CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 12, 1996
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 3706
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3707
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3709
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3710
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3710
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3713
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 3713
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3713
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3714
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3714
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3714
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3714
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3714
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3714
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3715
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3716
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3716
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3719
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 3719
Bill C-46. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3719
Bill C-302. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3719
Bill C-303. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3719
Bill C-304. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3720
Bill C-305. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3720
Bill C-306. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted. 3720
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 3722
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 3724
Bill C-26. Consideration resumed at report stage 3724
Division on Motion No. 67 deferred 3728
Motions Nos. 76, 78, 80, 82 and 88 3729
Division on Motion No. 76 deferred 3735
Division on Motion No. 88 deferred 3736
Motions Nos. 77, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87 3736
Division on Motion No. 77 deferred 3740
Motion No. 1 agreed to on division: Yeas, 162;Nays, 40 3741
Motion No. 7 negatived on division: Yeas, 40;Nays, 162 3742
(Motions Nos. 5, 22, 33, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57 to 64, 65,72, 74, 75, 89 and
91 agreed to.) 3743
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 30; Nays, 172 3743
Motion No. 8 negatived on division: Yeas, 71;Nays, 132 3744
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 132; Nays, 71 3746
Motion No. 29 agreed to on division: Yeas, 157;Nays, 46 3747
Motion No. 84 negatived on division: Yeas, 46;Nays, 157 3748
Motion No. 55 agreed to. 3749
Motion No. 69 negatived on division: Yeas, 77;Nays, 126 3749
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 3750
Motion No. 77 negatived on division: Yeas, 36;Nays, 167. 3750
Motion for concurrence 3751
Bill C-35. Motion for second reading 3751
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a
committee.) 3757
Bill C-23. Motion for second reading 3757
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a
committee.) 3767
Bill C-25. Motion for second reading 3767
Division on motion deferred 3775
3705
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 12, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for Beaver
River.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
take this opportunity to recognize a group of extremely
hardworking individuals from townships in the district of
Nipissing.
The Mattawa and Area Forestry Committee is made up of
members from the Bonfield, Calvin, Mattawan and
Papineau-Cameron townships and the town of Mattawa.
Forestry companies like Calvin Forest Products, Clouthier and
Sons Logging, Columbia Forest Products, Wunsch Forest Products
and Tembec Incorporated are developing ideas for value added
products to complement current production in the forestry industry.
This forward thinking committee is hard at work developing new
sectors for economic growth in the forestry industry in our area.
Human Resources Development Canada and the Ontario ministries
of national resources and northern development and mines provide
ex officio help that is greatly appreciated.
I congratulate this group of communities for looking to the
future and not just seeing the problems, but instead actively
working to be part of the solutions.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
kept my word and gone to the battlefront in Hamilton East and, lo
and behold, my opponents are not there.
A few weeks ago the finance minister, in the cosy comfort of this
House, challenged me to meet him on the doorsteps of Hamilton
East to talk about his broken GST promise. Where is he? Is the
finance minister afraid to go door to door with me and defend his
broken promise?
I was on the doorsteps in Hamilton East last night, ready to go
toe to toe with Sheila Copps but I did not see her, or any minister. Is
she afraid? I will be there today and I will be there again tomorrow.
I am looking forward to seeing them soon because, after all, there
are only four days left until the vote.
Is the justice minister afraid to defend the inept Young Offenders
Act that I spoke about with young people last night? Is the Prime
Minister afraid to defend his broken promises on the GST,
immigration, child care, free trade and MP pensions?
Once again I challenge the timid souls on the front benches here.
Come with me this afternoon at 4 p.m., Canadian flight-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Douglas Kenny, who died last week, was a respected professor of
psychology who became president of the University of British
Columbia in the stormy years after 1968 when universities were
torn apart by larger community demands for fundamental change in
institutions and structures, and for radically new approaches to
learning.
As a pragmatic scholar, Dr. Kenny sought accommodation
between the warring factions operating inside and outside the
university. He also actively promoted international recognition of
the University of British Columbia as a world leader in science,
medicine and other disciplines.
His epitaph may perhaps be found in Claude Bissell's phrase,
borrowed from Arnold Toynbee: ``Halfway up Parnassus''. Dr.
Kenny showed the way, and it has been for his successors, David
Strangway and others, to try to reach the top of the mountain.
3706
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last Wednesday, Micheline Paradis, a lawyer from the
Lac-Saint-Jean riding, was appointed to the Quebec Court.
She is the first woman judge in that region's 160-year history.
When she began her career some 20 years ago, there were
practically no female lawyers in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
region.
Today, over 50 per cent of the members of the regional bar
association are women. This appointment opens another door and
represents another step toward equality between men and women,
thus enhancing Quebec's judicial system and giving it even greater
credibility.
I am happy to congratulate Ms. Paradis on how far she has come
and I wish her the best of luck in her new career.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we just
finished celebrating the 50th anniversary of the end of the second
world war and people around the world thanked our vets for the
freedom we all enjoy today.
The Ridgewood veterans wing in Saint John is operated under
the jurisdiction of the McKenna government and receives a grant
from Veterans Affairs to operate. The McKenna government has
decided to introduce rethermalized food for the vets. The meals are
prepared in Toronto. Even the toast, bacon and eggs are shipped
down frozen to Saint John and reheated.
This process has been tried in other local hospitals in Saint John
and has had terrible reviews from the patients, the doctors and
other staff.
The Legion is outraged that these veterans will be used as guinea
pigs. Veterans Affairs has prided itself in the past on the
humanitarian treatment of veterans.
The present on-site food preparation is very good. For the sake
of our veterans' health, dignity and quality of life, I ask the
Secretary of State for Veterans Affairs to stop these unnecessary
changes.
* * *
(1405)
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a few weeks ago the Quebec government announced it
would cut student aid for undergrad study outside the province.
Quebec will no longer offer loans to most CEGEP and undergrad
university students who want to study in English in another
province.
This policy is discriminatory, unfair and totally unacceptable.
Ottawa helps fund student aid in Quebec. In 1996, federal transfers
will amount to $98 million.
The Minister of Human Resources Development said he will
investigate this matter to see what can be done to reverse the
decision by Quebec. I urge him to act on this quickly since many
Quebec students who study elsewhere are now scrambling to find
other sources of funding. As an alternative I suggest that the
minister allow Quebec residents who lose their loans to apply
under the Canada student loans program in the provinces where
they study.
The Quebec policy should not be allowed to remain. It has no
place in a fair, diverse and democratic society.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the linguistic debate heats up once again in Quebec, we
in this House are faced every day with the sorry spectacle of two
regional political formations competing for the linguistic
intolerance award.
The Bloc Quebecois and its twin, the Reform Party, are unable to
rally all Canadians around a common project. Both of them would
rather try to destroy what they know they cannot control.
