the Prime Minister
acknowledge that it is the current Prime Minister who is guilty of
going against the wishes of Quebecers in 1982, that all attempts to
rectify the situation since have failed and that the only solution this
government accepts is to ensure that Quebec no longer has the
means to decide its own future?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think I already answered all those questions.
I will have to repeat what I said, but I realize that it is impossible
to find out from the Bloc Quebecois exactly what it is they do not
like in the Constitution Act, 1982.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dion: We have said that we would prefer an amending
formula giving a veto to all the major regions in the country and
ensuring stronger recognition of Quebec in the Constitution.
We are in fact trying to convince all Canadians of this. Generally
speaking, however, the Constitution is a good one. That does not
preclude our moving forward and enjoying a quality of life that is
among the highest in the world. It does not preclude our
recognizing that we can reach the point where the OECD says we
are one of the countries in the best economic health to face the new
century.
Would we have all this if we did not help each other as
Canadians? This is the real issue, and we are prevented from
debating it with the people whose sole focus is to demonize the
Prime Minister.
* * *
(1425)
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it seems we have all been transported to the set of ``Let's
Make A Deal''. It is like this country is suddenly being governed by
Prime Minister Monty Hall. Pearson, salmon, cod, patronage
appointments, government handouts galore. The only people who
will not be walking away with a Liberal gift in the next little while
are the 1.4 million unemployed Canadians.
Since the Prime Minister appears so preoccupied with passing
out his pre-election goodies, what does he have to offer the 1.4
million unemployed Canadians in the country?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
whenever we go to the people we can offer the success in creating
close to 800,000 jobs and the pledge that we will build on that to do
much better than ever could be contemplated by the discredited
Reform Party program.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that the country currently has the worst string of
jobless numbers since the great depression. That is a fact and the
government knows it. One would think the Liberals would be
trying to come up with some new ways to put Canadians back to
work, but the government is so void of ideas that it wants to call an
election after only three and a half years in office.
Does the Prime Minister have anything new to offer unemployed
Canadians or does he still believe, as he said during the CBC town
hall meeting, that some are lucky, some are unlucky and that's just
life?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member and the members of his party were truly
concerned about the plight of the unemployed, they would have
supported the government when it brought in the infrastructure
program, when it brought in programs to deal with tourism, when it
brought in programs to deal with education, when it brought in
programs to deal with research and development.
The fact is the Reform Party voted against every single measure,
whether youth unemployment or summer jobs. Every measure the
government brought in the Reform Party opposed. On the other
hand, it is understandable why it has opposed these measures. The
9882
House leader made a reference to what the Reform Party has had to
say about its program for the unemployed.
I quote from the taxpayers' budget, which is the Reform Party
talking about what it would do: ``The short term employment
impact of the Reform Party program is negative but manageable''.
How much unemployment is manageable? How much human
suffering is the Reform Party prepared to put up with? How much
degradation of families from coast to coast does the Reform Party
want to recommend in order to put in place its archaic policies?
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister can huff and puff and bluff all he wants. He
can talk about documents that are years old. We could go back to
when the government was in opposition and see what it said when it
was over on this side. That is the debate that will occur in the next
election and I look forward to that.
In the past three and a half years the Liberals have done little to
put Canadians back to work. The minister talked about programs. I
guess there were not enough canoe museums, hotels and armouries
to go around, only enough for Shawinigan. There are 1.4 million
unemployed, two million to three million underemployed and one
in four Canadians worried about losing the job they have today.
That is the Liberal legacy.
In 1993 the Prime Minister said that he had the plan. Is his only
plan in 1997 to have all the unemployed move to Shawinigan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ink is barely dry on the two-year-old taxpayers' budget and
already Reformers deny it. Is there no policy the Reform Party will
stand behind?
The taxpayers' budget is two years old and we reject it. The false
start, six months old, we reject it.
(1430)
Time and time again members of the Reform Party stand up in
this House and deny what other members of the Reform Party have
said. It is why so many of them have already decided to leave.
Every single policy reform of the Reform Party contradicts
itself. The only consistent factor the Reform Party puts forward is
its inconsistency.
We will match any one of our budgets against anything that we
have said. We stand behind our first budget. We stand behind our
second budget. We stand behind our third budget. We stand behind
our fourth budget. We look forward to bringing in four more.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for months now, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs has been saying there must be a reasonable consensus
before the government can go ahead with the constitutional
amendment requested by Quebec. Yesterday, he finally admitted
that there was consensus on the issue in Quebec, but that he would
do everything in his power to include Alliance Quebec in that
consensus.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the only reason his
government is requiring public hearings on the eve of a federal
election is to satisfy a pressure group, Alliance Quebec, an ally of
the federal Liberals, whose view it values more than that of all
allophone, anglophone and francophone MNAs, who were
democratically elected in Quebec and who voted unanimously in
the National Assembly?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was still good news. The Government of
Canada said that it supported the proposal to amend the
Constitution put forward by Quebec. We approve it and we are
going to defend it. This will be done: it is still good news.
What is so scandalous about having a parliamentary committee
on an issue as important as this one, which involves language,
religion and education? Why is this a problem? Why is the official
opposition unable to accept good news? Is it because it is afraid
that good news, by definition, will be interpreted by Quebec as
additional proof of the benefits of a united Canada?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, instead of rambling on, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs should repeat what he said yesterday on RDI. He said that
people would have to vote Liberal in the next election if they
wanted the constitutional amendment to be approved, because it
would not be done before the election. That is what he said.
An hon. member: That is blackmail.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it is truly unacceptable and
shameless blackmail.
My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Will he
admit that he can, if he wishes, pull out all the stops and have his
government approve the constitutional amendment before the
election, even if it means postponing it?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I note that the official opposition is
applauding the idea of voting Liberal. That is already progress.
9883
Second, what I said was that, if in fact it cannot be done before
the election, people will know that if they vote for the Liberals they
are voting for candidates that support the amendment. It will be an
interesting piece of information. I fail to see how it is such a
problem
And finally, as for how long it will take, it will take far less time
than it took the Government of Quebec. The Government of
Quebec, which was elected in September 1994, only put the
proposal forward last February 7, only presented the exact wording
of the amendment March 24, and only approved it last Tuesday,
after waiting six days for the leader of the official opposition to
come back from holiday.
That was very nice of Premier Bouchard, but it shows where his
priorities lie.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals
want to run on their record in the next election. That is some
record.
(1435 )
The government has spent millions of dollars to build armouries
in the ridings of the Minister of Health, the Deputy Prime Minister
and the Prime Minister; millions of dollars to build hotels and
canoe museums in Shawinigan; millions more to build golf
courses, town hall canopies, boccie courts and other things through
the infrastructure program; and has given half a million dollar
expense accounts to patronage appointees. It is three and a half
years of waste, mismanagement and spending.
Is pork-barrel spending the Liberal government's idea of a job
creation policy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is
$50 million put into the Business Development Bank of Canada to
finance small and medium sized business pork-barrelling? Is $50
million put into the Farm Credit Corporation to help with rural
diversification pork-barrelling? Is $800 million put into the
Foundation for Innovation so that Canadian universities and
teaching hospitals can spawn the new economy pork-barrelling?
Are tuition credits, helping students to go back to school and
helping parents to save for their children's education
pork-barrelling?
No. It is the result of sound policy that will build a great country.
The Reform Party ought to get on board.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we just
heard the Minister of Finance brag about all this new spending
when taxpayers cannot afford to pay their own bills, much less the
bill for taxes that he wants to squeeze out of them.
Let us listen to the record. Unemployment insurance premiums
are up by $900 million. Corporate tax revenues are up $1.3 billion.
Revenues from the GST are up $700 million. Other revenues are up
$1.3 billion. And the list goes on. He has even squeezed taxpayers
for $3.5 billion more in personal taxes.
What are cash strapped Canadians getting in return for all this
extra money, other than the worst string of jobless numbers since
the great depression and a pitiful job creation program?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
us take a look at what has happened.
Since we have taken office unemployment insurance premiums,
which under the Conservatives were supposed to go to $3.30, are
now down to $2.90. The last three years the Tories were in power
they went up every year. We have brought them down the last three
years.
The hon. member wants to talk about tax cuts. How about the tax
cuts and the credits that were given to students to enable them to go
back to school? How about the tax credits given to disabled
Canadians to level the playing field? How about $600 million in
new tax credits for poor children to give them a decent shot?
The hon. member objects to the fact that the government's
revenues from corporations are going up. He ought to understand
that they are going up because business is better and the economy is
booming. That is a good thing. It is not a bad thing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or anyone who
aspires to take his place.
Yesterday, as I listened to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs answer questions, I could almost hear Pierre Elliott Trudeau
back in 1982. Once again, the government was busy denying the
Quebec National Assembly's legitimacy and thumbing its nose at
the people of Quebec by interfering directly in matters that come
under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that, through the arrogant
attitude of his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, his
government is setting itself up as the judge of democratic decisions
reached by the national assembly?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, the hon.
member is saying that we are the judges of what goes on at the
national assembly. It has done what it believed it had to do in good
9884
conscience. It is now up to the Parliament of Canada to do what it
believes it has to do in good conscience.
We, in the Government of Canada, believe that the national
assembly made a good decision.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister told us he was proud to have
unilaterally patriated the Constitution.
How can the Prime Minister be proud of continually going over
the head of the national assembly? Does he not, in fact, take pride
in showing contempt for Quebec's institutions?
(1440)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, naturally, when one wants to justify something as
serious as secession but really has no reason to break up a country
as successful as Canada, one has to make up serious reasons, allege
some conspiracy or other appalling deeds. I forget the exact words
the leader of the official opposition used earlier to describe these
actions.
I challenge you to show the Canadian Constitution in other
countries around the world and find one where it is described as
appalling. Where will you find another country where the linguistic
minority enjoys as many development possibilities as in Canada,
and Quebec in particular, whose level of responsibility would be
the envy of any other federated entity in the world? Where is the
scandal? What is deplorable is that the only way the official
opposition can justify secession is by making the current Prime
Minister of Canada out to be a monster.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
cod fishery has been terribly mismanaged by the federal
government. The most recent report of the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans says that the stock is still extremely low. Yet the
minister today, on the eve of an early election, announced that the
cod fishery off Newfoundland would be reopened.
Why is the minister risking a resource so valuable and important
to the Atlantic economy?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State
(Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister made a very limited fisheries announcement
today that was recommended by the FRCC.
The total allowable catch announced is lower than that
recommended by the FRCC.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's decision will at best create a few short term jobs. The
catch will be far too small to even reopen idle fish processing
plants.
This move will virtually make certain that Newfoundland
fisheries and fishing communities cannot survive, all to net a few
more Liberal votes in the upcoming election.
What is the minister's real concern? Is it the survival of the cod
fishery or the survival of the Liberals?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State
(Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I assure my hon. colleague that we will both survive.
The fishery announcement today, as I indicated, was
recommended by the FRCC. All the information that will be gained
by this test fishery is vital to measure the stocks and to find out
exactly where we stand in the fishery.
In fact what was done today was recommended by the FRCC and
the fishing community.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Prominent members of Quebec society are rallying behind Pierre
Falardeau and his film project on the Patriotes of 1837, which has
been turned down by Telefilm Canada. Telefilm is being accused of
political censorship. Not all that long ago, the heritage committee
called together the major Canadian cultural institutions, including
Telefilm and the Canada Council, in order to find out what they
were doing to promote national unity.
Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that transforming her
department into a propaganda tool at the service of its government
has sullied the reputation of independence and integrity the major
Canadian cultural institutions have hitherto enjoyed?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the so-called propaganda the hon.
member talks about has done a great deal to assist Canadians.
Let me point out some of things the CIO has done. It has set up
programs to promote exchanges in sharing among Canadians, such
as the recently organized Canada student exchange project. The
CIO has used the community leadership program to work with
community leaders, bands and institutions across the country. The
CIO has done a great deal of work to promote Canada's richness
and diversity to all Canadians.
9885
(1445)
We do not need the hon. member to talk to us about propaganda.
We have seen how the party across the way used an enormous
amount of money to promote propaganda on its behalf.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is in the right church, but the wrong pew, as they say. I
suppose it is still better to mishear something than not to hear
anything at all. I was, however, referring to a specific case, the film
by Pierre Falardeau.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs is also continuing his
propaganda activities. Despite the demands of the Bloc Quebecois
and the Government of Quebec, he is maintaining the criteria of
promoting national unity as one of the yardsticks for awarding
grants.
Does the minister realize that, by refusing to do away with this
indecent criterion, she too is putting propaganda before Canadian
culture?
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the objective of
the Department of Foreign Affairs is to promote Canadian culture
abroad, and in order to do so, we make use of the forms of culture
available to Canadians, Quebecers included. This is one of our
government's objectives.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. Members of all parties in
the House recognize that Canada's volunteer and charitable sectors
welcome and are delighted with the enhanced tax incentives
brought forward by the finance minister to assist charitable giving.
At the same time we recognize that in the last ways and means
motion there were some unintended adverse consequences.
Could the minister assure the House that the government will
undertake and is undertaking consultations with the charitable
sector to ensure that the unintended or adverse consequences will
not come about?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member just outlined, we have made it a priority in our
budgets to help charity raise additional funds. A great deal of the
leadership for this has come from the chairman and the
membership of the finance committee. While we have enhanced
the generosity of the system, we have also acted to ensure its
integrity.
The suggestion has been raised by the member that a particular
measure dealing with loan backed transactions may be too broadly
drafted at present. I assure the member the government is
consulting with and will continue to work with the charitable sector
to ensure the legislation has neither adverse nor unintended
consequences.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us
look back at the government's shopping list: $745 million spent
and no helicopters, $2 million spent to assuage Brian Mulroney,
and $260 million spent on Pearson airport and not one shovel of
earth moved.
Is this the Liberal idea of taxpayers dollars well spent?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned
Pearson airport. Interestingly enough I read in today's paper that
the leader of the third party said that it was money for absolutely
nothing.
Is a new crosswind north-south runway at Pearson International
Airport nothing? Is firefighting equipment at Pearson International
Airport nothing? Is the new de-icing facility at Pearson
International Airport nothing? That is on what the $185 million
was spent at Pearson International Airport.
Which one of these safety and environmental capital projects at
Pearson would the hon. member call nothing?
(1450 )
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is small
wonder they call this portion of the day question period. We do not
get any answers from over there. We ask a perfectly legitimate
question and we get a bunch of razzle-dazzle and a question in
return. Since this is question period I will try once more for an
answer from the other side.
Since the government likes to be known as job creators, how
does it expect to explain to the electorate that after spending $260
million on Pearson airport not one job has been created?
Perhaps, if it had been handled correctly, it could have been one
of the biggest infrastructure programs to take place under this
mandate.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tries to leave a
perception with the Canadian people but the Canadian people will
not buy it. They understand the government protected them from
the lobbyist money that was to be paid out and demanded by that
private consortium.
9886
The reality is that the government spent the $185 million I just
spoke about on all those environmental and safety capital projects
that are so necessary at Pearson airport.
Pearson was not the only airport the government invested in.
What about the Calgary airport? Is the hon. member against us
spending money to improve capital safety projects and
environmental projects at that airport? How about Edmonton and
the $127 million spent on that airport? What about the $45 million
spent on the Vancouver airport? What about the $120 million spent
on the Montreal airport?
We have a national airport policy that will put decision making
into the hands of local authorities to make them the economic
jewels they so rightly are.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Two months ago, the official opposition pointed out to the
minister that his deficit projections of $19 billion for the 1996-97
fiscal year seemed totally wrong. The minister refused to admit his
mistake and tried to tell us that, in the two months that would
follow, the figures might vary enormously. Now, the figures are in
for 11 months out of 12, and they show that the deficit stands at
$7.8 billion, which is far below the minister's forecasts.
Either the minister voluntarily overestimated his deficit to make
the major cuts imposed on the provinces and the unemployed more
palatable, or the government is in the dark and the minister is
incapable of coming up with a credible forecast. Which is it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member knows, when I tabled the budget, I said that the
deficit for the current year would not exceed-meaning it will be
below-$19 billion, and it is definitely the case.
I also said that we did not have the figures for the months of
January, February and March. We still do not have the figures for
March. When we get these figures, we will certainly have a clearer
picture.