In his latest report, the Commissioner of Official Languages
draws an objective portrait of the linguistic reality. The situation in
this country has greatly improved since the Official Languages Act
was passed. Attitudes have also started to change for the better.
I hope the commissioner's message will be heard and that the
extremist attitudes of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party
will start to evolve.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given that, in Ontario, the rate of assimilation of francophones is in
excess of 36 per cent and that francophones are still not allowed to
run their own schools, given that Conservative Premier Harris is
blithely chopping Franco-Ontarian organizations and that English
is in fact the language of work in the public service in Ottawa, I
would have thought that the primary duty of any Franco-Ontarian
MP would be to look after the interests of his own constituents. But
that is not what is happening.
I may be naive but I think the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier
is forgetting his primary duty to launch a crusade against the
Quebec referendum act.
3707
In other words, instead of opposing cuts imposed on
Franco-Ontarians by his own government, the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier prefers to crusade against Quebec's election laws,
which are among the most democratic in the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the governments
of the world, including Canada, have made strong representations
to the Government of Nigeria to stop its alleged human rights
abuses. The desire for peaceful, democratic change has been
widely promoted.
We have been making statements and innuendoes that something
should be done. To this point these statements have had little or no
effect on the Nigerian government.
The minister is well aware that the imposition of sanctions and
the boycotting of Nigerian oil would have little hope of success. If
they did work, it would take a great deal of time.
We encourage the Minister of Foreign Affairs to not only push
for more rapid and concrete action against Nigeria but to consider
demanding the outright removal of Nigeria from the
Commonwealth until it improves its human rights record.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, major
newspapers were reporting this morning that, next September, the
``Team Quebec'' trade mission to South America will be led by
Bernard Landry, the PQ finance minister and minister responsible
for economic development.
This is great news and we are pleased to see that the PQ
government finally decided to follow in the footsteps of Team
Canada. It is somewhat unfortunate however that, for the sake of
political rhetoric, members of the PQ government made the
deliberate choice of ignoring previous economic missions led by
our Prime Minister.
All economic stakeholders agree that Canada's prosperity is
dependent upon its capacity to expand its export markets. Through
this decision, the Quebec government is sending investors and
financial markets a positive message.
We wish every success to this Team Quebec mission and to its
leader, who, this time, will have an opportunity to trade the
minivan for a limousine.
(1410 )
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
chief electoral officer of Quebec has now charged 50 students at
Bishop's University with voting illegally in the referendum. Their
fine is $500 for showing a commitment to their province of
residence and to their democratic duty as citizens to vote.
What is the fine for those who illegally discarded ballots,
depriving citizens of the right to vote? One hundred dollars.
These students turned to their member of Parliament to help
them. And what did the member for Sherbrooke, the leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party, the erstwhile defender of
federalism, have to say? He could not help them because it was a
provincial matter.
People have fought and died for the right to vote in this country.
Taking away that democratic right only merits a fine of $100.
Exercising one's responsibility as a citizen costs $500. Is this the
democracy of the separatists?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on June 15, 1996, the Bloc Quebecois will celebrate its
fifth anniversary. Indeed, it was on June 15, 1991, that Lucien
Bouchard, along with a few other members of Parliament, founded
our party, which now has 131,250 members.
At the time, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New
Democrats tried, with a rare show of unanimity, to muzzle the nine
Bloc Quebecois members and to silence Quebec's claims and
aspirations. It turned out to be a bad mistake on their part since, on
October 25, 1993, 1,846,024 Quebecers elected 54 sovereignists
members of Parliament. To top it all, the Bloc Quebecois became
the official opposition.
Quebec has a strong voice in Ottawa to defend its interests and to
promote sovereignty. This shows unequivocally that Quebec chose
to stand up for itself.
It is with pride that we wish all Bloc Quebecois members a very
exciting anniversary, and we invite them to join us in Sorel, on June
15, to celebrate with us.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
3708
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt I rise to demand that the
federal government stand up and protect the rights of victims from
violent young offenders.
It was only a few weeks ago that young offenders hijacked a
school bus in my riding and threatened the lives of young students.
This week another case of a young offender threatens some people
in my riding.
Three years ago a young offender was convicted in the
unprovoked shooting murder of 63-year old Edward Francis
McDermott. He was convicted under the Young Offenders Act and
sentenced to the maximum sentence, a ridiculous three years. The
murderer is set to be released and four psychiatrists have testified
that he is too dangerous to go back on the streets. The murderer is
being described as a psychological time bomb. Crown counsel is
trying to get around the Young Offenders Act to keep him in prison.
Penticton crown counsel should not have to find a loophole in
the Young Offenders Act to protect society from violent young
offenders. The Liberal government should act to make our streets,
homes and playgrounds safe. So far it has failed.
* * *
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the Reform's national assembly this past weekend,
Michael Walker, executive director of the Fraser Institute, said to
an audience of Reform delegates: ``Newfoundland is a morally
bankrupt society. They do not even think to ask what I can do to
solve my problems. They ask: What can the federal government do
to solve my problems for me?''.
Not one person challenged Mr. Walker's statement. Instead they
applauded.
Let me tell the House that Newfoundland has an enterprising
society. Let me further tell the House that since 1990,
Newfoundlanders have made the highest contributions per capita to
charities in this country.
Reform has the audacity to accuse us of being morally bankrupt.
It is Newfoundland that understands what this country is all about.
Reformers do not.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
Newfoundlander, I too am very upset at the statement by Mr.
Walker calling us morally bankrupt. I am from Newfoundland and
I am offended by this statement. Never have such untruthful,
misleading, degrading words been uttered against me and my
fellow Newfoundlanders.
(1415)
Such a statement is an affront to Newfoundlanders and it
demands an immediate apology from the Reform Party.
Newfoundland is an equal partner in this nation. There is no
prouder group in this country than Newfoundlanders. We have
enriched this country with talented people, vast natural resources
and economic contributions to this nation.
To allow this statement to go unchecked is one of the poorest
examples of strong leadership in the history of this country.
_____________________________________________
3708
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said
that the federal government wanted to be highly effective and
competent and in a position to help Canadians in its areas of
jurisdiction, wanted the provinces to be highly effective and
competent in their areas of jurisdiction as well and wanted a very
strong partnership between the two levels of government.
Are we to assume from the remarks of the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs that the federal government is keeping
the leading role for itself in a whole series of sectors, so it can set
broad standards and objectives, and giving the provinces a
supporting role, that is, the role of administrator?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have to tell you that this is the most pithy answer we
have had from this minister. May he always be so concise.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said the following
with respect to the federal proposal on unemployment insurance:
This offer was acclaimed everywhere in Quebec as a great step forward, if not
the finishing line for a concrete solution.