I should also remind the member that, historically speaking,
there always are adjustments ranging from $4 billion to $6 billion
at the end of the year. Finally, the member should know that the
fact that the deficit is going down is not bad news but good news.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, given that 84 per cent of the deficit reduction for the
first 11 months was achieved at the expense of unemployed
workers, welfare recipients, sick people and students, it is a bit
ridiculous for the other side to applaud.
Since the minister has more room to manoeuvre every month, to
the point where he will achieve a zero deficit by the year 2000, will
he pledge to pay back the money he took from the provinces and
from unemployed workers, welfare recipients, sick people and
students?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the hon. member has the wrong government in mind. He may
be referring to some provincial governments, but certainly not to
this government.
The first reason why we are ahead is because we did not have to
use our contingency reserve. The second reason is that our
revenues are on the rise, because the economy is on rise. The third
reason is that our interest rates are lower than expected. Again, this
is all good news.
* * *
(1455)
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, page 92 of the red book says:
-Conservatives made a practice of choosing political friends when
making-thousands of appointments-
In October the
Hill Times reported that 3,000 Liberals have been
appointed to patronage positions since 1993.
I look at the title of the red book, Creating Opportunity. Like the
1.4 million unemployed Canadians I have to ask myself creating
opportunity for whom.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Do 1.4 million
unemployed Canadians have to take out Liberal memberships in
order to get jobs?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the appointments made by the government have been made on the
basis of competence and merit. We do not believe people should be
excluded because of their political affiliation.
I thank my hon. friend for holding up the red book. It helps me to
say that Liberals are proud of our record but the Reform Party is
running away from its record.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the 20 for 20 record of the Prime Minister in appointing
loyal Liberals to the Senate is far worse than the Tories he
complained about in the red book.
Page 93 of the red book has a list of statistics on the cynicism of
Canadians toward politics. A recent Environics poll found that73 per cent of Canadians think the Prime Minister has done a bad
job.
9887
Does the Prime Minister think his thousands of patronage
appointments have reduced cynicism in Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
an example of the ridiculous analysis of the Reform Party is the one
used about the Senate. The Senate is a partisan legislative body like
the House of Commons. Why would the government want to
maintain a Tory majority there ad infinitum?
The hon. member's comment is only an example of how
ridiculous their analysis is and why, as I said and I repeat, the
Liberals have reason to be proud of their record. Once again it has
been proven why the Reform Party has nothing else to do but run
away and hide from its record.
* * *
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-food.
It was reported in United States news today that Canada has
agreed to limit the sales of wheat to the United States market to 1.5
million tonnes.
Would the minister tell the House and the farmers of western
Canada the real situation concerning shipments into the U.S.
market?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder what part of
the word no these people fail to understand. Let me be clear.
There is no gap. There is no limit. There is no agreement. There
is no inclination on the part of Canada to move in that direction.
Our grain trade with the United States is fair. It is fully within the
rules of the WTO and the NAFTA. It has been investigated three
times by the United States. On every occasion Canadian grain
trading practices have been vindicated and we shall continue to
defend ourselves.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister or the
spokesman for the government today. It concerns what in the
computer world is called the millennium problem, the problem
concerning the year 2000.
As the hon. member might know, many of the old mainframes
left only two digits rather than four digits for dates. To change that
on a global basis will require hundreds of billions of dollars. It will
also have a major impact on the Government of Canada.
How prepared is the government with its various departments?
What is the estimated cost of redesigning the programs? What
impact on revenues is expected as private industry will have to
undergo hundreds of millions of dollars of costs in rewriting their
programs?
(1500 )
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member is quite right to mention that question. It is a complex one,
not only for the public sector but also for the private sector. We
have already spent millions of dollars on it and we have started to
look at how our various computer systems could be adapted.
Good progress is being made in that direction but there is still a
lot of work to be done and we are at it.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Miloslav Vyborny,
Defence Minister of the Czech Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: This is a rather special day for us. On behalf of
members, over the past few years we have started a program of
bringing distinguished Canadians into the House of Commons to be
recognized by us, the representatives of the people of Canada.
[Translation]
We have the honour today of welcoming to this House new
recipients of the Order of Canada.
[English]
These 31 men and women from across the country have made
outstanding achievements in a wide range of fields from the arts,
voluntarism and philanthropy to business, science, education and
public service.
I am going to introduce the Order of Canada recipients to you,
and to all of the citizens in Canada one at a time. I know that you
want to applaud each individually but would you bear with me and
hold your well deserved applause until I have called each of their
names.
To you, my fellow Canadians, the recipients of the Order of
Canada, I would ask that when I call your name to honour you in
this place, the most honourable place in Canada, that you stand and
stay standing until I have introduced all of you.
The Right Honourable Martial Asselin, Mary Frances Pratt,
James Downey, Arthur Horne, James Kenneth Irving, Malak
Karsh, Anne-Marie Alonzo, Sarah Anala, Simon Baker, Norman
Barwin, Jenny Belzbert, Anthony Dobell, Frank Gunston, Joan
Fletcher Harrison, Gerald Hatch, Simma Holt, Mary John, Charles
Linkletter, Jean Loiselle, Lawrence Mysak, Sarah Weintraub
Paltiel, Marilyn Ruth Peers, Jean-Henri Picard, Grace Davis Pine,
9888
Charles-Albert Poissant, Bernard Riedel, Raymond Setlakwe,
Bernard Snell, Charles Alexander Thompson and Irving Zucker.
These are the distinguished citizens of the Order of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I cordially invite all of you to receive our
recipients of the Order of Canada in Room 216 for a reception
immediately following question period, if you can absent
yourselves from your duties.
* * *
(1505)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there is something of a holiday atmosphere in the House,
but I would like to ask the government House leader if the House
will be sitting on Monday.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find that parties continue to negotiate on a regular
basis for a number of issues that are coming forward.
We intend to proceed with Bill C-92, Bill C-93 and to see how
our work continues to proceed over the course of the next several
days. I want to thank all parties in the House for their co-operation
in facilitating the important work that Canadians feel we do in this
place.
_____________________________________________
9888
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38,
an act to provide for mediation between insolvent farmers and their
creditors, to amend the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative
Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Farm Debt Review Act,
be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on Bill C-38, the farm debt mediation act.
The purpose of the bill is to change the farm debt review legislation
and replace this decade old legislation with a review board system
which involves a mediation type service for farmers who are facing
seizure of their property by creditors.
First I will discuss the legislation currently in place and then the
changes that have been made to it. After that I will discuss issues
related to the farm debt review bill. The main provisions of this
legislation put in place a review of a farmer's financial affairs, as
there was in the old act and the provision of mediation between
farmers and creditors to replace the old system which was far more
adversarial. I am very familiar with that system. I have worked
through it with some farmers.
The bill puts in place an order temporarily suspending the right
of creditors to continue proceedings against farmers. The intent of
this legislation more than anything else is to hold off creditors that
are knocking at the door if the farmers and the board feel there is a
possibility of working out a deal that will be beneficial to the
creditors and the farmer involved. That is the purpose of the act.
The new system would replace the appointed panel members
with mediators who would be hired after a bidding process. It
allows a farmer facing insolvency to apply for up to a 30-day stay
of proceedings. Then a farmer could renew this 30-day stay of
proceedings for up to a total of 120 days.
In complicated cases, an expert on debt and the reorganization of
debt could be hired to prepare an assessment of the farmer's
situation. That was done under the old system as well.
(1510)
The main change in the process is to move to a system which
involves more mediation. In fact I know from personal experience
that in many of the cases under the old system it did work more like
a mediation process. In a way this formalizes the process that was
being used before this change to the act.
The appeal board is made up of farmers who are considered to be
financial experts and would be available to hear complaints about
decisions and to grant, extend or to terminate proceedings. That is
what this legislation is about.
The Reform Party's policy, even before the last election,
supports measures by government to give farmers the instruments
necessary to create more self-reliance. Farmers have used these
instruments. Some have been available for some time. Farmers
have used them extremely well and are far more capable now of
working through complex financial situations, the reorganization
of debt and situations like that, than they were a few years ago.
Unfortunately part of the reason they have become so good at
reorganizing debt is that some of them have had to do it several
times. Agriculture has gone through extremely tough times.
Unfortunately, governments-it is not just this Liberal government
but the Conservative government before as well-have put in place
legislation and programs which have damaged farmers
immeasurably.
It is very unfortunate that we even need legislation that is geared
to helping farmers reorganize debt or geared to finding some way
9889
of working with creditors so they have something left should they
have financial failure and should the creditors come to collect. I put
the blame for that clearly at the feet of governments and again, not
just this government. Certainly past Conservative governments
have put in several programs which have made things much worse
for farmers and which have distorted the market so badly that
farmers really do not have the opportunity to work within a free
enterprise market situation. Instead they have had to work under
the framework laid out by these various government programs.
That has harmed the competitive ability of Canadian farmers
immeasurably.
Liberal governments before the Conservatives were in power
and this current Liberal government have to share some of the
blame for those programs which have replaced the market situation
which would be much healthier for farmers.
While this legislation makes some improvements to the farm
debt review board act, it does not solve the main problem that
farmers face today. The main problem that farmers face today
directly stems from governments becoming too involved in the
agriculture industry. I am not just talking about the Canadian
government, although the Canadian government is certainly guilty
of this and has been for the past 20 to 30 years. I am also talking
about foreign governments. The European governments have
dumped completely unfairly on markets around the world that
under a competitive situation, under a fair trade situation, would
have been markets for Canadian farmers.
In the grain industry, for example, the American government
with its export enhancement program depressed world markets
around the world. Canadian governments, Liberal, Conservative
and now Liberal again, have put in place programs that make it
difficult for farmers to do business. That is what they want to do.
Farmers have no choice with the present trade agreements.
(1515)
We have moved to some extent back to the free enterprise system
that farmers want, but we have a long way to go and the
government certainly has not helped to accommodate that change.
It should be chastized for that.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that I know how the old
Farm Debt Review Act works. I have seen how the panels work. In
some cases it has helped farmers work through some very difficult
situations. Unfortunately in most cases it involves the farmers
going out of business. At least in some cases they can go out of
business without having to carry debt beyond the end of their
farming business.
In other cases there have been successes. Some farmers who
have used the farm debt review board have managed to keep their
farms. In some cases they rent the land from the Farm Credit
Corporation, which became the owner as a result of the farm debt
review board process. The farmers were able to farm the land. In
some cases they were able to buy the land from the Farm Credit
Corporation and other creditors.
The old Farm Debt Review Act worked in some cases. It was
good for some farmers. At the same time it considered what the
creditors wanted. It succeeded in getting farmers and creditors
together to try to work out a deal which would be beneficial to both.
On the other hand, this program involves a lot of overlap with
provincial programs which are already in place. I have personal
experience. I was hired as a consultant by Alberta agriculture to
work with farmers. I know the Farm Debt Review Act duplicated
the services which were offered by the province and by the private
sector. The duplication was completely unnecessary. Unfortunately
that will continue with the new act. In many cases it puts the federal
government into provincial jurisdiction.
The services that the mediator and others in the process offer to
farmers to work out a deal with creditors are being provided by
private consultants and provincial governments. The provinces
have hired farmers on a contract basis to do the work. There is a lot
of duplication.
Ten years ago when the Farm Debt Review Act was put in place
it served a purpose. However, the provinces were fulfilling that role
much better than the federal legislation. In the late 1980s farmers
were being forced out of business as a result of government
involvement in markets, which was depressing the prices at
alarming rates.
I believe there was a role for provincial governments. Private
consultants were not available and they certainly were not trained
to the level which would allow them to help farmers work through
their problems. For provincial governments to get involved made
sense back then. They provided a service.
I worked for Alberta agriculture. I worked with dozens and
dozens of farmers as a business management consultant. I helped
them work through their difficult situations.
(1520 )
I have often worked with creditors just as a go between to try to
work out a deal, sometimes very successfully but in many cases
unfortunately completely unsuccessfully in terms of saving the
business. However, often the farmers who were leaving the
business because they were being forced out ended up with
something. They had a little something to help them.
I think that was a useful service. I really wonder about the
necessity of duplicating that service. I now know that private
consultants are far better trained, are there and are quite willing to
help farmers to work through these very difficult situations and,
more important, to work with farmers before the situations become
9890
so desperate that they go to the farm debt review board or to this
new farm mediation system.
I do think there are some improvements in this legislation. For
some of the reasons I mentioned earlier this legislation does
provide a better framework. However, I have some specific
concerns on the amount of money involved. My first concern is that
the budget for this process is way too high. It is not just an arbitrary
judgment that I make. Right now the Saskatchewan farm debt
review board handles about half of all the cases in Canada and the
cost is $700,000. Yet the budget for this new new farm debt board
is $2.2 million. It leads one to ask if this government is anticipating
that the load of farmers needing this service will increase
dramatically. There has to be a reason for a budget being much
higher than would seem to make sense when one considers the
current budget.
One has to ask whether this government really does anticipate
that more farmers are going to end up in serious financial trouble
and will need the services of this act to work through financial
difficulty, which usually ends in farmers being forced out of
business and losing, in many cases, all their assets but at least not
having to carry debt beyond the termination of their business.
As members would know, many Reform MPs are farmers or
were before they got into this business. Of 52 members of
Parliament, we have somewhere between 14 and 17 members who
have a farming background, own farms or have worked in the
agriculture industry. That is a real high number for a caucus of 52.
When we have meetings dealing with agricultural issues it is not
unusual, as we have had many times in the past, to have 14 to 16
Reform MPs at these meetings. The interest in agriculture certainly
cannot be equaled in any caucus. The level of expertise on
agriculture certainly cannot and is not equalled in any other caucus
in the House.
The importance that the Reform caucus places on agriculture, on
farmers, on ranchers and on others in agricultural business is not
equalled by any other caucus in this country. We have shown a
commitment to farmers and we are going to continue to do that. We
ask farmers, as we ask all other Canadians going into the election,
which seems certain to be coming quite soon, to look at everyone's
platforms. We ask them to take a good look at the platforms that are
being offered in agriculture and in other areas by all the political
parties. I then ask them to look at the Reform platform and
compare it to the platforms offered by others in the agriculture area
and other areas.
(1525 )
Let us have the election fought on issues, not on labels that one
party tries to pin on another. Let us not have an election with name
calling and dirty politics. I invite any other political party to
compare what we offer in agriculture and in the the rest of our
platform to theirs. If that comparison takes place during the
election campaign, Reform will form the government after the
election.
All I ask is that the political parties compare platforms so that
Canadians can compare platforms and vote for whomever has the
best ideas, the best policies, the best people to carry them out and
the best leader. I believe it will prove to be the Reform Party.
Another problem with the legislation is that there is too much
political patronage. That should not be a big surprise because
members throughout the day have been pointing out Liberal
patronages one after the other; all Liberals appointed to the Senate
since they came to office. It is unbelievable.
Even under the Mulroney government there was an elected
Senator, Stan Waters of Alberta. He happened to be a Reform
member. But what is important is that he was elected to the Senate.
A precedent was set.
British Columbia has legislation to accommodate elected
senators. The premier of British Columbia has asked that senators
be elected. Albertans and the Government of Alberta have asked
for elected senators. And what do we get? Every senator since the
election has been replaced by patronage appointees by the Prime
Minister. That is completely unacceptable. That is just the start of
the list of patronage appointments. It goes on and on. I am not
going to get into the list because I do not have time in my
presentation today.
This legislation just sets up space for more patronage
appointments. That is completely unacceptable. That alone is
reason enough to not support the bill. We do not want to support
anything which would allow more spots to be filled by patronage
appointments.
This legislation is a minor one, acknowledged. It makes minor
changes to the existing Farm Debt Review Act. It is really dealing
with a small issue in terms of how many people it affects and it
should be dealing with important issues. At least it does offer some
changes to improve the existing Act.
I want to congratulate the government for those particular
changes. On the other hand, as I have said, there a lot of other
things that should have been changed but were not. There is $2.2
million in the budget, but if we could trust that the government had
any ability to forecast accurately, I think farmers should be very
concerned because the budget is way beyond what should be
required when we consider the present costs.
Instead of dealing with this legislation just before an election,
the government should be dealing with some serious legislation to
improve grain transportation which would allow competition in the
grain transportation system, allow some recourse for farmers to
make the railways and grain handlers accountable. But it is not
9891
doing that. The government should be dealing with legislation that
would get rid of the wheat board monopoly and instead improve the
wheat board to make it accountable to farmers and to give farmers
an option to either market their products through the wheat board
or a grain company or on their own. The government did not do
that, therefore we are debating this legislation. Much more
important legislation should have been debated than this. For that
reason I will not take any more time on this legislation.
(1530)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are not
many farmers in the riding of Lévis, but I wanted to speak in this
debate nevertheless. In any case, whenever we talk about
agriculture in the House of Commons, I have a particular interest in
the subject for two reasons.
As a farmer's son, I was aware of these problems from an early
age. Reform Party members just said there were a lot of problems
in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Canada today, and
especially in Quebec. Why? Because we do not get our fair share of
federal spending on agriculture, although we contribute 24 per
cent.
Today we are discussing Bill C-38, an act to provide for
mediation between insolvent farmers and their creditors. We are
talking about this because there is an increasing number of farmers
with serious financial problems, in Quebec and in Canada. Why do
they have so many financial problems? Because they must operate
within an international free trade context which is hard on farmers.
And also because the federal government's policies have brought a
number of farmers close to bankruptcy and in many cases have
pushed them over the brink.
This bill, although not perfect, has the effect of alleviating to
some extent the untenable situation of certain farmers. Farmers
today have to invest and go deeper and deeper into debt. To have a
viable operation, they have to increase their acreage and expand
their operations by buying their neighbour's land. Where I used to
live, there were seven or eight farmers, but today there is only one
farm, one operation.
An individual who has to manage all that has to incur enormous
debts and take enormous risks, considering the fact that there is no
new generation waiting in the wings. People are not lining up to
continue this agricultural tradition. Why not? Because of the
enormous investment involved.
You have to have a vocation. You almost have to be a missionary
today to be a farmer. It is a very demanding occupation. As the
Bloc Quebecois critic, the hon. member for Frontenac, said this
morning, it is a seven-day-a-week job. It is as demanding as being a
member of Parliament. We have to be here during the week and in
our ridings on the weekend to take part in all kinds of activities. It
is very demanding.
But do not expect any sympathy from farmers. No Quebec
farmers will pity us because of the hours we work, because for
years they have been used to working long hours to support their
families. If everything works out, when he is old enough to retire,
the farmer manages to convince his son or daughter or several sons
to take over the farm and take out a farm loan, and then perhaps he
will be able to enjoy his retirement.
(1535)
But for 30 or maybe 40 years, the farmer and his wife have to
work very hard. I mention the farm wives because, if there is any
sector in Quebec that is a prime example of a family enterprise, it is
farming.
Farm wives deserve as much praise as their husbands. The work
has been divided up on the farm for years. Often the wife does the
books, because the accounting is getting more and more
complicated, and then there is all the paperwork to do with the
milk.
I grew up with that, so I know what I am talking about. But
people often have no idea. I am sometimes horrified to hear city
people, of which I am one myself now, people who deserve what
they earn and have their own problems but do not have to work the
hours that farmers do, making deplorable comments about farmers.
They think the government heavily subsidizes agriculture and
supports farmers. So many city folks make comments like this that
they have an influence on the lawmakers and the people in
government, especially the federal government, and end up
convincing them that cuts to agriculture are justified.
This opinion is shortsighted because, if agricultural subsidies are
cut, if there is no help for farmers at the primary level, this will
have repercussions in the processing industry and then at the
tertiary level, where agricultural products are sold to consumers.
I was listening earlier to our excellent agriculture critic, the hon.
member for Frontenac, who often reminds us in the Bloc
Quebecois of the importance of agriculture in Quebec, and no
doubt in Canada as well, and in the West, as defended by the
Reform Party. But we are not reminded often enough.
Based on my years as the political assistant to Jean Garon, the
Quebec minister of agriculture between the Parti Quebecois' assent
to power in 1976 and 1996, I would have no hesitation in
describing him as the best minister of agriculture Quebec has ever
had. He developed a concept that was no longer agriculture, but the
concept known as agri-food, which established the link between
production, processing and marketing. That forms a whole.
9892
Mr. Garon used to talk about the importance of self-sufficiency
and of buying our own products. This is vital. Why? Because it
provided a living for more people in rural areas.
Whatever problem there may be in rural communities in Canada
is due to the fact that we have started to ignore agriculture. Without
agriculture, the major rural areas could not survive, and I think the
problem starts at the grassroots. In other words, we have lost sight
of the problems of the farming community, of farm producers, of
people who process farm products and of those who sell them.
Things are very difficult in the context of globalization.
This bill will ease things a bit for those in difficulty, because all
too often we have seen people go bankrupt. I know you know how
it works, but it always bears repeating. People get a farm loan, but
they often must provide part of the financing themselves.
Parents who want their children to take over the farm sometimes
loan some of the proceeds from the sale of their property to their
children so they can make up the difference. This means that, at
some point, there are two loans outstanding: the farm loan and the
parents' loan. The time comes when they cannot be repaid, the
operation is no longer profitable, and some of them face
bankruptcy.
(1540)
This legislation softens the edges. It provides for a new
procedure to be established at the federal level to allow for
mediation, so that people can make arrangements to keep the farm
in operation before it reaches the point of going bankrupt.
What good does it do to declare someone bankrupt if no one else
wants to buy the property and this agricultural heritage, sometimes
built over generations, has to be abandoned for wanting to get out
from under a burden of debt that has become excessive for a
family? I think this is a good idea.
At report stage, the Bloc Quebecois, through its agriculture
critic, the hon. member for Frontenac, put forward several
amendments in committee. Like the third party, we had concerns.
The whole issue of political patronage appointments, among other
things, was of concern to us. We would like appointments to be
made on a non-partisan basis, putting an end to the practice
established in the federal government of rewarding defeated
candidates by giving them a position. There will be plenty of them
after the next election.
I know that many expect to win in ridings where the hold of the
Bloc Quebecois is very strong. Soon we will have some of these
people sitting on the kind of board that Bill C-38 is seeking to
establish.
It is extremely difficult to wrest approval from the Liberals in
committee, as is usually the case with the government, for
amendments put forward by the opposition, sovereignist members
who are looking after the interests of Quebecers. They cannot
support this kind of amendments, because they are in office. So, the
amendments are lost.
This does not prevent us from very objectively recognizing that
this is a step in the right direction. Because it could save the
taxpayers $1 million, we will vote in favour of this bill at third
reading.
The hon. member for Frontenac has pointed out a number of
flaws, which were unfortunately not addressed. But when one
cannot have the best, one has to settle for second best. Because this
bill is an improvement over the existing legislation, we will
support it.
I would like to use the time I have left to remind the hon.
members that, as I said at the beginning of my speech, Quebec is
not getting its fair share of federal spending in agriculture.
According to figures from the Quebec Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food, we get only about 10 per cent of the federal
expenditures in that sector, or some $311 million.
Yet, Quebec's contribution to Canadian revenues from
agriculture represents about 16.4 per cent of the total. The figure
goes up to 21.4 per cent if we take into account not just farm
production itself, but the whole agri-food industry. In this case, if
we take into account only the processing industry, the shortfall is
increased by an additional $201 million.
In the years 1985-86 to 1994-95, when the Conservatives were in
office, federal expenditures in Quebec's agri-food industry
represented only 9 per cent of the total. During the same period,
agricultural revenues from our province amounted to 16.3 per cent
of the total. So, for these 10 years, the cumulative shortfall for
Quebec totalled $3 billion. I could go on.
One might have thought the Liberals would have corrected the
situation, but no. Things remain the same and Quebec is still being
treated unfairly. Let me mention an important point. The figure of
$3 billion resurfaces again. The government abolished the Crow's
Nest rate. What was the result? They gave $3 billion in
compensation to western farmers because that was what the
Reform Party called for. In this case, Reform Party members
deserve credit. They obtained $3 billion in compensation for
western farmers. I do not know what those of us from Quebec did.
We asked for our share of compensation as well. Instead of
compensation, cuts were made to our agricultural sector.
(1545)
As it is, we are not receiving our fair share, and they are cutting
again. They cut $107 million in 1995-96; in 1996-97, it was another
$30 million, in addition to the other cuts; in 1997-98, it will be
another $113 million. This is unacceptable. Consumers thought
9893
they were in purgatory. Now they are headed for hell. Things keep
getting worse. We must speak out before the next election.
The point can never be made too strongly. It is true that Reform
Party members have spoken about farming because they are
looking out for western voters, but I say to them that in Quebec our
farmers are suffering as well.
At the federal level, despite the fact we represent 24 per cent of
the population, we are not receiving our fair share. As long as we
stay in this system, as long as the people of Quebec do not opt for
sovereignty, we in the Bloc Quebecois will continue to ask for our
fair share, because we are paying taxes here in Ottawa.
We demand the equivalent of the $3 billion for the Crow rate
buyout. Unfortunately, although this bill will ease the pain a little
for a number of farmers, it resolves nothing. Canada's agriculture
minister should show some backbone and resolve the problems; he
should reach an agreement with the Government of Quebec to
avoid duplication among other things.
Yes, I applauded the amalgamation of the three federal food
inspection agencies a few months ago in the House. One came
under the Department of Health, another under the Department of
Agriculture and a third under another department. They were
combined into one agency.
The fact is that it is essential that a stop be put to duplication in
this sector and that Quebec receive financial compensation because
it is closer to the people. You do not farm in an office in Ottawa.
Raising cows, fishing and so on cannot be done in an office in
Ottawa. The government must be closer to the community. The
closest government is the Government of Quebec. Why not work
together more, instead of structuring and regulating, which is
sometimes of no use to Quebec?
I will conclude by urging my colleagues opposite, those who,
knowing Friday would soon be here, have unfortunately already
left, to give the matter some thought. We may not speak about
those who are absent, but there are not very many of us here today
on Thursday to speak about agriculture, although it is an extremely
important sector. If they want to do some more work on the
economy, if the Prime Minister is serious when he talks about the
economy and ``jobs, jobs, jobs'', he would deliver speeches aimed
at the agricultural community.
There is a line that is funny but true. When it comes to
agriculture, certain Liberal ministers are behaving, as Jean Garon
used to say, like mosquitos in a nudist colony; they do not know
where to start. I apologize for this bit of humour, when the situation
is so grim.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38. Before
I get into my speech I must commend my Bloc colleague for trying
to impress on the House how important agriculture is to Quebec. It
has always been appreciated by myself and other Reform MPs that
Bloc members take such a unique interest in agriculture. They
realize that we have to eat before we do anything else.
(1550)
Bill C-38 is a quick way of fixing a farmer's problems. It
decreases the time of suffering, but I still do not like to see that
kind of thing happening.
The Farm Debt Review Act was established in 1986 in response
to exceptional circumstances. The late seventies and the
mid-eighties were difficult times in the agriculture sector. Family
after family was forced to leave farming because it was not
profitable. Why was it not profitable? Because of too much
government interference.
Some members of Parliament will remember that in 1970 or
1971 the Liberal government of Prime Minister Trudeau was
elected. The slogan at that time was we will create a just society.
That sounded good. Everybody in western Canada felt that maybe
conditions for western farmers would be improved, as well as
conditions for western processors and the special crops industry.
The first thing that Liberal government did was increase the
wages for grain handlers by 68 per cent in one shot. That was very
extreme, although at that time their wages were probably not what
they should have been.
That started a whole series of problems. The next thing the
government of the day did, because of low grain prices, was to
establish a program known as the LIFT program. I do not know,
Mr. Speaker, if you were around at that time or if you remember
that program. That program was designed to encourage farmers to
summer fallow their land and to decrease the supply. They were
paid $8 an acre to summer fallow their farmland.
That was a bad mistake. There was a crop failure the following
year and the billion bushel surplus that everybody talked about,
which was depressing prices, was gone. It was not there because of
mismanagement in estimating what was held in reserve. That
happened because three or four different grain companies in each
town and each grain company, more or less, surveyed how many
bushels were in the area, added them together and came up with an
estimate which was three or four times higher than it should have
been.
In 1972 we had grain prices the likes of which had never been
seen before. Prices of $1.50 per bushel jumped to $5 and $6 a
bushel. It was inflation. The farmers did very well. They started to
be optimistic. People were encouraged to spend money.
The worst thing that happened was that government officials
tried to encourage farmers to specialize. If a farmer wanted to
9894
borrow money to improve his milk herd, or dairy operation or hog
operation and wanted $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000, the Farm Credit
Corporation would say: ``No way. You have to get your act together
and direct your energies toward one operation''. If you did not
borrow at least $50,000 or $100,000 you were denied the loan.
That gave farmers the direction to specialize. We saw small
operations being closed down and bigger operations starting.
Before we realized it, many farmers had a debt load that was
beyond servicing when interest rates started, all of a sudden, to
jump because of the money supply.
(1555)
If I had not have been out of the country in 1981 and seen what
inflation did in other countries, I probably would not have realized
how detrimental it was to our country. However, when 24 per cent
interest rates developed and farmers had debt loads of between
$100,000 and $200,000, their debt load increased by one-quarter
each year and they were unable to service that debt load.
This was the just society. I do not know if it was a just society for
the bankers, the financiers or for whom. At that time I know there
was a big debate on whether we should do away with the Crow and
whether we should do certain other things.
I will never forget a program I was watching one night called
Front Page Challenge. Members might remember Mr. Gordon
Sinclair who was one of the specialists on the program. They were
talking about the huge recession in the country. All of a suddenMr. Sinclair could not sit still any more and said: ``What recession?
Twenty-four per cent interest rates. What recession?'' The financial
institutions and investors were making huge profits. People did not
realize we were losing farmers and business people left and right.
I will never forget the comic made out of the huge Liberal milk
cow. Mr. Speaker, you might remember that picture. It showed this
huge Liberal milk cow and the western farmers were feeding it as
fast as they could. They were scrawny, poor, overworked and
looked almost like skeletons compared to the huge cow. While the
farmers in the west were feeding this huge Liberal milk cow, they
were really feeding the eastern interests. Those interests were
collecting the money and getting their 24 per cent interest rates.
The worst of it was that when one has a huge milk cow there is
some organic material that has to be disposed of because otherwise
it is environmentally unfriendly. Therefore, this organic fertilizer
was dumped on the eastern provinces and it pretty well buried
them. So we had three little problems. We had the western farmers
starving to death. We had the eastern interests getting filthy rich
and paying more income tax and the eastern Atlantic provinces
being buried by something they did not really like. That was the
situation that got western farmers into a huge debt load.
Looking back on the issue today, if we could have avoided the
high interest rates at that time, we would have a lot more small
business people still in business in western Canada and the family
farm might not be in the position that it is today.
However, I want to get back to the debt review board. When we
had the old board, it was at least willing to look at farmers who
were viable and give them support and try to get them to
reorganize.
Bill C-38 is only there, more or less, to get farmers out of
business. Once you get to that point, I am a firm believer that just
consultation and some advice is not sufficient. As members know,
when banks or financial institutions are prepared to take over one's
assets they have the best legal advice and the best consultation
services available. They do not care about the cost. However, when
a farmer is under that type of stress he does not have any financial
power. He does not have the economic resources to get that type of
advice.
If the government was really diligent and wanted to do
something for farmers, it would make funds available to them to
get the expert advice and consultation service needed because the
banks or financial institutions have the upper hand.
During that time, I think during a Liberal government, I know
there was a very big debate about the Crow rate. It think a prop of a
crow being hung was brought into the House at that time. There
was quite a bit of confrontation here. There was talk that
governments were willing to bail out western farmers with the
crow to a tune of $15 billion. That was its values then.
(1600)
Some farm organizations were stubborn and did not realize how
critical the issue was. They felt that it was not enough, was a very
bad deal for western farmers and refused it. Fifteen billion dollars
in 1978 or 1979 compared to $1.5 billion today is just a Mickey
Mouse amount, peanuts. Big mistakes made in western Canada.
When we look at the grain transportation system we see that we
did something in the House in the last year. We bought out the crow
with $1.5 billion and did not have the transportation system in
place that should have been there.