Are we to understand from what the minister said that the federal
proposal in the area of manpower is not a starting point for
negotiations, but, rather the finishing line?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a framework where each province will be able to
3709
exercise the responsibilities it wishes and where the Government of
Canada will have its own responsibilities on this Canada-wide
issue. Whether it involves ensuring a movement of workers within
the country or whether it involves ensuring the various
governments help each other in situations of exceptional crisis, the
Government of Canada has its own particular responsibilities.
This is why Quebecers who believe in Canada have said that the
minister set a very good policy, and only those who do not believe
in it are continuing to fight it.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you will note that the level of obscurity increases with the
number of words: the more he talks, the less we understand.
Can the minister deny that the attempt to set up a model where
the federal government would establish standards and keep control
and have the provinces carry out the programs is not a sort of back
door revival of the spirit of the Charlottetown accord, which
Quebec rejected for one reason and the rest of Canada for the very
opposite reason?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I invite the Leader of the Opposition to make a bit of
an effort. What we are saying is quite simple. We can keep on
repeating it.
We have the most decentralized federation there is. The
Government of Quebec has certain responsibilities. It has a hard
time assuming them all the time, and we are offering government
assistance to ensure that this responsibility is carried out as well as
possible. We have responsibilities as the Government of Canada
and we are assuming them together with the provinces.
(1420)
We are going to improve things in various sectors, be it
manpower training, mining, forestry, recreation, public housing,
tourism, the environment, freshwater habitats, etc.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in this House, the Minister of Human Resources
Development stated:
If it is only a matter of transferring funds with no strings attached, then they will
have to speak to someone other than me, because I am not in the habit of sending
money anywhere without making sure the interests of Canadian taxpayers are
protected.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Are we to understand from what his colleague, the Minister of
Human Resources Development, says that the government does not
trust the provinces to administer the taxpayers' money in areas
which are exclusively a provincial jurisdiction, and furthermore
has no intention of withdrawing from any areas except those in
which it does not have even a cent of financial involvement?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I assume that my hon. colleague, the hon. member, is
aware that the unemployment insurance fund, as it used to be
known, is financed by all Canadians. Money is transferred from
certain provinces to others. The Government of Canada has the
responsibility of ensuring that these moneys are administered
responsibly.
Moreover, the provinces are responsible for education, which is
rather closely related to occupational training. It is, therefore, all
these constitutional responsibilities which the Government of
Canada, in conjunction with the provinces, will be better assuming,
thank to the reform proposed by the minister.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I trust that the Minister of Human Resources
Development will educate his colleague, for he is barking up the
wrong tree, absolutely.
With the statements made by the minister yesterday, is the
government telling us that, when it is announced that the federal
government is pulling out of some area of exclusively provincial
jurisdiction, this will be only under its conditions, with the
provinces having no say in the matter whatsoever?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member trying to say that unemployment
insurance is not a federal responsibility? If so, he had better take a
refresher course on the Constitution.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, only a week ago the Prime Minister appeared on national
television with the premier of Quebec saying that he was not going
to discuss the Constitution at the first ministers conference in June.
Now, a week later, the Prime Minister is insisting that the
constitutional amending formula be on the agenda at that
conference. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what made
him change his mind?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member on
being confirmed in his position.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): It was a very good weekend
for the Reform Party and a very good weekend for the Liberal
Party too.
3710
I did not change my mind. If the hon. member would listen to
the whole meeting with the press, Mr. Bouchard said himself:
[Translation]
``I am downplaying it a bit, because the Prime Minister says he
will perhaps want to touch very briefly on the question of
constitutional review, section 49 of the Constitution, but I
understood that the Prime Minister would not spend a lot of time on
it in any event''.
I did not change my mind.
(1425)
[English]
I said that we were to discuss section 49. As to how long we will
take to discuss section 49, I say an hour.
The premier of Quebec told me that he does not want to talk
about it and he does not want me to help with a veto for Quebec.
Since we need unanimity, if one of the participants says no, the
meeting will be very short.
Miss Grey: They said no in Charlottetown.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes. But I am for a veto for
Quebec. I hope the Reform Party will be too. If the premier of
Quebec is not interested in that, the meeting will be short because
of Mr. Bouchard's desire not to get Quebec a veto from the rest of
Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if we could follow the logic in that answer, the Prime
Minister appears to be arguing that section 49 of the Constitution
requires this first ministers conference to discuss the amending
formula. But there have been at least three major first ministers
conferences at which the constitutional amending formula was
discussed: the two Meech Lake discussions and the full-blown first
ministers conference with respect to the Charlottetown accord in
1992.
Why does the Prime Minister insist that another meeting is
required to discuss the constitutional amending formula when these
three previous meetings satisfy that requirement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a debate about whether or not it was done in the
proper framework.
If in reality we have talked two or three times about it, I do not
think it will hurt to talk a fourth time. It will mean that we have met
the requirements of the Constitution four times. Nobody will be in
a position to say that we did not want to meet the obligations of
section 49 if, according to the Reform Party leader, we will have
talked about it four times while the Constitution requires only one
time.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Charlottetown accord discussions of the amending
formula went on for several days. They were preceded by
consultations by officials. They resulted in formal proposals to
amend the amending formula which were agreed to by 10
provinces and the federal government.
If that did not satisfy the section 49 requirement, what is it that
makes the Prime Minister think a half hour discussion at this
conference in June will satisfy that requirement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just explained that a lot of people including some
lawyers have said there is a very specific need to have a meeting on
it and we have called a meeting. In the agenda we stated clearly
section 49 of the Constitution passed in 1982. We are officially
meeting this requirement.
Some would argue that we do not need to do it. I want to be on
the safe side. I am respecting the Constitution and I am being
extremely prudent. That is why people vote for my party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Last April 9, PACCAR announced that it was closing the
Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse, and this was confirmed in a
letter that day to plant employees and the Quebec Minister of
Labour. But yesterday the Department of Human Resources
Development was still refusing to pay unemployment insurance
benefits to laid off employees.
Does the minister find it acceptable that his department is
depriving over 700 people of unemployment insurance benefits,
when it is clear that PACCAR announced the closure of the
Kenworth plant on April 9, 1996?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the PACCAR issue is obviously
a very difficult situation for workers and their families. I think we
shared the hope of the hon. member and of many colleagues in this
House that, perhaps, with the help of the Government of Quebec
and the participation of the Government of Canada, together with
employees and company directors, we could find a solution.
(1430)
It is true that the closure was announced, but there was also a
strike. In addition, there was also this hope that the industry could
be started up again.
I can tell the hon. member today that it is with great regret that
we see that it is finally true that PACCAR, as we knew it, is closed.
As I said, it is a source of great regret, because we had always
hoped that the industry could be started up again. Just today, in
3711
fact, we have finally decided to accept the fact that the industry has
closed its doors and that these people will be eligible for
unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we are talking about 700 people without resources for two
months. It is my understanding that the minister recognizes that
these people are now entitled to unemplyment insurance benefits.