We heard from our colleagues from Peace River and Vegreville
that farmers are in dire straits today because of the grain in their
bins or out in the fields. Bill C-38 will be used probably more than
ever before to liquidate farmers.
This is a sad situation. In such a desperate situation some special
provisions should be made like we see in many big businesses
instead of only having good consultation services available. They
ask for bankruptcy protection for a certain time to see whether
9895
things can be ironed out. They do not have the financial assets to
protect themselves.
As the Bloc member pointed out, food is number one. If we
cannot protect our food supply industry or our producers, sooner or
later the country will fold. That is one point I have always
appreciated. Even if we do not agree with a lot of the philosophy of
Bloc members on the agriculture committee, this is one point we
agree on. Agriculture is most important. A trip to a Third World
country or an eastern bloc countries makes one realize the value of
food very soon.
I met a young lady who was in Canada with a Chinese trade
delegation shortly after I was elected. I asked her what she liked
best about Canada after having seen some of it. She said the thing
she liked best was our cheap food. I asked her what she meant by
cheap food. I had no idea what that meant for the Chinese. She gave
an example of a McDonald's in the city where she lived that
charged exactly double in Chinese dollars what she would pay for
the same hamburger in Ottawa.
I asked her how the amount of money spent on food compared to
the earning power in China. She indicated that a high wage earner
in China spent about 30 per cent to 50 per cent of his wages on
food. We have a food basket cost that is about 11 per cent to 12 per
cent of our earning power. That helps us see what kind of a blessing
we have in Canada.
(1605 )
As was pointed out by another member, when we talk of farmers
being subsidized to produce a product it is a subsidization for the
consumer to get a cheaper and better product. They are the
beneficiaries.
Let us look at the net income of farmers today. I am using
Statistics Canada figures. They indicate that 48 per cent of net farm
income comes from off farm jobs. We see what is happening to our
food production system. If we do not change the system to a market
driven, viable food production one, other systems will collapse
along with it.
It is very important to realize that we have gone from a system of
specialization. It did not work. Then farmers were told they had to
become more efficient. Now we have a system that says we have to
diversify. How much can they diversify when 48 per cent of their
net farm income comes from off farm jobs?
We also hear that there must be value added industries. When
farmers are financially strapped they do not have money to invest
in value added industries. Somebody else will do it.
To make the farm economy viable again we must take some
strong measures. After the next election I hope we will have a
Reform government that is interested in making the system
efficient, viable and self-reliant. That will transfer into other
industries and we will have a country that does not need higher
taxes or government support. That is the direction the country must
go in.
At the Forum of Young Canadians banquet yesterday I saw their
energy, interest and dedication to making the country work. They
need a system that will look after some of the huge debt put on their
shoulders by the government. They could make the country as
viable as it should be.
We have the natural, renewable and human resources to do it. We
need some expertise that we have not seen in the last 25 or 30 years
of Conservative and Liberal governments. They have been
directing our industry and have failed us every time.
It is imperative the electorate in the next election looks at the
platform of the Reform Party. It proposes huge changes that will
give provinces the right direction to do what they do best and will
give the federal government the tools to do what it should do to
reduce taxes, to bring down the deficit and to make the country a
better place to live. We have heard our leader say a number of times
that we could provide a better Canada and a better future for
Canadian youngsters, for future generations.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member for
Lisgar-Marquette commenting on Agriculture and Agri-food
Canada since it is a very significant portion of our economy.
We are second in the world with the lowest cost of food. We have
29 million people in Canada, an economy of more than $700
billion, an export industry of $17 billion and quite a phenomenal
growth rate.
With this bill and others the government has focused on the Farm
Credit Corporation by providing extended finances, guaranteed
loans, long term mortgage programs, vendor loan guarantee
programs and agricultural equity development programs.
(1610 )
The hon. member talks about Bill C-38 as putting farmers under
faster. The bill is actually a review process if a farmer becomes
insolvent. If he gets into financial difficulty it is a process to assist
him to go through mediation, to go through review, and to have a
stay of proceedings if there is action taken on his assets.
If the hon. member's party formed the government and offered
new policies to the public, would he repeal Bill C-38?
Mr. Hoeppner: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from
my hon. colleague across the way.
I have been trying to say to the House that the farming industry
should have never been put in this position. The bill will put
farmers out of business. There is no place in the bill to help farmers
9896
rejuvenate or become viable again. It is a last resort to make the
pain a little less so they can get out of business.
That is not what we need. We have seen over the last three
decades the farm population decrease to an unbelievable
percentage. When I started farming a half section was sufficient to
feed a family. Today a two-section farmer cannot survive. He has to
have his mate either employed off the farm or he has to be involved
in some other venture to make the farm viable.
We are taking jobs away from people who deserve then, The
farm family should be on the farm making sure that it is running
properly and is efficient and viable. That is why this piece of
legislation is so bad. It will not give farmers any hope. It will just
lessening the pain a bit of getting out of business. I do not know
whether they will go on welfare or try to get into a new business,
which is not easy today.
What astounds me is in the 1970s a Liberal government told us
day after day that we had to have high interest rates to bring down
inflation. We had to kill inflation. We have killed inflation. We
have low interest rates and farmers do not have the opportunity to
be viable. The passage of Bill C-38 will get them out of the system.
It just does not make sense.
On the one hand a 24 per cent interest rate is inflationary. On the
other hand the banks feel 24 per cent makes them viable. If it is not
inflationary when the banks charge it, why is it inflationary when
the farmer pays it? Those are the problems I have with some
government policies. They like to interfere.
First we had to specialize and it did not work. Then we had to
diversify and it did not work. Now we have to get value added
industries, and who knows if that will work? If farmers do not get
their fingers into value added industries, other industries will
benefit and we will have less farmers rather than more. As I said,
farming should never have been put into the position where it
required this legislation.
Due to government policy over the last 30 years this has
happened. It is not because of the way farmers have operated their
farms. They have increased production. They have become more
efficient. They have worked harder. The taxation system and the
government bureaucrats have forced them off the land. That is very
easily proven.
(1615)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Mississauga South, health; the hon.
member for Davenport, transport; the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton, health.
I have also received notice from the hon. member for North
Vancouver that he is unable to move his motion during private
members hour on Friday, April 18. It has not been possible to
arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence.
Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of
business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members
hour will thus be cancelled and the House will continue with the
business before it prior to private members hour.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join in the debate this afternoon
on Bill C-38, the Farm Debt Mediation Act.
At the outset I would like to reply very briefly to the comment
and question posed to my hon. colleague from Lisgar-Marquette
from across the way a minute ago.
The hon. Liberal member referred to the fact that we have very
cheap food in Canada. Certainly that is the case and all consumers
are very thankful for that. Everyone has to eat and therefore I am
sure everyone is thankful in a way.
I remind the member of something that MPs from rural ridings
are constantly reminded of, that a cheap food policy is a two edged
sword. For the consumers to gain by this type of policy, the
producers of the food lose.
She went on to ask if Reform would repeal Bill C-38. At the time
we form the next government, we certainly will take a look at all
the legislation passed by this failure of a Liberal government from
the 35th Parliament and perhaps amend it.
We suggested a number of amendments to Bill C-38, as we have
to a lot of bills, most bills that were introduced in this place.
Unfortunately those amendments, of which Reform had four, were
defeated by the government. That is why we are opposed to this.
The preceding speakers from the Reform Party, the hon. member
for Vegreville and the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette,
remarked that we are not opposed to the intent of this legislation.
There is no party that has a monopoly on good intentions and good
ideas.
As amazing as it sometimes seems, even the Liberal Party comes
up with some good ideas once in a while.
Mr. Hoeppner: Especially the backbenchers.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Especially the
backbenchers. All members in this place come up with good ideas
from time to time, some good policy suggestions. Some good
amendments to legislation are brought forward by people from all
political persuasions at committee and in the House of Commons.
9897
It is unfortunate when we see time after time that the cabinet
or the applicable minister cracks the whip and gets the
amendments, either at the committee stage or in the House,
defeated for purely partisan reasons.
It does not matter that the amendment makes sense. The only
reason is that if Reform suggests it, for example, in some cases the
Bloc or the other independents, then it is automatically ruled that it
does not make sense and it is voted down. ``We have the majority
on the committees. We have the majority in the House of
Commons. We will vote that amendment down''. Then they stand
in the House of Commons and say ``those darn Reformers vote
against everything we try to do and every good idea that we bring
into this place, those Reformers vote against it''.
Is it any wonder? It seems every time we try to introduce
amendments to legislation they are voted down. They are ruled out
of hand. It is ruled that they are not good amendments simply
because they come from Reformers. That is a tragedy to the
democratic process and I believe that it puts paid to the red book
promise of restoring more free votes and more true democracy to
this place. We have seen the exact opposite happen during this 35th
Parliament.
(1620)
The Reform Party is supportive of the intent of Bill C-38. If there
is sufficient time before the Liberals decide to go to an election, the
bill will be passed because the Liberals have the majority, despite
any amendments we bring forward which would be voted down.
The bill is an act to repeal the Farm Debt Review Act, a decade
old farm debt review board system with debt mediation service for
farmers facing seizure of their property by creditors. As a farmer I
was fortunate that I never had to go through that process but I have
had many friends and neighbours who during the tough times of the
last 15 to 20 years in agriculture unfortunately had to face that
situation.
Although they varied from region to region and province to
province, the farm debt review boards did a lot of good work and
certainly helped some farmers through some tough times with their
creditors. They helped farmers as much as possible to meet their
financial obligations. It is certainly a worthy and good intention
that this bill is being brought forward to replace that old act.
The new act provides for a review of the farmer's financial
affairs, for mediation between the farmer and the farmer's creditors
for the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable arrangement and
in order to temporarily suspend the rights of creditors to take or to
continue proceedings against the farmer's assets if the farmer were
to request it.
Some concerns were brought forward not only by Reformers but
also by a number of organizations and individuals who appeared
before the standing committee when Bill C-38 was before the
committee. I will run down the list to indicate to the viewing public
that many witnesses came forward with concerns about this bill.
They suggested possible amendments at the committee stage.
Included were the Alberta farm debt review board, the Canadian
Bankers Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the
National Farmers Union, the Ontario farm debt review board, the
Quebec farm debt review board and the Saskatchewan farm debt
review board. A number of submissions were made and a number
of concerns were raised at the committee stage about the content of
the bill. My colleagues from Vegreville and Lisgar-Marquette
raised some concerns as well.
One concern is that the budget seems fairly substantial in the
sense that the Saskatchewan farm debt review board is currently
handling half of all the cases in Canada for a total of only about
$700,000 whereas the estimated total mediation budget under this
new legislation will exceed $2.2 million. This is clearly a case
where the bureaucracy is looking after itself, ensuring it will have
ample funds available, as we have seen in so many different
departments and ministries, to ensure its longevity regardless of
what happens in the upcoming election.
Another concern, which we have had with a lot of legislation that
has passed through this place, is with potential patronage under this
new act. For instance, the appeal boards are to be appointed by the
minister without being reviewed or approved by Parliament or the
standing committee.
(1625 )
As we saw with Bill C-72, which for some reason has been
swallowed by a black hole, the wording in the legislation states that
the minister would have the power to appoint the board of directors
and that he in his infinite wisdom could hold an election for one or
more of the board members.
I did a survey, which I referred to a few hours ago, on Bill C-34. I
referred to the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board had refused to
allow me access to the mailing list of the producers who reside in
the riding which I am honoured to represent in the House of
Commons. I felt that was a bit of a tragedy in the sense that MPs
want to serve their people accurately. That is the guiding creed of
the Reform Party of Canada, to represent constituents accurately
where there is the ability to deduce what the majority view of a
group in a riding is.
In this case I wanted to target permit book holders. They are the
ones who will be the most affected by Bill C-72. I was unable to
obtain the list. The Canadian Wheat Board even refused when I told
it I would pay to have the labels printed. I said them I would send
them the questionnaires. They could look at the questions. I was
not trying to hide anything. It was not anti-wheat board propagan-
9898
da. It was a straightforward questionnaire containing ten questions.
I wanted to survey permit book holders. It refused.
An hon. member: What democracy.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Exactly. What
democracy. How is a person supposed to represent their
constituents accurately?
I did not want to dilute the results of the survey by sending out a
larger mailing which would include people who would not have the
same interest in Bill C-72 because it would not affect their
livelihood.
I mailed it out to a larger mailing list that I was able to obtain. I
had 124 responses, which is fairly comprehensive for an area as
small as the Peace River agricultural area. I do not know exactly
how many permit book holders there are in my area because the
wheat board will not tell me. I have heard that there are somewhere
in the neighbourhood of 450 to 500 permit book holders. So a
return of 124 is substantial.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into all the survey
questions asked, but I would like to explain the first question. The
question I asked the producers was the following: ``There has been
a lot of discussion on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Overall, how would you describe your attitude toward the Canadian
Wheat Board?'' Then I gave them the choices: ``Eliminate. Major
overhaul is needed. Minor overhaul. Unsure. Should the wheat
board include other crops? Keep it as it is''.
While 9 per cent of the respondents wanted to completely
eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board, 70 per cent indicated they
wanted a major or minor overhaul. I believe this indicates that
farmers want to retain the Canadian Wheat Board but they want to
see some substantive changes. They want choice.
Unfortunately, as with so many pieces of legislation, the
government simply does not get the message that the farm
community is trying to send it.
The minister did a mail ballot on the other legislation. I do not
know how much it cost the taxpayers. Basically it was an all or
nothing question: ``Do you believe that barley should be included
as it is now under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board or
do you think that the Canadian Wheat Board should get out of it
altogether?'' There were no other options for farmers to choose.
(1630)
What we saw, what we told the minister and what farm groups
and individual farmers were telling him-I am sure they were
because they were telling us this-was that it was a status quo
question. It did not solve anything.
The fact is that farmers are still being sent to jail for trying to
market their own product. This does not solve anything. Farmers
recognize that. Likewise, Bill C-38 is not the answer. That is why
we proposed four amendments to Bill C-38.
We proposed that the bill be amended to allow the standing
committee on agriculture to review the appointment of the
administrators. What would be wrong with that? Would not the
farm community support that? Obviously the committee would be
the place. It has the expertise and knowledge and witnesses could
be called, if necessary, to look at who was being appointed as
administrators.
We proposed an amendment to insert a new clause in the bill to
make the government develop regulations or guidelines on
performance evaluations for administrators and mediators. What
could possibly be wrong with an amendment like that? It strikes to
the heart of accountability.
If there is one thing that members have heard Reformers repeat
day after day, speech after speech, whether on justice, spending,
defence, agriculture, health or aboriginal affairs, name the
department, over the past three years it is that we have constantly
used the word ``accountability''. The people at the top must be held
accountable. Members heard it about the Somali inquiry. That was
why we are so concerned about what appears to be a cover-up at the
highest levels. Members have heard it about so many other
departments that unfortunately for Canadians have been tainted by
scandal and by suspicion of patronage and those types of things.
We have insisted on accountability.
We proposed a minor amendment that the government develop
regulations on performance evaluations to hold the administrators
and mediators accountable, and it is voted down. It is ruled that it is
not appropriate by the Liberal majority.
The third amendment we proposed was to clause 15. It reads:
That clause 15 be amended to allow the standing committee on agriculture to
review the minister's appointments to the appeal boards.
What could possibly be wrong with that? What does the minister
want to hide, that his appointments should not be reviewed?
The fourth and final amendment that we proposed was:
That clause 28 be amended to allow the standing committee on agriculture to
conduct a three year review of this act.
That was also voted down also.
When I start getting on to some of these issues I do not know
where time goes. It just flies by. At any rate, I will sum up what I
have in the little time remaining.
As a former farmer, whose family is still involved in the farming
business back home and as a person who used to be active in farm
groups, I am fortunate to have a lot of friends and supporters in the
agricultural community in the riding that I am honoured to
represent in this House. I can tell the House that the majority of
9899
farmers in my area are thinking about trying to get last year's crop
salvaged from under the snow. They are looking forward to trying
to get that crop off or do something with it even if they have to burn
it, accepting the huge loss that they are going to suffer and then try
as hard as they can, weather permitting, to get this year's crop
seeded.
One thing that galls me to no end is that there does not seem to
be a lot of recognition from the people on that side of the House of
the struggles and travails facing the farming communities. I get
pretty upset when people say we do this for the farmers and that for
the farmers and why do we treat them so special?