Can he guarantee us that he will do everything in his power to
speed up the payment process, now that they are entitled to these
benefits?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are aware of course of the
needs of these individuals and of their families. We have been
following the situation closely. If we had accepted the fact that the
plant had closed and that there was no possibility of starting it up
again, I think that would not have been well received by most
stakeholders.
Today, however, as I said in my reply to the hon. member's
question, we are accepting our responsibilities in this situation,
because we recognize, as does the union, the company, and
especially the workers, that the end has now come. We are going to
do everything we can to try to help these employees, who have
been going through some very rough times for quite a while now.
We will do everything we can to try to help them as quickly as
possible.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are really confused about the Airbus deal and whether
there is something in the works behind the scenes to settle the $50
million libel suit regarding Brian Mulroney out of court. CBC and
its sources say yes. Government lawyers say no.
I would like to ask the minister what he thinks about this and
what he has to say. Is there a deal in the works with Brian
Mulroney? Yes or no? Has the federal government ever offered to
settle this matter out of court? Yes or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question of
whether there is a deal in the offing is no.
I cannot take responsibility for what the CBC may have reported,
nor can I explain why it reported what it did. However, I can tell the
House in response to the hon. member's question that so far as I am
aware there is no settlement imminent. Indeed, there is no concrete
proposal on the table to settle it.
I remind the House that this litigation was commenced by the
plaintiff. It is up to the plaintiff, if he chooses to do so, to instruct
his solicitors to bring a proposal forward. That is well within his
authority and he may choose to do so.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
regarding ministerial accountability, it may be that the minister
does not know of any concrete proposal on the table, but regarding
what we hear on the news, there certainly are some questions about
it.
I understand the minister is busy with the Young Offenders Act,
section 745 and the Airbus deal, but I am going to ask him again.
Contrary to what he is saying, that he knows there is no concrete
proposal on the table, the Canadian taxpayer is going to have to pay
the bill on this regardless of what the price is. I ask the minister one
more time: Where is the cash going to come from when any
settlement is ever arranged? Who is going to pay for the
incompetence if there are federal bureaucrats involved and the
justice minister's poor judgment on this? When is he going to
accept ministerial responsibility?
The Speaker: Colleagues, this is dealing with a matter which I
believe is before the courts right now. Therefore, I do not know that
the question is in order.
The minister has not indicated whether or not he wants to
answer. If the minister wishes to address himself to this problem, I
will give him permission to do so.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter is before the courts, but
the hon. member raises the question of whether discussions are
under way for the payment of any money. I can tell the hon.
member that no matter what may have been reported last night,
there is no proposal, there is no settlement imminent and there is no
discussion of payment of money.
In the course of litigation-and I practised litigation law for 20
years-the parties are always exchanging feelers and that is
appropriate. However, as I said, the plaintiff started this lawsuit. If
the plaintiff wants to instruct his lawyers to come to us with a
proposal, it is within his authority to do so.
(1435)
I can tell the hon. member that there is no settlement imminent.
That report to that extent was incorrect. There is no discussion at
present of a settlement on those terms.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Transport.
3712
CN employees responsible for repairing railroad track
maintenance equipment at the Joffre station in Charny were told
on Monday that their shop will be shut down. This means 100 or
so jobs will be lost in Charny while the same number will be
created in a shop in Winnipeg. By closing the only track
maintenance equipment repair and overhaul facility in eastern
Canada, CN could compromise the safety of rail transportation in
the region.
How can the minister give the people of Quebec the assurance
that railroad tracks will remain safe when these tracks will now be
maintained by a shop located in Winnipeg?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I was questioned last week about the changes made
by VIA Rail, involving the transfer of 63 or 65 employees to
Montreal, the hon. member did not raise concerns about the safety
of the people in other parts of the country.
The fact is that changes result from business decisions made by
the major railway companies. We have a case here where my
department is keeping a close eye on the safety issue. CN has an
excellent safety reputation and record, and we at the department
will continue to see to it that safety is not compromised by the way
CN manages its operations.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope that the
Minister of Transport realizes that what is at stake is rail safety in
all of eastern Canada.
Given that the minister has the duty, under the existing
legislation, to ensure the safety of rail transportation, does he
intend to impose a moratorium on the closure of the shop in
Charny, pending an impact study by the National Transportation
Agency?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is no. We have reviewed the situation from a
safety point of view and our review has shown no increased risk.
There is therefore no reason to try to reverse CN's decision.
I should point out that CN is now a private company. It can make
any business decision that fiscal reality dictates in order to
streamline its activities. We do not have to review every business
decision made by private companies.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
justice minister said that Bill C-45 will ensure that only the most
appropriate and deserving cases are given consideration for early
parole. In other words, the minister is creating categories of killers:
good killers with special rights and bad killers without those rights.
What is the difference between a good killer and a bad killer, one
that is deserving of special rights and privileges over one that is
not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first place we do not propose
to repeal the section, as my hon. friend and his party would do,
because we believe along with the vast majority of moderate
Canadians that there is room for this in the law. We are not
prepared to say that of the hundreds of people serving life for
murder none of them should ever get the opportunity to come
before a jury of peers from the community to ask for a shortening
of the period.
We have proposed a significant tightening of the section. We
said for all those in prison now serving time for murder there will
be a tight screening mechanism before they ever get to a jury. That
screening mechanism means that only those cases where a judge
says there is a reasonable prospect of success under the test in
section 745 will ever get to a jury. We have also said that any such
jury would have to be unanimous in shortening the period of parole
and eligibility, whereas now it is only two-thirds.
(1440 )
I suggest these measures will strengthen section 745, will
improve it and will ensure that it is those exceptional cases of
deserving applicants who get the remedy provided for.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the real
penalty for multiple killers should be consecutive sentences.
Clifford Olson should be serving 11 consecutive life sentences, not
looking for early parole.
This serial killer, Clifford Olson, and those who are in jail today
will still have the right to apply to a superior court judge for a
hearing under Bill C-45, and a jury hearing may be granted.
Why has the justice minister not simply scrapped section 745
instead of introducing a bill that still allows Clifford Olson and
hundreds of other first degree murderers to apply for early release?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference
to some of the present prison population.
There are victims reported today in the press calling for the
passage of the bill we introduced yesterday, victims' families
calling for the passage of the bill.
If this bill is passed the present prison population will face a
much tighter and significantly strengthened process under section
745. People who are now in prison will have to get past a judge in
the screening process.
3713
If the hon. member and his party are prepared to support us in
getting this bill through, we can get it through by the summer
break. If they do not, let us face it, they have a choice to make:
will they support this bill and see it passed or will they stand in
its way so that people now in prison will not have to face that
screening mechanism before they get to a jury?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Tomorrow, some 700 French-speaking employees of the CBC
will have to vote on collective agreements written in English only.
As we know, these agreements are extremely important, as they
drastically change the nature of labour relations at that corporation
as a result of the Liberal cuts.