(1635 )
A lot of Canadians forget where the food comes from and how
many people owe their livelihood to the farmer who is struggling to
get his crop off. They forget the person who sells the herbicides for
spraying, or the people who owe their living to transporting grain,
whether it is the man running the locomotive or others involved in
the transportation of grain. They forget the people who sell the
farm equipment, the person at the store who sells building supplies
to build a new granary. They forget the hundreds of thousands of
people who owe their livelihood directly and indirectly to the
sustainability of agriculture.
It is high time we had a government in the country, a Reform
government, that puts some emphasis on agriculture.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member from the Peace
River area because he knows how important agriculture is.
Would he like to comment on an issue we addressed this
morning when we were dealing with Bill C-34. This kind of flows
into Bill C-38 which is more or less trying to dissolve farming
operations which we hope can be avoided somehow. This morning
we were asking for emergency cash advances of $50,000 interest
free. That was denied because the government would not accept our
amendments to Bill C-34.
However, in the last couple of months the Liberal government
has doled out about $250 million to a company like Bombardier,
that is interest free and probably forgivable. How does that
compare with his feelings of how the farmers are treated in the west
and even in Quebec, as we heard from our hon. colleague from the
Bloc.
The Liberal government promised fairness, equality and
democracy. I do not think we have seen any of that in the number of
bills that have been passed lately.
How does my hon. colleague feel about this?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the question and the comments from my colleague from
Lisgar-Marquette.
Farmers in the riding of Prince George-Peace River and
farmers across the country are quite frankly appalled by the
performance of the Liberal government in doling out money to
corporate friends. However, when farmers in Quebec or western
Canada, Nova Scotia or Ontario get into trouble, it turns a deaf ear.
``There is no money. We are cutting to the bone. We are trying to
get the deficit under control''.
Nobody understands the problem of deficit and debt better than
the members Reform Party. We were the ones who highlighted this
problem for the Liberal government before there was even a
Mulroney government. We know what nine years of Tory
government did to the country. The debt was doubled. We are well
aware of the problem of deficit spending.
We have been saying for years and years that it has to be
prioritized. I do not see how giving a handout to a corporation that
is already making millions of dollars is a good or wise investment
of Canadian tax dollars.
But when farmers with their backs to the wall turn to the
government and ask not for a handout but for an interest free loan
to tide them over the short term, recognizing the thousands and
thousands of people who owe their livelihood to the agricultural
sector and farmers in the country, the government says ``no. You
are not a priority. Sorry''. A priority is a boccie court in a minister's
riding or a canoe museum in Shawinigan.
I want to say that the farmers and the people of Canada are fed up
with this kind of attitude from the government.
(1640 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
reading for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion,
the yeas have it.
9900
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried, on division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (for Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-77, an act concerning an order under the
International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Godfrey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise before
the House today to table the second reading of a bill that will
authorize payments made to the multilateral fund for the Montreal
Protocol and the Global Environment Facility.
These organizations were established in 1990 as primary
international financial mechanisms to protect the global
environment. Since then the multilateral fund for the Montreal
Protocol or the MFMP has served as the main financial mechanism
for projects aimed at reducing ozone depletion in the developing
world.
Similarly, the Global Environment Facility or GEF is the
principal international mechanism through which donors can
support developing countries in the areas of biodiversity, climate
change, the ozone and international waters. It was endorsed as such
at the landmark 1992 Rio conference on the environment and
development.
As you know, Madam Speaker, we honour our commitments to
international institutions in full and on time so that they can carry
out their vital work unencumbered by financial shortfalls. To do so
in this case it was necessary to add the GEF and the MFMP to the
schedule of financial institutions under the International
Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act. An order in
council to this effect was approved on November 15, 1994 and
published in the Canada Gazette on November 30, 1994.
The international development act also stipulates that the order
in council be tabled before Parliament no more 15 sitting days after
it is approved. Due to an administrative oversight this obligation
was not met within the specified time.
The bill I am tabling for second reading today will correct that
oversight. On this matter I am sure that I have the full support of
members on both sides of the House who know the value of
environmental protection and want to see Canada continue to meet
its financial obligations uninterrupted.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Terrebonne has the floor.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker,
you are right. It is still Terrebonne for a few weeks because, as I
mentioned to your alternate a few days ago, after June 2, or
thereabouts, it will be Repentigny.
I made an omission I want to correct before addressing Bill
C-77. The last time I rose, I thanked the residents of the five
municipalities in the riding of Repentigny, but I forgot to also thank
the residents of the two former municipalities in my riding, namely
Terrebonne and Bois-des-Filion, for the good times spent together
during the past three and a half years. These are people with whom,
under Irénée Forget, in Terrebonne, and Paul Laroque, in
Bois-des-Filion, we were able to co-operate, work and bring
several issues to a successful conclusion, and thus improve the
quality of life of the residents of these two municipalities. This was
achieved with a great deal of enthusiasm, drive and interest.
(1645)
The last time I rose in this House to speak, I forgot to thank the
mayors and the people of these two municipalities. I just wanted to
correct this oversight.
That said, as my hon. colleague pointed out earlier, the purpose
of Bill C-77 is indeed to remedy an omission. In February 1994, the
federal cabinet agreed to contribute to the Global Environment
Facility Fund and the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
The implementation of this decision required that the institutions
in question be included in the International Development
Assistance Act. An order in council to that effect was therefore
approved on November 15, 1994, and published in the Canada
Gazette on November 30 of the same year.
By law, an order has to be tabled in Parliament within 15 days of
its signing. Earlier this year, after the standing joint committee of
which my hon. colleague is a member discovered the omission as
part of its regulatory review, the Department of Foreign Affairs was
notified. An order was indeed published in the Canada Gazette, but
the legislation was never implemented so that the two
organizations mentioned previously, namely the Global
Environment Facility Fund and the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, could receive the money
it was supposed to get from the government.
Oversights happen even in the best of families. Several very
important issues are before this House, and we understand the need
for urgent action to restore funding to these two organizations.
9901
As the previous speaker said, he will ask the House to fast-track
Bill C-77 so that the two organizations mentioned earlier can
receive the money they need to improve the environment and even
encourage developing countries to become more environmentally
conscious.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-77. This act has been
designed to correct an oversight that happened in 1994. I can
understand how that can happen and we agreed to participate to
support this bill and to correct that error.
I want to take the opportunity to talk about the bigger picture in
terms of Canada's foreign policy and the government's role in that.
Foreign policy does not just belong to the government in power, it
belongs to Parliament. There have been numerous incidents in
which the Liberal government ignored Parliament and failed to
inform it properly. In the area of foreign affairs Reform has raised
many issues in the past years and almost all of them have been
completely.
In October 1993 a private member's motion was put forward to
address the important issue of peacekeeping, which would go on to
consume a fair amount of time of the House later one. What did the
governing party do at the time? It voted it down because it was not
interested in the opinions it seemed of other members on this side
of the House. There have been other occasions when that has
happened as well.
This happened in spite of the fact that when the present foreign
affairs minister was on this side of the House he was very critical of
the Tories for showing a lack of respect for the parliamentary
process. I would think he would be very sensitive as the foreign
affairs minister to that very criticism he raised when he was on this
side.
We know that this Parliament has probably had more closure and
use of time allocation than any other Parliament including the one
the minister of foreign affairs was so critical of, the Mulroney
government of nine years.
When we look at the foreign policy of this government we can
see that it has lacked vision and has failed in some areas. It is clear
to us that the Liberals want to use foreign policy as their own
political agenda, and that is a fairly serious charge.
(1650)
What can one think when the Prime Minister makes his first trip
to our friends in Washington, to visit the president of the United
States, our most important trading partner, three and a half years
into the mandate? Some would say it was a photo op, a good chance
for the Prime Minister to have his picture taken with the president,
on the president's knee, shortly before the election campaign.
Canada and the United States have a very close trading
relationship, which has grown to something like a billion dollars a
day of two-way trade.
I am a little cynical about his motives. However, I want to talk
about an area that the Liberals have come full circle on. I give them
full credit. That area is free trade.
When the Liberals were on this side of the House in the
opposition benches they were very critical of the free trade
agreement with the United States. They fought it tooth and nail in
1988. They were very critical of it in the 1993 election. They said
they would rip up or renegotiate the accord unless it got a subsidies
code and an anti-dumping code. Of course that did not happen.
The Prime Minister has led a number of trade delegations around
the world. That is a good move. They are the Team Canada
missions.
I wonder about our exporters, what they are thinking. It seems
our exports to most of the countries that the Prime Minister and his
entourage have visited in the last three years have actually fallen
off as a result of these trade missions. How can that be? The reason
I put forward is that Canada has done our homework at home to
make possible the opportunities for our businesses to take
advantage of these important trade missions that have developed.
I would suggest that the Prime Minister concentrate more on the
trade mission at home to correct some of the problems for our
companies can take advantage of.
The committee has certainly heard the high cost of doing
business in Canada. We have payroll taxes, taxes, interprovincial
trade barriers where we have made very little progress. These are
very big problems to trade within Canada.
We know that there are something like only 100 companies in
Canada that are responsible for over 40 per cent of Canada's
exports. We would like to see it be a great deal more than that. The
Minister for International Trade has suggested that we should get to
about 4,000 companies doing business. I agree.
When we cannot even trade effectively across our own
provincial borders, how can we be exporters around the world?
How can our companies get the economies of scale that are
required to get out there and compete in the world market?
The federal government has to show leadership in breaking
down the provincial barriers we have. That will resolve a lot of our
problems.
We heard at our committee in foreign affairs and international
trade when we were doing a study on small and medium size
enterprises what is holding them back from exporting. Some said
they are moving into the United States. They have better access to
the Canadian market from the United States than they have from
their Canadian locations. That is a big problem.
9902
In any case, I am glad to see that the Liberals have been born
again, if you like, free traders. It is the right approach. Canada
is a trading country. Forty per cent of our GDP is derived from
exports along with one job in every three. It will be a very
important area for us in the future.
The initiative that the trade minister has developed to try to bring
more countries on in the southern hemisphere will be good for
Canada. Let us concentrate on correcting some of the problems at
home so that we can take advantage of these very important
initiatives.
Although they are born again, I welcome it. I hope their hearts
are in the right place and that this will continue into the future.
I want to talk about a couple of other areas that we have
identified in terms of peacekeeping. The government has not taken
into consideration the long term consequences in some cases of
Canadian involvement. I cite Haiti as an area where United States
went in with a lot of fanfare. Guess who gets to do the mop-up
operation. Canada.
We seem to continue to extend that mandate. We have RCMP
officers there who are trying to help in training Haitians in terms of
policing. We have the problem in Canada where we have lack of
police forces. We seem to be taken in by United States. It makes the
big initiative, gets the fanfare and then we do the mop-up
afterwards. There are long term consequences that have to be
anticipated.
(1655 )
What is wrong with a full scale debate in the House, as one of
our members suggested in a private member's motion in 1993? Let
us involve the House a bit more to hear more of what other people
are thinking in that regard.
With regard to Bosnia, the government has allowed itself to be
dragged into a mission it was not equipped for. We have to reassess
the whole idea of whether we are in peacekeeping or peacemaking.
There was the initiative to go to Zaire. Things changed pretty
rapidly, but it was an ironic situation. Our peacekeepers were
pinned down. They could not even get their weapons out of the
airport. They were supposed to help police the area but they could
not get their weapons out of the airport. It was a fiasco. It is a good
thing there was a major turnaround in the situation and people
started to return of their own accord.
There are a lot of things which need to be changed. The United
Nations has to go through a reassessment in terms of its
effectiveness. We are concerned that the United Nations is being
forced to downsize in terms of bureaucracy.
I am concerned about some of the organizations which were put
in place shortly after the second world war which were well
intended and have done good work such as the World Bank, the
IMF and the United Nations. Many are trying to reinvent
themselves to stay in existence. If there is no role for them or if
there is a reduced role, we have to recognize that.
Reform in many of these institutions is badly needed and Canada
has to show leadership in these areas.
We will support the motion to clean up this oversight, but let us
involve all of Parliament when it comes to foreign policy because
there are some good ideas which we should have an opportunity to
debate.
Mr. Godfrey: Madam Speaker, I suggest, with the agreement of
the House, that this matter now be referred not to the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade but rather to
committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, by unanimous
consent considered in committee and reported.)
(1700 )
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you
will find unanimous consent to go now to third reading.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): When shall the
bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Marleau (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I understand there is unanimous
consent to permit the commencement of second reading stage of
Bill C-95 this afternoon, as well as to agree that after second
reading the bill will be referred to committee of the whole.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-95, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal
organizations) and to amend other acts in consequence, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
9903
He said: Madam Speaker, in moving second reading of the bill,
I think I should begin by thanking the Bloc Quebecois and the
Reform Party for their co-operation in enabling us to move it
through the legislative process in the House as quickly as possible.
I look forward to co-operation of this kind through all stages of
the bill, including committee of the whole and third reading. I say
this because we are dealing with something very important.
The bill involves a package of tough new measures to target
criminal gang activity, activity of organized crime. The proposals
developed through extensive consultations with police across
Canada will give them and other law enforcement agencies better
tools to investigate and prosecute those who participate in criminal
gang activity.
The proposals provide a new approach to fighting gang activity,
in other words organized crime, by creating a new offence of
participation in a criminal organization. This offence does not
criminalize mere membership in a criminal organization. Rather
the new offence along with new definitions in the Criminal Code
will lay the groundwork for the targeted use of proposed new
investigative tools and Criminal Code provisions.
(1705)
These include a new peace bond designed to target gang
leadership and make it difficult for criminal organizations to carry
out their criminal activities. New powers will allow police to seize
the proceeds of organized crime activity and with a judge's order to
access income tax information related to gang activity. New
Criminal Code offences and penalties will target the use of
explosives in criminal gang activity. New sentencing provisions in
the Criminal Code will be aimed at criminal gangs, including the
delay of parole eligibility for certain criminal organization
offences, and measures will support increased police surveillance
of gang activity.
Last September there was a National Forum on Organized Crime
hosted by the Minister of Justice and me. The proposals we see
here today are based in large measure on the recommendations
made to us by the participants in the forum including
representatives of police organizations from around the country,
legal scholars and lawyers who have studied the matter.
Following through on a specific recommendation from the
national forum that I have not yet mentioned, I will be setting up
national and regional co-ordinating committees to address police
concerns about the need for co-ordination and leadership on
multi-agency enforcement operations. In addition to the national
committee there will be five regional co-ordinating committees. If
I am not mistaken, two have already been set up: a committee in
British Columbia and one in Ontario.
This underscores the point that the legislation is not aimed only
at one part of our country. There have been particular concerns in
Montreal and Quebec and surrounding areas about the operations
of biker gangs, but I am told biker gangs operate in every province
of Canada except for possibly Prince Edward Island. There are
organized crime activities of other kinds all across the country.
This is important national legislation to help add to and improve
protection of the public.
Again in response to a recommendation by police organizations
at the National Forum on Organized Crime, the solicitor general of
the day will make an annual statement on organized crime in the
House of Commons. Likely the first one will come in late 1997.
Time will tell who will give it. I have my views on who will form
the government, but I will not get into that in this relatively
non-partisan second reading debate.
Working with the police we have achieved two objectives. We
have given law enforcement agencies better tools to help in their
efforts against organized crime.
[Translation]
In the same vein, I can quote my hon. colleague, the Minister of
Justice, Allan Rock, because he has said:
Thanks to collaborative efforts with the police, we have attained two objectives:
we have equipped law enforcement agencies with better tools to combat criminal
gangs, and we have developed a series of measures that ought to stand up better in
court. These measures represent a first step in the right direction. The federal
government had promised to inaugurate measures against criminal gangs, and the
present government has kept its word; in order to be effective, however, the battle
requires the federal government, the provinces, and the law enforcement agencies to
join forces.
(1710)
[English]
Organized crime gangs have increasingly become a threat to the
safety of many communities all across the country. Police officers
have made it clear they need improved tools and a mechanism to
better co-ordinate and integrate their efforts to get the job done.