Since the employer stated that francophones will have to read
and vote in English, what does the Minister of Canadian Heritage
intend to do to ensure that the CBC's francophone employees have
access to a collective agreement in French before voting
tomorrow?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the CBC operates at arm's length
from the government. Furthermore, I am well aware that the
Commissioner of Official Languages has apprised the president of
the CBC of the problem and that the president has given assurances
he would take all necessary measures to comply with the law.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
may I remind the minister that people will vote on the agreement
tomorrow.
Given her answer and the fact that the CBC's francophone
employees do not have access to their collective agreement in
French, that they must sign a petition and appeal to the
Commissioner of Official Languages to get one, will the minister
admit, without trying to dodge the issue, that this situation provides
a concrete example of how Canada's francophones are indeed
treated like second-class citizens?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think that, as usual, Bloc members are exaggerating
the facts.
As I said very clearly, Canada has an Official Languages Act that
all crown corporations, including the CBC, must comply with. As I
just said, the president of the CBC has assured us he would take all
necessary measures.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the new value added tax is to replace the GST and PST
through harmonization initially for New Brunswick,
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Can the Minister of Finance explain how harmonizing sales
taxes will eliminate duplication for small business and also save
money for the consumers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think I can handle that.
(1445)
At present small business has to maintain two sets of books,
meet two sets of reporting dates and file two sets of forms. Most
small businesses will say they are constantly tripping over tax
auditors from either the federal government or provincial
governments, which is why the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business supports harmonization. The Canadian
Association of Chartered Accountants has said it will save business
over $500 million a year, which is in fact a modest assessment.
As far as consumers are concerned, with harmonization we will
eliminate the cascading of taxes on each set, each stage of the
production process. Provincial taxes are imposed; tax on tax on tax.
This represents a disguised tax grab that is a penalty on jobs.
Consumers will benefit from lower prices, Canadians will
benefit from lower prices and the economy will benefit from
harmonization.
* * *
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago I visited Nova Scotia to see the Sydney tar
ponds, one of Canada's biggest environmental disasters. Yesterday
I had the chance to see the Taro dump site in Hamilton. Both sites
are in desperate need of a federal environmental assessment and yet
it seems the minister is doing all he can to stay miles away from
these controversies.
Sheila Copps had the power to hold full panel environmental
reviews but never did. Is the new minister prepared to use his
statutory powers or will he hide his head in the sand like his
predecessor?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to
the Sydney tar ponds, the minister has given his commitment
before the committee that before the end of the term of the
government something will be done with that situation.
3714
The proposed Taro dump is under provincial jurisdiction. I
suggest he speak to the provincial minister of the environment on
that.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday marked Environment Canada's silver
anniversary, but it is safe to say the clouds hanging over the
minister's head have no silver lining.
These last few years of pathetic federal-provincial relations
concerning the environment and poor legislation, all courtesy of
Sheila Copps, have only hurt Environment Canada.
When will the minister stop behaving like Sheila Copps and start
putting the environment ahead of personal political gains?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
welcomes the scrutiny of the Sierra Club and other environmental
organizations.
We have made advances on the environmental agenda. We have
reintroduced a bill to ban MMT, something the Sierra Club
supports. We have introduced tough regulations on new car
emissions and we have created an environmental commissioner.
We have important legislation that represents throne speech
commitments that will address many of the concerns outlined in
this report.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
From July 7 to 12, people from all over the world will meet in
Vancouver to discuss AIDS. In Canada alone, it is estimated that
15,000 people have AIDS, while about 50,000 more are HIV
positive. Canada has had a national AIDS strategy since 1990. It
has now reached phase II. However, the health minister has
repeatedly refused to extend the strategy when it expires, in March
1997.
Given the imminence of the conference in Vancouver, will the
Prime Minister use this opportunity to tell AIDS victims,
community groups and members of the scientific community that
there will be a phase III to the National AIDS Strategy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this issue has to do with next year's budget. The health
and finance ministers will discuss it. I am not in a position to report
on it at this point.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): No
respect for the conference in Vancouver, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Prime Minister confirm, as he is being asked by his five
major national partners on the AIDS issue, that the current funding
for the strategy will be maintained beyond 1997? This is important
for AIDS victims.
(1450)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the same answer applies for now. The issue is being
reviewed. The Minister of Finance, along with each minister
representing his or her respective interests, have discussions with
the Department of Finance regarding the content of next year's
budget.
The budget is usually tabled in February. If an announcement is
to be made before then, the concerned ministers will do so. I cannot
answer the question right now, because it would be premature to do
so.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the foreign affairs minister.
The governments of the world, including Canada, have made
strong representations to the Government of Nigeria about its
alleged human rights abuses. The desire for peaceful, democratic
changes has been widely promoted around the world. Can the
minister tell the House the progress made in this area?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the concern of the
hon. member about the tragic and unacceptable developments
taking place in Nigeria.
The matter was first brought forward by the Prime Minister at
the Commonwealth meetings over a year ago when he asked that
Nigeria be suspended from the Commonwealth. Since then we have
held a meeting of CMAG, the Commonwealth ministers advisory
group, at which a decision was taken on a number of sanctions that
could be applied. Those are now being presented to various
Commonwealth members. We are also undertaking to talk to the
Europeans and the Americans to see if they would share in
applying a series of economic sanctions.
I am hoping we will be able to get the full concurrence of the
Commonwealth and these other partners so that we can make a
very strong international statement that we will not accept the
violations going on in Nigeria.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister
whether he thinks it is time to stop threatening, talking and
discussing sanctions and to start taking some real action by
proposing that Nigeria be expelled from the Commonwealth until it
is in a position to deal with this matter.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is presently suspended. I think it is the clear intention of
3715
the Commonwealth ministers to see if this first round of actions
and initiatives will have the necessary impact.
There will be a meeting with Chief Ikimi, the foreign affairs
minister of Nigeria, in London next week, at which he will be
presented with these alternatives. If the alternatives are not
accepted and if we cannot get the kind of response and change we
need, the kind of proposition put forward by the hon. member
should be considered.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Recent American research shows that dioxins, which are cancer
causing substances, are more dangerous to health than originally
believed. In Canada safe dioxin exposure levels for humans have
been under review for over a year.
Can the minister tell the House when he will inform the public of
Health Canada's revised dioxin safety levels?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will know exposure of
Canadians to dioxins has declined over the last 20 years. This in
part is the result of the effectiveness of controls that have been put
in place to prohibit the creation of these unwanted substances.
Health Canada, as all members in the House will acknowledge,
has been reviewing all available information on dioxins, as have
other countries such as Sweden, Germany and the United States.
Canada's current guidelines are similar to all other countries with
the possible exception of the United States.
While we have no plans at this time to revise the guidelines,
Health Canada will not hesitate to pursue any necessary additional
measures if the dioxin data indicate we need to do so.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last Monday, I asked the Minister of the Environment whether
the insurance coverage for the contractor responsible for refloating
the Irving Whale had been revised since last year, and whether it
now covered PCBs? Taken unawares by my question, the minister
did not make any reference to insurance coverage in his response.
(1455)
I am therefore asking again whether he can give us a guarantee
that the new insurance contracts have been revised and do contain
coverage for PCBs?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
has undergone a number of consultations and assessments on the
Irving Whale. We are going ahead with the lift this summer.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to date,
the refloating of the Irving Whale has cost the Canadian taxpayer
no less than $18 million. What is more, it has not been successful,
so several millions more will have to be spent.
Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans make a commitment
before this House to claim the entire costs of this operation from
those who are in reality the only ones responsible, that is to say the
Irving Company?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
is committed to the polluter pay principle. Once we bring the Irving
Whale up, we will be able to assess the real reason for its sinking.
At that time we will take appropriate action.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by
removing the tax credit on the GST, the finance minister has raised
the purchase price of all used goods bought by ordinary Canadians
while quietly reaping a huge tax windfall for his own coffers.
Car dealers, auctioneers, people who sell used furniture and used
clothing, virtually anybody employed in the used goods sector, will
be under pressure. They tell us that bankruptcies and lay-offs are
imminent.
Can the finance minister tell the House if it is his intention to use
this silent tax windfall financed from the pockets of ordinary
Canadians to pay for his billion dollar pay-off to Atlantic premiers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is a used question. Because it is a used question, let me simply
deal with the last part of the question, this constant reference to a
bribe, this constant insult to Atlantic Canada.
It is really important to understand this is one country. It is not
incumbent upon a member of any political party to stand up and
insult one region of the country.
3716
This is fundamental change that will benefit small business in
Atlantic Canada. It is fundamental change that will benefit the
consumers of Atlantic Canada. It will give Atlantic Canada a
chance to basically get its business costs in line.
I do not think it is incumbent upon any member of the House to
stand up and constantly insult a region of the country.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
member would please answer the question. Page 22 of the red book
said any changes to the GST would be revenue neutral. This clearly
is not, since it will cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars a
year.
Will the finance minister admit today that not only is he
incapable of keeping his promise to abolish the GST, but that he has
reneged on his page 22 promise of revenue neutrality. Is he not just
like Sheila Copps?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, let the hon. member understand that on June 17 Sheila
Copps will win an overwhelming majority.
Second, let the hon. member understand that his own party
talked about ripping the heck out of the GST and scrapping it.
Then, when the finance committee came to me, his own party
recommended harmonization. His own party recommended
broadening the base. His own party has flip-flopped back and forth
on this issue more times than anybody can count.
The fundamental issue is why does this hon. member, after his
convention at which they said they would adopt a more enlightened
view, continue to expostulate the voices of extremism?
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the llth
international conference on AIDS, being hosted by Canada in
Vancouver next month. Is the Prime Minister prepared to
reconsider his decision not to attend this very important
conference, particularly in view of the letter which his own
colleague, the Minister of Health, sent to him on May 15 stating:
``If you choose not to attend, Canadians and representatives from
other countries will receive a signal that Canada is less than
committed to fighting this disease''?
(1500)
Will the Prime Minister listen to the Minister of Health, listen to
Canadians who are fighting desperately against HIV and AIDS?
Will the Prime Minister now agree to attend the conference and
make a commitment to renew the national strategy on AIDS at the
conference?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I considered the possibility of attending the conference. If
I cannot go, I hope the head of state for Canada, the Governor
General, will be there.
The commitment I have expressed in support of this cause is
well known. I was one of the leaders who went to the conference in
Paris which was convened two years ago. It is possible that I will
not be able to be there. If I cannot be there, I hope the Governor
General as the head of state for Canada will be there.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment.
One of the commitments in the throne speech was legislation on
endangered species. In light of the Sierra Club report, can the
parliamentary secretary tell this House what action we can expect
on endangered species in Canada?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
remains committed to introducing federal legislation relating to
endangered species in the House. As the member has pointed out, it
is a throne speech commitment. If we are to have effective
endangered species legislation, then we have to factor in habitat as
well.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to bring to your attention
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Robin Teverson, member of the
United Kingdom Delegation of the European Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to bring to your attention the
presence in the gallery of some of what I would call our unsung
heroes who represent us as Canadians. I am referring specifically to
the physicians who in our name travel to third world countries at
their own expense to treat people, thereby doing a great service for
them and for Canada.
Would these physicians please stand and be recognized.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
3717
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order in regard to a motion I placed on the Order Paper.
The motion is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, a message be sent to the Senate
respectfully requesting a free conference with Their Honours to consider the
issue of the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament with respect to
the accountability process for the main estimates.
(1505 )
My point of order will address the issue of where the motion
stands on the Order Paper. I do not feel it should be the subject of a
private member's motion but a matter that can be moved under
Routine Proceedings under Motions. I will also address the issue of
the necessity of a procedure that has fallen into disuse.
I understand that historically conferences with the Senate are to
work out disagreements with respect to legislation. In fact it is part
of the legislative process. However this is the first time that the
Senate has been asked to account to this House for its spending.
Consequently it is the first time there has been a disagreement or
misunderstanding on how to proceed in this matter. There is no
mechanism nor are there any references to meetings with the
Senate on this issue. That is why a free conference may serve the
purpose.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, messages sent to the Senate are
usually made under Motions. In addition there is the definition of
section (p) of Standing Order 67 which describes motions that can
be made under Routine Proceedings. These motions are for the
maintenance of the House's authority and ``the management of its
business''. My motion is such a motion.
The estimates of the Senate are not an issue of ministerial
responsibility, which I will explain further, but are a matter of the
Senate as a whole and consequently a matter of this House as a
whole. If this House needs to take action on such issues, then there
should be a quick mechanism through which it can take that action.
We need this conference to manage our business of supply and
maintain the authority of the elected House. The deadline to deal
with the estimates is June 21 or possibly earlier. We are under a
deadline and we need to get together with the Senate soon.
I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation
745 which states:
Either House may demand a conference-to communicate resolutions or
addresses to which the concurrence of the other House is desired-
Citation 746(3) states: ``The free conference is a meeting of
managers attempting, by discussion, to effect an agreement
between the two Houses''.
Although citation 748 of Beauchesne's says that conferences
between the two Houses are now obsolete, a motion for a free
conference with the Senate is still on our books. It can be found in
Standing Order 67(1)(h).
Citation 750 of Beauchesne's makes a qualifying point:
While still theoretically possible under the Standing Orders, both the
conference and the free conference have been effectively replaced by the
exchange of Messages between the two Houses and the attendance of Ministers
at the committees of both Houses.