I am confident this package can help. I am not suggesting it will
end the problem overnight as soon as the measure becomes law, but
it will give important and effective new tools to police authorities
across the country to make some important breakthroughs in
fighting organized crime wherever it is in the country.
I am confident this package can be of great help to the police
authorities in ensuring public safety. These proposals are the
results of consultations with provincial and municipal officials
across Canada, including the province of Quebec as well as law
enforcement organizations across the country.
I do not intend to go into these matters at length. I understand
there is a disposition on the part of the Reform Party and the Bloc
9904
Quebecois to co-operate in moving the bill through the House
quickly. Again I thank them for that co-operation.
By working together in the House we can help create greater
safety for Canadians in their neighbourhoods, on their streets and
in their business dealings across the country. I commend the bill to
the House for second reading and early passage.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, at the request
of the solicitor general, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition,
will co-operate in expediting the second reading of this bill. We
agree with the principle of the bill which, as the Quebec Minister of
Public Security admitted today, is a step in the right direction and
the kind of legislation he had in mind.
However, he would have liked the bill to go a little further and be
more specific, especially considering the problems in Quebec, both
in the Montreal area and in Quebec City. In my own riding of
Lévis, on March 16, the residents of Saint-Nicolas held a
demonstration following an incident. When a jeep exploded, this
caused considerable public reaction in the neighbourhood where
the Hell's Angels clubhouse is located. Citizens said they were fed
up with the biker war which was and still is a cause for concern
among many residents.
As long as this war was strictly between members of the gangs, it
did not really matter, but when the quality of life and the very lives
of citizens are at stake, public perception changes. We saw, for
instance, the dedication shown by the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve in dealing with this problem, following
an incident in his riding in which young Daniel Desrochers was
killed.
All this led the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to
ask for anti-gang legislation. On the initiative of the hon. member,
the Bloc Quebecois examined these issues and, like the Quebec
government, requested legislation to deal with biker gangs engaged
in criminal activities.
(1715)
I remember that on several occasions in the House, the former
parliamentary leader of the official opposition, who is now the
leader of our party, asked the Minister of Justice and the
government to act as soon as possible. Finally, the Minister of
Justice went to Quebec City for a meeting with the Minister of
Public Security, the Quebec Minister of Justice, mayors from the
Quebec City area and representatives of the police forces
concerned to look at ways to deal with this problem.
The opposition reserves the right to engage in a more thorough
analysis when the bill is considered in committee. However, at the
second reading stage, a parliamentary tradition, we will support the
motion and hope it is considered in committee as soon as possible.
We will co-operate. You can count on us.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have a
few comments to make on this bill.
We support the positive aspects of the bill and it does have
positive aspects. We have concerns and we will be examining those
concerns as the bill proceeds through committee of the whole.
I would like to point out the new tools that have been presented
to the police. The wire tap laws have been extended. That is very
positive in dealing with this type of criminal activity.
One of the most powerful aspects of this bill may very well be
the breakthrough that has been made with regard to accessibility to
income tax records that this bill provides in tracing the paper trail
of criminal activities. Also something that may prove to be
exceedingly important is the peace bond. Individual members of a
criminal organization can be forced into a peace bond where they
will be ordered not to communicate or associate with members of a
criminal organization. If they do, no further evidence is required
other than the fact that they have broken the bond in order to bring
them into court. In the long term this could break up criminal
organizations. Those are three of the very significant aspects of this
bill.
I will turn quickly to two areas in the bill that concern me. One is
the creation of the definition of a criminal organization. How will
this be done? Is it going to be possible to do it?
We have seen bills come through the House before, and I think of
Bill C-27, which dealt with child sex tourism where it looks good
but it may be unenforceable. How is a criminal organization
defined in this new bill? A criminal organization means any group,
association or other body consisting of five or more persons,
whether formally or informally organized, having as one of its
primary activities the commission of an indictable offence under
this act or any other act of Parliament for which the maximum
punishment is imprisonment for five years or more.
That is what the crown will have to prove in order to have an
organization declared a criminal organization. How will that be
done? There have to be at least five people in a group, association
or other body and the crown will have to prove that one of the
primary activities of members of that group is the commission of
an indictable offence. What does that mean? Does it mean that the
crown will have to have proof of a conviction of an indictable
offence or just evidence that they are engaged in activities that
could lead to the commission of an indictable offence that has a
punishment of five years or more? There are an awful lot of
questions I would like to have cleared up.
9905
(1720)
Once the organization is defined as a criminal organization, we
have to look at this new penalty. Section 467.1 reads: ``Everyone
who participates in or substantially contributes to the activities of a
criminal organization, knowing that any or all of the members of
the organization engage in or have within the preceding five years
engaged in the commission of a series of indictable offences under
this act or any other act of Parliament, for each of which the
maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more and
is a party to the commission of an indictable offence for the benefit
of, at the direction of, or in association with the criminal
organization for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment
for five years or more''.
What is the crown faced with if it is able to prove a person is a
member of a criminal organization? What evidence has to be
gathered in order to convict? It has to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the accused participates in or substantially contributes to
a criminal organization with the knowledge that members of that
organization have in the last five years engaged in an indictable
offence that carries with it a punishment of five years or more.
I hope that the government can explain to us and to the people of
the country in a clear manner that the section of the bill that creates
the new offence is not just simply creating false hope in the minds
of the people, that this is enforceable, that this can be done by the
crown.
I mentioned earlier other parts of the bill which will be of great
benefit to the police and will lead to greater intervention into
organized crime. I am not going to hold my breath at this stage in
the hope that we are going to see reams and reams of convictions
under this new offence.
The final point that concerns me is the subject of youth gangs.
Does this bill apply to youth gangs? If it does, do the consecutive
sentences apply to youth gangs? If they do, then how do we
overcome the fact that an indictable offence committed by a youth
under the YOA carries only a three year maximum penalty? What
are we going to do there? Can it only apply if the youth is
transferred to adult court?
I hope in the next few days and hours before we enter the
election period that those questions will be answered, not only for
members of the House but for the people of the country who are
hoping that this bill will move in a very positive direction, with
positive force, to give the police the tools they need to break up
organized crime in the country.
We have reservations about this bill, but we support its direction
because we think it is right. We know the police chiefs and police
forces want it. They have been asking for it.
I close on this dour note. I wonder why it has taken so long to
bring this bill forward. It has to be rushed through the House and
we do not have enough time to really establish its constitutionality
and enforceability by hearing witnesses who would give us their
viewpoints from both the defence and prosecution sides. I wonder
why the government waited for two years after that little boy was
killed as a result of organized criminal activity before the bill was
brought in. Now it has to be rushed through the House.
We have seen that happen too often over the last three and a half
years. It is wrong and I do not think it is needed. Nevertheless, we
will support the direction of bill. I am hoping the questions that I
and other members will raise can be answered for the good of the
people of this country.
(1725 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.)
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I wonder if there might be unanimous
consent to call it 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9905
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should direct the National
Parole Board that any benefit of doubt in hearings and deliberations on parole shall
go to the victim, the victim's family and public safety and not to the prisoner.
She said: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the Chair that I will
be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the motion and
note that it specifically addresses the National Parole Board. It asks
the parole board to have as its objective the rights of the victim, the
victim's family and public safety over and above that of the
prisoner.
I feel quite sad in a way that we have to bring a motion of this
nature into the House to recognize the rights of law-abiding
citizens, especially victims. Their rights as citizens should be
9906
respected before the rights of prisoners, those people who have
chosen not to abide by the rules of society.
A number of issues will be reflected by this motion, such as
sentencing and other issues. However, I would like to address my
comments to the parole board as an evaluation tool.
The parole board is a tool of the justice system. It comes into
force once a person is convicted. Basically when we talk about
parole hearings we are not talking about passing a judgment on the
person with relation to the crime committed, instead we are talking
about passing a judgment with respect to their rehabilitation over a
certain period of confinement and whether that person is ready to
return to society.
As a society we have agreed to establish certain rules and
regulations by which the majority of us agree to function. We set up
those rules and regulations to establish our society through
legislation and through the various other government agencies
throughout the country.
(1730)
The fact that we establish these rules and regulations also sets
precedents as to the kinds of rights and privileges the Canadian
people will enjoy. If you choose to violate the rules and regulations
established by the society, then it follows that you choose to
relinquish those very rights and benefits that society establishes.
We seem to have moved away from that to the point of view that
we argue that rights and privileges bestowed on the law-abiding
Canadian citizen by Canadian society should be applied to those
who violate those as well. I submit to the House that is not
justifiable. If you choose not to participate within the parameters of
society you should not be eligible for the benefits and privileges
that society has created for you.
We can say that is not being compassionate and this type of
thing, but when someone violates a law or breaks a law and actually
causes damage to another Canadian individual, we see them as not
being safe to go about in public. We decided that we would take
these very people and put them away and incarcerate them in some
facility which we have called prisons.
There was a time in our history when that is all we did. We would
remove them from society and put them into a building somewhere
and the level of activity that occurred there was little better than
custodial care. We have debates in our past which show how
inhumane this was. Since that time we have progressed into what
we have established within the prison system as a rehabilitation
program. It would seem to me that once we take people and remove
them from society because we fear them and what damage they
may do to us, i.e. our public safety is at stake, and put them away,
we should be guiding and directing them toward coming back into
that society and participating where they will not harm the public
and harass previous victims.
I argue that we have put in legislation along the way that gives
these people an option to participate in the rehabilitation program
and this kind of thing. That is another debate for some other time.
Right now I am saying that when a prisoner goes before a parole
board that parole board should be looking at their rehabilitation
during the time period that we have put them away. Have they
participated in some sort of a program that will change their
behaviour so that they will function in society and not be a liability
to public safety and to the victims they have in the past harmed?
The way it is right now it seems that is not actually happening.
That evaluation of the rehabilitation process is not happening. The
focus seems more to be on the rights of the prisoner. I suggest we
focus more on the rights of the victims and public safety or the
Canadian citizen.
When a person chooses to break the law and goes into a prison
they should realize that they relinquish those rights and that the
victim and the public come first. I often wonder where we lost track
or where we went astray. I tend to think that sometimes in our
legislation, and this goes back to the sentencing probably, we have
lost focus of directing our judgment on the actual action that was
committed. We started focusing on the intent behind the action. I
suggest to the House that it was with that deviation in focus for a
judgment decision that we tended to leave the victims and move
more toward the prisoner. I think we should go back and address
that at some point as well.
It concerns me greatly that we have a movement for establishing
groups. We now have a group for victims rights. We should have
Canadian citizens rights and those rights should apply to all people,
whether they are victims or not victims.
(1735)
I see the need for a victims bill of rights in the present direction
we are heading because of the indiscretion of what is happening in
our system. It seems to be favouring the criminal versus the
law-abiding citizen. We are coming up with all these mechanisms
such as victims rights and various victims interest groups. This
type of thing seems to be growing which suggests to me that there
is a lack of respect and confidence in the existing system.
If the rights and privileges that law-abiding Canadian citizens
enjoy were not applied to those who were incarcerated because
they broke the law then we would probably not need victims rights.
I suggest to the House that since we have to start somewhere we
should look at the parole board. We should look at it from the point
of view of evaluating what has actually happened once a person has
been confined to prison. There is absolutely no way that if a person
does not participate in the rehabilitation program, is not capable of
going back out into society and functioning as a productive citizen,
that they should be released from prison at that point. They become
9907
a liability to public safety and will probably inflict either more
physical harm to their victims or certainly emotional harm through
such things as harassment and this type of thing.
When we look at some of the things that victims are denied in
relation to the National Parole Board when the situations are
brought forward, we should be reviewing the whole process, the
direction or the objectives of the National Parole Board as it stands.
These people are incarcerated because they inflicted harm on
specific individuals. I see no problem with these victims being
aware of the progress of that person through the rehabilitation
program. Right now once the person is convicted that is the end.
They do not receive any other information unless they initiate it by
writing letters to the parole board for information, and then it can
be very limited as well.
My motion is asking that the government direct the National
Parole Board in its process of deliberating or evaluating the
rehabilitation of a prisoner that if there is any doubt concerning the
prisoner, i.e. that he may harm the victims or become a liability to
public safety, that benefit of doubt should go to the victims and the
public in general and not the prisoner. He can go back and go
further through the rehabilitation process.
I think my time is about up and so I will close in hoping that the
government will look at this and will review the direction of the
parole board and offer it some guidance that reflects its interest in
the victims.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am looking for some guidance from the Chair. I believe you would
find unanimous consent that notwithstanding the second reading
vote that was taken on Bill C-95, that Bill C-95 be put back on the
Order Paper for a resumption of second reading. I believe you
called for the question, no one rose and the question was put and
carried.
(1740 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I will make a
slight correction. The hon. member did not have consent to divide
her time with her colleague. The rules do not provide that members
can divide their time in private members hour.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to take part in the debate on Motion M-139 before us.
If I understand, the hon. member feels that the government
should order the National Parole Board to accord the benefit of the
doubt, not to the prisoner, but to the victim, to their family and to
public security at parole hearings.
The motion expresses a legitimate concern that both the
government and I share with respect to victims, their families and
public security. However, we must recognize that a number of
government measures already exist to respond to the concerns of
crime victims and to ensure public security.
I would begin by pointing out that protection of society is the
primary consideration in any decision on parole. The National
Parole Board grants parole only if, in its opinion, the offender will
not present an unacceptable risk for society at the end of his
sentence and that his release will contribute to protecting society
by promoting his return to the community as a law abiding citizen.
The Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole
Board are already directing all their efforts at protecting society by
controlling offenders and helping them change behaviours and
attitudes that have led them to crime in the past.
The transition from imprisonment to freedom can be difficult,
and offenders have a better chance of success if they are
supervised, have suitable programs, have opportunities for training
and are given support in the community to which they will
eventually have to adjust.
In helping offenders return to society, the government ensures
public security and the security of the victims. The Correctional
Service of Canada already directs much of its energy to helping
offenders adapt and return to society.
Similarly, the National Parole Board is helping to protect the
public by taking judicious decisions in favour of the return of
offenders to the community as law abiding citizens.
I would add that the information provided by victims plays a key
role in the decisions made by the National Parole Board. A balance
9908
must be struck between the victim's concerns and the need to help
the offender return to society without compromising public safety.
The best way to achieve this balance is through risk assessment
and management. Certain offenders represent a greater danger than
others. In accordance with National Parole Board policies, board
members systematically examine the risk an offender would
represent for society if released.
They look at all the relevant information they have available in
order to conduct an initial risk assessment. They take into account
such factors as the offence, prior criminal behaviour, social
problems such as addiction and family violence, the individual's
mental health and especially his potential to reoffend, behaviour
during earlier releases, psychological and psychiatric records,
motivation to change, and information provided by the victim.
(1745)
After this initial assessment, the National Parole Board looks at
other, more specific factors such as the individual's behaviour in
the institution, the information provided by case management
personnel and other professionals that is indicative of changes, and
the benefits derived from programs in which the offender has
participated, such as detox or cognitive skills programs.
After going over all this information, board members make a
decision. If parole is granted, the Board can add conditions, in
addition to those required by law, in order to help manage
rehabilitation and ensure public safety.
For example, it may require the offender to abstain from alcohol
if this is deemed reasonable and necessary for risk management
and the protection of society. It is common for an offender to be
prohibited from having contact with a victim, if the victim so
requests.
The great majority of offenders are serving definite sentences
and eventually return to the community. As you know,
imprisonment is only a temporary measure that cannot guarantee
the safety of the public.
As a result, once an offender has been sentenced, correctional
staff begin assessing risk and preparing for the day when the
offender can be released. Personnel in the community gather
information on the offender from a wide variety of sources: family,
police, the court, victims, other members of the public. The
information provided by the victim is an integral element of the
risk assessment and the decision to release an offender.
What I mean is that, based on all of the information at our
disposal in order to make wise decisions about parole, by allowing
gradual release and preparing the offender to return to the
community, we are protecting the public and the victims at the
same time.
For the moment, I would like to talk about the rights our
correctional system gives to victims. The year 1992 was a
watershed year, when the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
was passed. For the first time, victims' rights were officially
acknowledged in federal legislation on correctional services.
[English]
I would like to discuss the rights of victims as they exist in our
correctional system. A significant step was made in 1992 with the
enactment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. From
that time, for the first time, the rights of victims were formerly
recognized in federal corrections legislation.
The Corrections and Conditional Release Act clearly recognizes
the role of the victim in relation to federal corrections. It provides
for the sharing of information with victims and enables victims to
have access to parole hearings.
Under section 101(b) of the act victims may provide information
to the National Parole Board which the board must take into
account when reviewing the inmates on any kind of conditional
release. This may be done in writing or in an interview with a
National Parole Board staff member who makes the
recommendation and a record of the discussion for inclusion in the
offender's file.
The legislation allows the correctional service and the National
Parole Board to share upon request information about offenders
with their victims. At the victim's request the correctional service
and the National Parole Board have an obligation to disclose
certain information about the offender such as the offender's name,
the offence for which the offender was convicted, the eligibility
dates and review dates of respective temporary absence or parole,
the dates the sentence began and the length of the sentence. This
information is also made available to the public.
Victims, however, are eligible to receive additional information
that is not normally disclosed to the public. Such information may
include the location of the penitentiary where the sentence is being
served; the date, if any, on which the offender is to be released on
escorted or unescorted temporary absence, work release, parole or
statutory release; the date of any hearing for the purposes of
review; conditions attached to any form of release; the destination
of the offender on any form of release; whether the offender is in
custody; and, if not, why not; whether or not the offender has
appealed a decision of the board; and the outcome of the appeal.
[Translation]
This specific information can be given to victims, provided the
Chairman of the National Parole Board or the Commissioner of
Corrections deems that the victim's interests clearly outweigh the
breech of privacy that will result from disclosure.
9909
(1750)
The Corrections and Conditional Release Act also takes victims'
concerns and needs into consideration by affording them the
opportunity to attend parole hearings as observers.
In the past they could do so only with the offender's agreement;
now it is the National Parole Board's decision. As I said, victims
can also provide information to the Board, and it must take this into
consideration during the case study.
The information provided by the victim which the Board must
take into consideration during the case study includes the victim
impact statement submitted to the Crown prosecutor, the police
reports on the nature of the crime, and the information provided
directly to the Board or correctional authorities by the victim or the
victim's relatives.
The Board also considers any reports of abuse or violence
against the offender's family or against people in a relationship of
intimacy, dependency or trust with the offender. The information
provided by the victim is also important when assessing the
relevant conditions in managing a specific risk.
This is also a factor to be taken into consideration when
preparing the offender's release plan, particularly if he is related to
the victim, or will be living in the vicinity of the victim after
release. The Board takes into consideration the victim's requests if
he or she feels that certain conditions are necessary for protection.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the motion put forward
by my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey North. It might be
worthwhile repeating its wording:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should direct the National
Parole Board that any benefit of doubt in hearings and deliberations on parole shall
go to the victim, the victim's family and public safety and not to the prisoner.
While the intent of Motion No. 139 is clear to me, I would like to
expand on its objective for those who might criticize it for the use
of the phrase ``benefit of doubt''. In that phrase we cam see both
the strength and the reasonableness of the motion before us.
Criminal court proceedings are structured so that persons
charged with an offence go free if it can be established that there is
a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. It is pretty fundamental in our
justice system. It is therefore only fitting in the case of an
individual who has been found guilty and imprisoned that his or her
parole application be refused if there is a doubt as to their ability to
be reintroduced in society. In other words the benefit of doubt
factor has already been addressed in good part.
Sadly there are those who would argue and try to convince us
that is the way system works now. There are examples on examples
that illustrate that people who so think have their heads in the sand.
In my colleague's own riding of Surrey North there are a few
horror stories of criminals who have been released only to violently
reoffend again. For example, a 10-year old girl was taken from her
bed, brutally assaulted and murdered by a criminal who was out on
conditional release. Another individual was killed in her own home
by a person who was out on parole for a string offences including
car theft. The list of tragic incidents goes on and on in communities
across Canada.
The figures for 1994-95 show the following. Of those on
conditional release 256 reoffended and were charged with criminal
offences ranging from murder to armed robbery. Since 1987-88 and
in almost any given year approximately 250 conditional release
criminals have been charged with serious community offences. In
1989-90 alone 39 were charged with murder and 63 with sexual
assault. Surely this gives us some pause to doubt that the system is
working.
(1755)
An article in today's Vancouver Sun read:
A man serving time for attempted murder was charged Wednesday with sexually
assaulting a young female corrections volunteer while out on day parole. The
woman, in her twenties, was alone in her home with Clinton Dale McNutt, 29,
Monday when the alleged offence occurred, said the Abbotsford Police
Constable-``We can't overstate how concerned we are about the whole parole
system,'' he said. ``Our concern is these people are out and our citizens can be put at
risk''.
That is what we are talking about here. Sometimes when we are
pounding away on the justice system I hear members across the
way saying that everything is fine and the justice minister is doing
a great job. I think reality is the opposite to that. We on this side are
heckled because we keep speaking out and pounding on the issue,
particularly when we speak on behalf of victims.
In my riding and across the country it seems Canadians are tired
of a justice system which puts the rights of criminals ahead of the
rights of victims. It is as basic as that.
We get criticism from across the way. They will find out there in
a couple of weeks knocking on doors. If they listen to what the
people of Canada have to say they will get an earful. Ordinary
people are saying it is not working. When Liberal members are on
their doorsteps there will be no one to stop the constituents from
saying what it is they think and feel about the government and the
justice system.
I wonder if Liberal members will try to berate their constituents
when they raise the topic of criminal justice during the campaign in
the same way as the Prime Minister tried to tell a waitress from
9910
Montreal that she did not read what she read and did not hear what
she heard in relation to the government's promise to scrap the GST.
So much for the criticism of members across the way.
What will we do? We would advocate a fundamental shift in who
are seen as the real victims of crime. It begins with a change in the
shortsighted National Parole Board definition of who is a victim, to
one more much encompassing. Reform would expand the existing
definition and define a victim as anyone who suffers as a result of
an offence, physical or mental injury, economic loss, or any spouse,
sibling, child or parent of the individual against whom the offence
was perpetrated, or anyone who has an equivalent relationship not
necessarily a blood relative. That is an important change in the
definition of victim.
More important, Reform also recognizes the need to revamp the
National Parole Board where the rights of victims in Canadian
society are being well and truly ignored. Each of the following
changes would need to be implemented by the government if
Motion No. 139 is to have any meaning or significance.
First, the National Parole Board must be reformed to ensure that
release conditions are enforced in favour of the victim whom I have
just redefined, the victim's family and public safety, and not in
favour of the offender. In fact it is not just on the parole board, our
whole justice system needs this basic reform.
(1800)
The parole board must be reformed and its responsibilities
shifted to community merit release committees. The parole board
must be reformed to ensure that sentences given to all violent
offenders are served in full. The parole board must be reformed to
ensure that dangerous offender status can be sought at any time
during a criminal sentence and not just at the time of sentence.
Finally, the parole board must be reformed to ensure that the parole
is limited, earned and tightly monitored.
In conclusion, the motion before the House merits every
consideration. I am saddened to know that the motion is not
votable. If it were I would want members to know that I would
certainly be voting in favour of it and thus allowing for a fresh start
on criminal justice reform for all Canadians.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about
Motion No. 139 posed by the hon. member for Surrey North.
I would like to pay tribute to my colleague from Surrey North
who will not be a candidate in the next general election. She first
came to this place in 1993 with many of us and I served with her on
the health committee. I know she is a nurse by profession. I know
that she has many fond memories of the many friends she has
made here. I want her to know, on behalf of many colleagues in the
House, that we will miss her. We wish her well in her next career.
I have found this member to be a very calm and rational and
reasonable member in her representations in the House and in
committee. She has come up with a motion in which she has asked
the House to consider an aspect of the justice system, the National
Parole Board. The concept she is raising, which I think is
important, says that when there is a benefit of the doubt she is
interested in making sure that the victim's interests are balanced
and taken care of in situations dealing with people who have been
convicted of criminal offences.
I know from the member's speech that it is not just a wild grab to
incarcerate everybody for life and throw away the key. Her
statements and her rationale have been well thought out. She has
articulated some of the ways in which she knows from her research
that there are people, the families of victims and the victims of
crime, who do not know what goes on in this process. This is not
something in which we are trained. When families unfortunately
are in a situation where a loved one, a friend, a family member or
acquaintance has been the victim of crime and their families are
thrust into that situation, it is terribly tragic. It happens so often and
it is very regrettable but it is a reality in our society that there are
people who have done some bad things.
The important thing is that the member has been reasoned and
constructive in her suggestions. Even the parliamentary secretary
who spoke earlier has acknowledged that. It is to the member's
credit that she raises them and has not tried to somehow take that
position in a way which would be off the wall in its presentation.
(1805 )
The member has acknowledged that people who are incarcerated
for various crimes are not all the same. There are different
circumstances and conditions. Imagine how many people there are
in the criminal justice system who have committed crimes against
family members, who have murdered family members, who have
assaulted or otherwise committed some criminal offence against
someone they know and love. Things happen, like spousal
homicide, for instance.
I was astounded to find out what a high percentage of homicides
in Canada are cases of people who have killed people they knew. It
is shameful. Those crimes do not occur because the perpetrators are
devious people like Clifford Olson. Something has happened.
There is more to it. There is something underlying the reason for
that crime. Something has happened that has influenced the actions
of people. They are not the kind of people who are going to kill
anybody else. It is not a criminal mind but a mind which has-in
the vernacular-snapped or reacted in the extreme at a point in
time when something bad has happened.
9911
The member has basically said that maybe there are things we
can do. Maybe we can identify that in the vast majority of these
cases we are not dealing with the bizarre cases that are often raised
in this House. It is important that Canadians are educated on the
kinds of things that happen. There is a lot of misunderstanding
or lack of information about what happens in the process.
I am not a sociologist or a psychologist and I do not know very
much about the theory and the philosophy of our penal and justice
systems. However, I know that after they have served their time,
people who have done bad things will eventually have to come
back into society. They will have to reintegrate into society. They
will potentially be my neighbours or my co-workers. They will
have every right.
That says a lot about the need to have an effective parole system
which takes into account the need for rehabilitation and education
of everyone about the things that should be done to make sure
people have the incentive while they are incarcerated to understand
what happened, why it happened and how to cope and deal with
that so they can eventually reintegrate. For the vast majority of
people that is the case.
There is now legislation for habitual dangerous offenders and we
know they may never get out which is probably the right thing as
well.
In the few minutes I have left I want to raise another issue.
Young offenders make up quite a large number of the people who
are incarcerated or who have committed crimes and may not have
received a penalty.
I know a lot of Canadians have an opinion on young offenders.
Many would say that we have to lower the age because young
offenders are committing crimes at a lower age than they used to.
Many would say that young offenders should be treated like adults,
that if they commit adult crimes they should be treated like adults.
To some extent in some cases that is true. From the research I have
done on family and divorce issues I know that about 70 per cent of
young offenders come from lone parent families. That is
significant. It relates to the member's motion. There are other
factors to be considered.
I am not sure whether all of the 70 per cent of young offenders
should be herded into the same kind of mould which says here is
what is going to happen because you are just a bad kid. I want to
know where the parents were. I want to know what the conditions
were, whether it was a situation of poverty or whether abuse was
prevalent in early childhood or whether there were other situations
about which we have no way of knowing.
(1810 )
I raise that as another example of why we should not paint all
criminals in the justice system with the same brush and say that
they are all Clifford Olsons and here is what we have to do with
them. In fact they are not all Clifford Olsons. Some of them are
neighbours, friends and young people who have had bad things
happen to them during their lives. We have a responsibility not only
to deal with the very bad criminals, we have a responsibility to deal
in the preventive vein to make sure that some of these things do not
happen in the first place.
I thank the hon. member for bringing this motion to the House
and I thank her for being a friend and a colleague.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I too
would like to mention that we are certainly going to miss my
colleague. I would like to thank her for bringing in this motion
today.
Back in 1968 when the public was in the grip of Trudeaumania
the Liberal government set out to revamp the justice system. Some
of the revamping which resulted from Mr. Trudeau's just society
we are dealing with today and have been labouring under it for
quite some time. For instance, that Liberal government abolished
capital punishment against the will of the majority of Canadians. It
sanctioned 25 year life sentences which can be served in 15 years.
As my colleague opposite has pointed out, there are different
circumstances in every case and I will touch on that later.
That government also gave us the Young Offenders Act.
Punishment was replaced with a new buzzword: rehabilitation.
Liberals, then and now, have failed to establish the worth of a life.
Since arriving in Ottawa, the Reform Party has called for
changes to the criminal justice system, changes which would
support victims and punish convicted criminals. We have called for
the complete elimination of the faint hope clause, which of course
is section 745 of the Criminal Code. It allows convicted murderers
to apply for parole after serving 15 years.
Reformers believe that the only fair and just penalty for
premeditated murder is life imprisonment. As previous speakers
have pointed out, there are circumstances which would allow for
parole before the criminal has served 25 years.
Thanks to the weak-kneed Liberals, life means 25 years at best,
which can be served in 15 years. By the time this minister was
finally convinced that the law had to be changed, he left a loophole
big enough for Canada's most notorious criminal, Clifford Olson,
to slither through.
The minister did nothing to prevent Clifford Olson from jumping
on his soapbox. He did nothing to prevent Clifford Olson from
forcing his victims' families to relive the nightmare which has been
part of their daily lives since their children were so sadistically
murdered. This calculated killer violated every one of his victims'
rights. He did not give any of them a faint hope for survival.
9912
No one expects his bid for freedom to be successful, but he will
have an opportunity to present his case to a jury of Canadians.
Think of how repulsive that will be for those who draw the short
straws and have to sit on his jury.
Now because of the minister's inaction, Clifford Olson will not
only have a venue, he will be given a forum in which to try to set
the terms of his August parole bid. It is hardly surprising that he
does not want the jury to hear the statements of the families of his
victims, or to hear about specific police or prison reports about
him, or to submit to the psychiatric examination requested by the
crown. With his record it is not surprising that he would not want
this information in the hands of a responsible jury.
As well, flaws in the justice system make it impossible to revisit
the plea bargaining agreement which Karla Homolka tricked crown
prosecutors and police into granting her. She will be eligible to
apply for parole this summer, having served a mere four years of
her 12 year sentence.
(1815)
If she declines the opportunity to apply for parole now while she
is in the spotlight she can and probably will exercise this option at a
later date.
This is the sort of case that the Reform Party is so opposed to.
Certainly we believe that there are people who could be allowed
early parole, but in these cases it makes absolutely no sense and the
Canadian public is repulsed by the idea that they can get early
parole.
With an election call just 10 days away the minister and his
colleagues have discovered that Canadians from coast to coast are
concerned about the lack of justice in the justice system. Where
have they been for the last 3.5 years? At the doorsteps they will try
to convince Canadians that they were tough on crime and passed
legislation to modernize the criminal justice system.
Let us look at the changes this government made to the Criminal
Code. Bill C-37 and Bill C-41 on sentencing did nothing to
improve the plight of victims. Bill C-45, which dealt with section
745, betrayed victims of crime. The Minister of Justice promised
the families of murder victims a voice at parole appeals. They will
get it but not for a long time. The minister fixed it so that this new
law only applies to people convicted in the future, not to anyone
currently serving a life sentence. He betrayed bereaved relatives to
have an opportunity to speak at any hearing held 15 years from
now. That is how committed Liberals are to victims rights.
In December 1994 a private member's bill authored by the
member for York South-Weston calling for the elimination of
section 745 was passed by a majority of the members of the House
of Commons, including 73 members from the government side. It
was subsequently sent to the justice committee.
What did the member for York South-Weston receive for his
efforts? History will show that he was turfed from the Liberal
Party. The member for York South-Weston lost his opportunity to
bring about meaningful change to the justice system, and families
of murder victims lost the chance to see the killers of their loved
ones pay in years of lost freedom for the lives they took.
The Minister of Justice uses the old adage that tough cases make
for bad laws as his excuse for not taking a tougher stance. There
might be some credence to this if we were talking about isolated
cases. However, there are about 650 convicted murderers who are
waiting for their chance to apply for this faint hope that has become
a sure bet in lots of cases.
If we had enacted tough laws in the first place we would be able
to deal effectively with all the facets of criminal activity.