Citation 751 goes even further:
What may be described as less open and ostensible means of communication
arise from the fact that representatives of the government sit in both Houses, so
that every public question is presented by the executive to both Houses-
As I mentioned earlier, the matter of the estimates of the Senate
is not a matter of the government. It is not the Leader of the
Government in the Senate who is responsible. The responsibility
lies with the Senate as a whole. It does not matter if ministers from
this House attend Senate committees or that a minister sits in the
other place.
This is a unique situation. The arguments set out in citations 750
and 751 do not apply because ministerial accountability does not
apply in this case. The use of a free conference is therefore justified
and suitable to this particular issue.
Since it is a matter respecting the authority of the House or lack
thereof to consider the management of its business, it is therefore a
matter to be considered under Motions. I understand that it has
been a long time since such a conference has been sought. However
with respect to the relationship of the two Houses regarding the
main estimates in modern times, it is fitting that an archaic rule
will be necessary to attempt to bring the accountability practices of
the Senate from the 1880s to the 1990s.
In conclusion, I view this situation as a very serious one. Outside
of voting down the funds of the Senate, we in this House are
virtually powerless to do anything about the issue of the main
estimates of the Senate.
I would like to give this process another chance. We need to
come to some agreement with the Senate so that the public can
have confidence in this institution and the way it accounts for the
spending of their money.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address a few issues raised by the hon.
member.
I disagree with his interpretation of the rules whereby Standing
Order 67(1)(h) could be used for such a purpose. I also believe that
3718
his reading of Beauchesne is inaccurate, or at least the
interpretation thereof is inaccurate. Let me deal with both issues.
(1510)
Standing Order 67(1) refers to debatable motions. Standing
Order 67(1)(h) refers to a conference with the Senate. That may be
quite true. However, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and
Forms, sixth edition, as my colleague across the way has just
indicated, under the general rubric of conferences, it is referred to
under the heading ``Intercourse Between the Two Houses''.
Citation 743 reads in part:
When the House of Commons does not agree to the Senate amendments, it
adopts a motion which states reasons for its disagreement. This is
communicated to the Senate by written Message.
It then lists the steps that are to be followed following that kind of a
disagreement on Senate amendments to a bill or a motion coming
from the House. This of course has never occurred. Therefore, the
prerequisite for invoking Standing Order 67(1)(h) that the hon.
member brings to our attention has not, in my opinion, been
satisfied.
With respect to the calling of such a conference, citation 745
states:
Either House may demand a conference upon the following matters: to
communicate resolutions or addresses to which the concurrence of the other
House is desired; concerning the privileges of Parliament; to acquire or to
communicate statements of facts on which bills have been passed by either
House; to offer reasons for disagreeing to, or insisting on, amendments-
The House has not made that kind of determination to make the
request to the other House. Therefore, that has not been satisfied
either. That is citation 745 which follows citation 743 under the
general rubric to which I referred.
For all of these reasons the criteria have not been satisfied. There
is absolutely no provision under which the standing order in
question should be allowed, that is to say, a motion under Standing
Order 67(1)(h), nor is the interpretation of citation 745(1) of
Beauchesne accurate as presented to the House by our colleague
across the way.
It is quite true of course that this House can invite another House
or a committee of another House for a review of whatever,
presumably estimates and other things. If the House wants to do
that-and I understand that such an invitation has been sent-that
is one thing. However, the fact that such an invitation has been sent
does not at all satisfy the prerequisite which I have just outlined.
Therefore, I believe the hon. member's point of order should be
rejected by the Chair.
The Speaker: Colleagues, although we are dealing here with
procedure, I wonder if the House would give its Speaker the time to
get more information on the matter. In the first place, the point is
well taken. I also accept the other side of the argument which has
been put forth by the government whip. I will look at this particular
procedure and I will return to the House as soon as I can with a
decision on this matter.
* * *
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to the former member of Parliament for
Kitchener, Joe Flynn.
Joe Flynn died Monday morning in Kitchener. He served in the
House between 1974 and 1979. He retired in 1979. After that, he
took up a position on the Canadian Pension Commission where he
served with distinction until 1984.
(1515 )
Joe Flynn is remembered best as a son of Ireland. Joe talked
endlessly about Irish tales, the Irish past and his own Irish heritage.
He was born in Ireland in County Cork in 1921 and came to
Canada in 1925. He came, like nearly all Irish immigrants, as a
poor boy from a poor family. But as the greatest Irish poet of this
century once wrote, ``but being poor I have only my dreams. I have
spread my dreams under your feet''. Those dreams for the Flynn
family led very far.
The dreams that his parents spread out beneath the Flynn feet led
one son to the House of Commons as the member for Kitchener and
another son to the office of the chair of Metro Toronto and
unfortunately to the Conservative Party. But Joe was the Liberal
member for Kitchener with great pride between 1974 and 1979.
In 1939 when war broke out, Joe Flynn joined His Majesty's
Canadian Navy, with more emphasis on the Canadian than on His
Majesty. He served with great courage during the second world
war.
In 1948 he came to Kitchener and raised his family in that city.
His role in the community was notable. I list a few of his
accomplishments, probably the major one being that he raised
seven children in the city of Kitchener. Today several of his
children occupy posts of considerable distinction.
He was active in the Knights of Columbus, the Sales and Ad
Club. He was the past president of the K-W Blue Line Club and the
founding director of the Kitchener Rangers Hockey Club. Many of
us who attended Rangers games remember Joe's booming voice
when he sang with great pride O Canada. He was a founding
member of St. Teresa's Catholic Church and at the House of
Commons chaired the committee on veterans affairs.
He was a model immigrant. He was a model resident of
Kitchener. He was a wonderful member of this House.
3719
Today, I would like to recall Joe Flynn and the many memories
he has given us and to express on behalf of all of us our sympathy
to Betty and the family. Kitchener will miss Joe Flynn very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
same point of order, I would also like to express the sincere
condolences of all the members of the Bloc Quebecois to his family
and friends.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on
behalf of the Reform Party of Canada I would like to express our
sympathies, our understanding and certainly condolences to the Joe
Flynn family and all of his friends.
We recognize the contribution Mr. Flynn made to the House of
Commons and to his constituents during his hard work and the
contribution in his own community. He worked with the school
board, the Chamber of Commerce and a number of other
organizations.
I am sure he will be missed and truly recognized for the
contributions he made. We extend our condolences and our
understanding.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I an
seeking the unanimous consent of the House to defer debate on
Motion M-169, which was to be debated this evening under Private
Members' Business, and to place it last in the order of precedence.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3719
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second
report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-36, an act
to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax, the Excise Tax Act,
the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the
Old Age Security Act and the Canadian Shipping Act, of which
most sections passed unanimously.
* * *
(1520 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-46, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (production of records in sexual offence
proceedings).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-302, an act to establish an oath
of allegiance to the flag of Canada.