The Prime Minister, his ministers and his backbenchers
obviously do not believe that murder is a very serious offence. How
can I say that? They sent a message to the victims of violence that
their pain is just not that important. They sent a message to
criminals that their crimes will be tolerated. They sent a message to
all Canadians that their streets, homes and playgrounds are not
safe.
I suggest to the government that it is not too late. Instead of
making meaningless promises in red book II, as it is likely to do,
why not use this last week of the 35th Parliament to do something
truly worthwhile and give victims the rights they deserve. If the
government does that it can be assured of a warmer reception at the
doorsteps of the nation.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I thank
you for the opportunity to speak on the motion of my colleague
from Surrey North. Her contribution to this House has been
tremendous and certainly it will be noted in history in terms of
compassion for those in need, not only aboriginal families of this
nation but many other people who need special attention and
consideration in a very humane and humanitarian purpose. I would
like to thank the hon. member for making that contribution.
(1820)
I hope into this next election that there is an opportunity
somewhere in Canada that she may play a role, become a
candidate. That would be an exciting possibility as well.
Motion No. 139 lays out for us a motion that gives direction to
the parole board of Canada, saying that the priority for that parole
board should certainly be victims rights rather than criminal rights
9913
and that there has to be a better balance. Through this motion my
hon. colleague has tried to give direction for that.
That sounds like common sense for us. The question is why does
it not happen. Why have we not over the years been able to
recognize that victims rights must be considered before someone is
put out into the general public or back on the streets with parole?
I have spoken with ministers of justice, the attorneys general of a
variety of provinces with regard to this question and lawyers as
well, legal people. They often say ``The case before us is to judge
this person who committed a crime as to whether he or she should
be given parole or consideration or should be kept in prison for a
longer period of time''. That is the consideration. It is that
individual on which they focus. They say ``Our venue does not
allow for the victims to come in and make some kind of
presentation because it is not the victim we are judging''. They say
that is the dilemma that they are facing in making these kinds of
judgments and carrying out their role either as a parole member or
a judge in a court and so on.
Somewhere in that process we have to open our minds and
recognize that if someone is paroled that person, prior to that, has
committed some kind of a crime on the street, in somebody's
home, in terms of somebody's private property or has invaded the
privacy of an individual or hurt some individual in some way,
serious or otherwise. That has happened and there is a victim there
all the time.
Now that we are going to put this person back out on the street,
why do we not consider victims rights and some input for victims?
This motion aims in that direction and tries to alert the parole
board that it should happen, that we as members of the House of
Commons, as the member says so well in her motion, should direct
the National Parole Board that any benefit of doubt in hearings and
deliberations on parole should go to the victim, the victim's family
and public safety, and not for that person who has committed the
crime.
What have we had from the government since we came to
Parliament in 1994? In the year 1994 not much. My colleagues laid
before the government case after case that the Minister of Justice
was too soft on the criminal and there was not a consideration for
the victim. I heard my hon. colleagues from Alberta and British
Columbia lay that out over and over again. Section 745 of the
Criminal Code comes into question where someone who has
committed first degree murder is allowed to have consideration of
parole after 15 years when they were given a 25 year sentence. We
cannot see the common sense of that.
The many victims of the crime, as we laid the issue before the
hon. Minister of Justice, were not considered.
(1825)
All of a sudden we are into 1997, three years later, and the
government is excited. It will do something with the criminals of
this country. It will come down hard on the criminals.
I see a press release issued by the Minister of Justice and the
solicitor general April 17. Again they are making the claim to the
public of Alberta that they will come down tough on the criminal.
They say they have introduced a package of tough new measures to
target criminal gang activity.
It is all part of a facade. It is all part of a process by which the
government thinks it must do this today, not bring some common
sense to the criminal justice system. If that were the purpose, it
would be excellent. The purpose becomes ``I want to do this''. This
is what the Liberal government says.
Mr. Gallaway: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe you will find there is unanimous consent to proceed
immediately to consider the motion respecting the Senate
amendment to Bill C-216 and to adopt it without further debate or
amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have
unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, the government
again and again tries to give the impression that it will now be
tough on the criminal and have a criminal justice system that may
be a little fair or which will consider the victims of crime as such.
We will look at the motives regarding what is behind it. The
motive is very clear. On Sunday, April 27 the Prime Minister will
call an election and the government requires a criminal justice
package to convince the people of Canada that they should vote for
the Liberal Party because it is tough on the criminal and is doing
something for the victim.
The motives are wrong. They are absolutely wrong. If the motive
were really to deal with the system and to take responsibility in a
legitimate, reasoned way rather than doing something for only
political reasons, we would have better government and better
policy in terms of the criminal and certainly in terms respecting the
victims of crime.
That is not the way it is. We see this knee-jerk reaction from
government which is supposed to be good policy.
Now we look at the parole boards. How are they appointed? I
know some of these individuals because I have been in active
politics for about 34 years. I recall in Alberta Mike Maccagno was
a good Liberal. He was leader of the Liberal Party of Alberta. He
was elected to the legislature of Alberta and we became good
friends even though I was a minister of the government.
9914
I remember talking to Mr. Maccagno one day. He said: ``Ray,
I think I am going to quit as the leader of the Liberal Party because
I am going to Ottawa heaven. I am going to be appointed to the
Parole Board of Canada''. Forever after he lived very happily
because he got that appointment.
The problem is do we have people there with credentials? I do
not think we have. We must appoint those people because they have
experience and something to contribute. I know members will take
that into consideration with regard to this motion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hour
provided for the consideration of Private Members Business has
now expired and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9914
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in
1992 the Standing Committee on Health published a study called
``Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: A Preventable Tragedy''. It describes a
little about FAS. There is no question that maternal alcohol
consumption can have devastating impacts on the fetus.
(1830)
The basic fact is that when a pregnant woman drinks her unborn
child drinks also. The alcohol in the mother's bloodstream
circulates through the placenta into the bloodstream of the fetus. It
is possible the blood alcohol level of the fetus will remain at an
elevated level for a longer period than that of the mother because
the immature fetal liver metabolizes the alcohol more slowly.
Research shows that fetal alcohol syndrome is responsible for 5
per cent of all birth defects. It can reflect on the following: severe
neurological disorders, social dysfunction, permanent behavioural
problems, criminal problems, reduced life span, restricted brain
development, learning disorders, hyperactivity, mental retardation,
pre and post natal growth retardation, speech and vision
impairment, and other physical deformities.
There is no question that fetal alcohol syndrome, often referred
to as FAS, is a growing problem in Canada. In Ontario recent
studies showed that although all other causes or problems to do
with alcohol have gone down, the only only problem associated
with alcohol that has gone up is fetal alcohol syndrome. In the last
decade the number of incidents identified has risen by some 400
per cent.
In June 1995 my private member's Bill C-337 which asked for
health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages. Part
of that labelling was to caution expectant mothers about the risks
associated with alcohol consumption. Subsequently the bill passed
in the House and is before committee. I hope It will come to this
place.
A couple of weeks ago the Canadian Pediatrics Society and the
health ministry finally came out with a joint statement saying the
best decision for pregnant women was to abstain from alcohol. This
is the new wisdom of the ministry of health. The minister outlined
a couple of things they have done. We only have to learn once that
drinking or alcohol consumption during pregnancy even in
moderation can impair an unborn child.
I hope the health minister will get the message. We need to take a
dramatic step to alert women planning to have children or currently
pregnant to abstain from alcohol consumption. We should do
something to produce full page advertisements in every paper in
the country to once and for all make it very clear that consumption
of alcohol during pregnancy is a severe risk to the health of the
child to be.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
question on fetal alcohol syndrome by the hon. member for
Mississauga South whose interest in the matter is unabated.
Alcohol use during pregnancy is a national health concern.
Alcohol can affect the health of the mother, the fetus and the ability
of the affected child to lead a healthy life even throughout
adulthood. Fetal alcohol syndrome or FAS is a medical diagnosis
that refers to a set of alcohol related disabilities associated with the
use of alcohol during pregnancy. FAS children may suffer from a
wide variety of physical and behavioural problems including
learning disabilities. These children tend to have poor school
experiences and as adults are more likely to end up in the criminal
justice system.
The joint statement on prevention of FAS in Canada was
developed by 18 national and grassroots health organizations and
the Department of Health. The main message in the statements is
that women are advised to avoid alcohol during pregnancy. The
statement also calls for appropriate family centres and culturally
sensitive treatment programs for women addicted to alcohol. These
recommendations address primary prevention of FAS, that is
preventing the problem from occurring.
There is also the need for accurate diagnosis, treatment of FAS
children and support services for their families. In addition, we
need a better understanding of the rate of FAS in Canada and
further research into the effect of follow up programs for affected
children.
Health Canada is working with the co-signatories of the joint
statement to continue to identify effective strategies in addressing
these needs. The problem of alcohol use during pregnancy is a
9915
challenge to all of us concerned with the health of women, children
and their families.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on
March 7 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport whether the minister would implement the Transport
Safety Board's recommendations to ensure that tanker car
standards are strengthened to protect the public during the transport
of dangerous chemical substances.
(1835 )
I thank the parliamentary secretary for his reply to the effect that
work was already in progress to upgrade the strength of tanker cars.
This is certainly progress on the road to protecting Canadians, their
lands and water from toxic chemicals in the event of rail accidents.
It also represents an important step in maintaining the confidence
of Canadians in rail transport.
While this is a step in the right direction the public interest
covers a much broader picture. If we are to have a truly sustainable
transportation policy in Canada, not only do we need to have a safe
rail system, important as it is. We also need to examine the effects
of air pollution caused by increasing car and truck traffic. We also
need to tackle the serious problem of carbon dioxide emissions and
their contribution to the onset of climate change.
Let me elaborate on one of these items. In a 1995 study by the
sectoral task force on transportation of the Ontario Round Table on
the Environment and the Economy it was calculated that for every
tonne of cargo hauled road transport produced seven times more
carbon dioxide than rail. This fact must become a central
consideration when making transport decisions in Canada. At
present we are unfortunately headed in the wrong direction. The
amount of freight being hauled on Canada's roads is greatly
increasing while the amount of freight being hauled on rail is
decreasing.
For example, road transport has increased its share of surface
transport in Canada from 30 per cent in the 1950s to 70 per cent in
1991. At present, subsidies to rail are being cut while road
subsidies continue to increase. Today our highways are clogged
with trucks when in some regions railway lines are being
underutilized or even abandoned.
Then there is the public health component of a sustainable
transportation policy which points to the health cost caused by
urban smog in Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars between
medical and hospital care are being spent. Clearly there is a link
between transportation policy and human health. Therefore we
need to find ways of reducing automotive transport.
Producing cars and trucks which pollute less is helpful but not
sufficient an answer unless accompanied by decrease in vehicles
and vehicular use. What is needed is a gradual reversal of the
present trend, a movement toward a greater reliance on rail, a
movement toward incentives favouring public transit in cities and a
movement toward reducing subsidies for road transport.
I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. When can
Canadians expect the federal government to produce a sustainable
transportation policy which would address protection of human
health through pollution reduction and reduction of carbon dioxide
emissions by giving greater importance to moving freight by rail
and by encouraging and quite possibly facilitating policies aimed at
moving people by public transit?
[Translation]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like
to answer in French a question raised by the hon. member for
Davenport on March 7.
At the time he mentioned the recommendations of the
Transportation Safety Board that additional restrictions be put on
the use of Class 111A rail tanker cars for hauling dangerous
materials.
I can assure him that safety has always been and will continue to
be the first priority of Transport Canada. The department is
constantly working on upgrading the safety of the transportation
systems used in this country.
Regarding the specific recommendations of the Transportation
Safety Board to which the hon. member referred, I can inform him
that Transport Canada had carried out a complete review of goods
that could be shipped in Class 111A tanker cars well before the
Board presented its report.
At the time, there were specific restrictions on the shipping of 80
dangerous goods which may now no longer be carried in this type
of tanker car. Recently, two more dangerous goods were added to
the list of restricted goods. Transport Canada is continuing its
analysis of 14 other dangerous goods.
(1840)
I may also point out that Class 111A tanker cars are the
workhorses of the freight car fleet, with 165,000 cars in service in
North America. Although Transport Canada feels that these cars
provide a safe method of confinement, the department continues to
look for effective ways to improve the safety of all Class 111A
cars.
Work is being done on ways to improve aluminum and nickel
Class 111A cars. From now on they will require a full protective
shield to protect the outside of tanker cars from perforation when
used to carry dangerous goods.
Finally, I would like to repeat that safety always has been and
always will be the first priority of Transport Canada.
9916
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, on February 20 I raised a question in the House for the
first time on a subject of great value and importance to many
Canadians, that is their right to use herbs and other natural products
for health and/or medical reasons.
What these people are suggesting is quite simple. They are
saying Health Canada in its health protection branch is being
non-consultative to the extent that it ignores the freedom of choice
of Canadians.
The parliamentary secretary will suggest as he did on February
20 that products which are sold must be safe and effective. He will
talk about Ephedra and how some people out west had a bad
reaction to it, but he will not talk about pharmaceutical drugs which
each and every day put people into emergency rooms at great cost
to the system because they are not safe for the intended user.
This issue is really about miracles of magic when through the
wonder of the health protection branch something that grows in the
garden or swims in water is no longer a food but becomes a drug, a
drug that may be restricted or not accepted at all. What is a dietary
supplement south of the border is a drug in Canada. What has been
used for hundreds of thousands of years with positive effects is
banned in Canada. What is naturally occurring and at worst
innocuous is outlawed by nameless faces in the name of good
medicine in Canada.
In all of this we have lost sight of the consumer. Regulatory
mania and cost recovery are driving this. Health Canada is putting
the onus of proof on the individual consumer. Yet who is speaking
for the consumer?
It should be noted that British Columbia is investing more than
$5 million to found a centre to apply alternative health products
and procedures. Because of the influx of people from the Pacific
Rim there is a realization that their ways, although we do not know
why, are safe and beneficial. We know this to be the case because
for thousands of years their methods have in fact worked. Yet the
health protection branch says: ``This is all news to us. Prove it''.
I am suggesting that consumer rights are greater than
bureaucratic rights. I am suggesting that bureaucrats should accede
to the right of Canadians to access natural products they believe to
be of benefit to them.
I am urging the minister to speak for Canadian consumers and
not for business interests, rule makers and multinational
corporations.
On a parallel point, last Saturday the Globe and Mail carried an
article on the apparent power of prayer to improve the condition of
the sick. Why this treatment works on a scientific basis, who really
knows. Perhaps I could suggest the health protection branch should
investigate and regulate this too.
I realize this is really stretching the comparison. Yet why
regulate daffodil bulbs, oil from parsley and lily of the valley, all of
which grow in my garden? If I believe that consuming these will in
a natural way correct a medical problem I might have, what does it
matter to the health protection branch if perhaps like prayer they
can in fact have a beneficial effect on my particular case?
I have a prescription for Health Canada. Perhaps a dose of sense
and sensibility before those two things are regulated would
persuade the minister to rethink his department's position.
What is effective such as daffodil bulbs and prayers may not
always be scientifically quantifiable.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I guess I should respond since we
are in a definite linguistic mode.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Italian.]
[English]
I do not want to go back to what I said just a moment ago but the
member is pre-empting what he thought I was going to say. I think I
am going to surprise him.
I want to respond to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton
regarding the implication of herbal products in Canada. The
mandate of Health Canada is to ensure that drug products on the
Canadian market are safe, effective and of high quality.
It is not our intention to restrict the right of free choice but rather
to ensure that choices available can be made without concern for
the effectiveness and safety of products. Any herbal product in a
form used by the consumer that is intended for medicinal use
requires a drug identification number. Canadians can be assured
that if a product has a DIN it has been verified as safe and effective
by the Canadian government.
It is worth mentioning that it is the importer's responsibility to
ensure its products are in compliance. There are thousands of
legitimate products on the market. Health Canada is encouraging
the herbal medicine industry to come forward with proposals
regarding the acceptable use of various herbal products.
In response to numerous requests for lists of herbs and herbal
products that might be stopped by Customs from entry into Canada,
the department is developing a system by which there can be a
greater degree of certainty and transparency in terms of the
products that are permitted in Canada.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Italian.]
9917
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)