She said: Madam Speaker, this legislation will adopt an official
oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada. No such oath presently
exists. The flag is an important symbol in our lives. We remember
British fishing boats flying it in support of us. We look with pride
when it is raised at the Olympics. We see it on the sleeve of our
peacekeepers. It is a unifying symbol of respect and tolerance
throughout Canada.
The oath can be recited at school or before meetings, wherever
the flag is prominent. The bill calls on a committee to consult with
Canadians regarding the wording. As this will be an oath which
will be used by Canadians, it is important that they participate in its
wording. Canadians are proud of their flag and what it means to us
and to the world.
This legislation will give Canadians an official oath to
acknowledge its importance in all of our lives.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-303, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce my private
member's bill, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code, so that
it includes a statement of intent about victims' rights and provides
for the application of those rights within the legislation.
3720
The bill will provide recognition of the importance of victims'
rights in criminal law. It will achieve a greater balance between
the rights of the victims and the rights of the accused and those
who are convicted of crime.
This bill works to protect the rights of victims and deals with
restitution, the right to information and the right to be heard. We
have a responsibility to the protection of victims' rights in this
country. I call on all members to support this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1525 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-304, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (aiding suicide).
He said: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill
that would amend the Criminal Code to allow people with terminal
or incurable illnesses, who are often suffering terrible pain, anguish
or indignity that cannot be relieved by palliative care, to seek the
assistance of a physician to end their life at the time they choose.
The current legislation, which dates back to 1892, can be
extremely cruel to those who are dying and to their families and
loved ones.
Sue Rodriguez and Austin Bastable are two people who lived
their lives and faced their deaths with great courage and dignity.
They urged the Minister of Justice in their final days to introduce
this legislation.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have both
promised a free vote on this issue. I join with many Canadians in
urging them to honour that promise.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (protection of children).
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill I am
introducing today is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code,
the section that allows corporal punishment of children by
parents and teachers.
Condoning corporal punishment can lead to physical and
psychological injury and even ultimately to the death of children. It
contributes to violence in society and is contrary to both the charter
of rights and freedoms and the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child.
Section 43 allows punishment causing bruising and contusions.
It allows children to be struck with belts and other objects. It is a
relic of a bygone age and has no place in a democratic society that
respects and values children.
Finally, I would note that several European countries have ended
the legal approval of corporal punishment with very significant,
positive results. I urge the government to uphold the rights of
children and repeal this harmful and discriminatory section of the
Criminal Code of Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill 306, an act respecting a national refugee awareness
day.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table a bill
establishing a national refugee awareness day on April 4 of each
year. Because of my origins, this is something I hold dear. The
Geneva Refugee Convention was signed in July 1951. It has been
ratified by Canada.
On April 4, 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its
decision in the famous Singh case saying that the charter of rights
and freedoms applied to refugees as well. This day will help make
Canadians more aware of the often dramatic situation of refugees.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have four petitions to present under Standing Order 36.
Two of the petitions deal with Bill C-205 which was introduced by
our colleague, the member for Scarborough West.
The petitioners call on the government to make sure that
criminals do not profit from committing a crime.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, another petition deals with the issue of assisted suicide.
The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to make assisted
suicide not allowed.
3721
(1530)
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the final petition deals with the whole question of holding
a national referendum on abortion. These constituents call on the
Government of Canada at the next election to hold a national
referendum on abortion.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have 50
signatures here from people of Nepean who request that Parliament
oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any
other federal legislation that would provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): I have another petition,
Madam Speaker, with 325 names from people of Harrowsmith,
Verona, Portland, Hartington, Kingston and Brockville.
The petitioners request that Parliament proceed immediately
with amendments to the Criminal Code that will ensure the
sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or
causing injury or death while impaired reflect both the severity of
the crime and a zero tolerance by Canada toward this crime.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
petitions that requests Parliament to repeal section 745. These
petitions add to the 32,000 names I have presented directly to the
justice minister. There are 4,274 names in this group today.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions today.
The first comes from Russell, Ontario. The petitioners draw to
the attention of the House that managing the family home and
caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which
has not been recognized for its value to society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second
petition, Madam Speaker, comes from Bloomfield, Ontario. The
petitioners bring to the attention of the House that consumption of
alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's
ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other
alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by
avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 200 individuals
from my constituency in Saskatoon asking that Parliament enact
Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West,
asking that Canadian law provide that no criminal profits from
committing a crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
wish to table a petition today signed by some 3,000 residents of
Pointe-du-Lac and environs. Pointe-du-Lac is located in the federal
riding of Trois-Rivières.
This petition asks Parliament to halt immediately all testing of
explosives at the National Defence Proof and Experimental Test
Establishment located at Nicolet-Sud in the riding of Richelieu.
According to the petitioners, this testing is causing shock waves
that are damaging to both property and people and therefore is
harming the environment of the people in the surrounding
municipalities and in Lac-Saint-Pierre.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to introduce in the House
today pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first is from residents of my riding of Prince
George-Bulkley Valley. They are concerned that Parliament does
not include among human rights a right to behaviour that is
considered morally wrong, that marriage plays a pivotal and
societal role in the stability of the family, and that any legislation
such as Bill C-265 which might weaken the family unit is the
antithesis of a sensible social policy.
Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament defeat Bill C-265
in order to protect marriage and the family from the possible social
upheaval that might be caused by its passage into law.
(1535)
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners pray that
Parliament enact Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for
3722
Scarborough West, at the earliest opportunity in order to provide
that in Canadian law no criminal profits from committing a crime.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the third petition containing over 500 names
comes from the Nepean area. The petitioners are very concerned
with the penalties given to drunk drivers who kill.
They pray and request that Parliament proceed immediately with
amendments to the Criminal Code that will ensure the sentence
given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing
injury or death while impaired reflects the severity of the crime and
zero tolerance by Canada toward this crime.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I table a petition signed by the constituents of
Lambton-Middlesex, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and duly
certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petitioners state that Canadians deserve a real say in how our
scarce health care dollars are spent and which health care
procedures they consider to be essential.
They request that Parliament support a binding national
referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask
Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government
funding for abortions on demand.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the national AIDS strategy, expiring on March 31, 1998, funds and
co-ordinates prevention, education, support and research in
Canada.
Residents of Delta, B.C. call on Parliament to urge the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Health to commit to a renewal of the
funding for the national AIDS strategy at current levels.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a further petition
signed by 300 persons in my riding, who have joined with another
12,000 who already signed petitions asking that Bill C-12 be
withdrawn and all powers relating to employment and manpower
training be transferred back to Quebec, along with the associated
budgets.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
a petition to present today on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre concerning age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that
Parliament set the age of consent at 18 to protect children from
sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 131, I present a
petition today with 150 names from citizens united for safety and
justice.
The petitioners pray that Parliament enact Bill C-205, which
prohibits criminals from exploiting their victims through profiting
from their crimes. I would like to add that I endorse this petition
100 per cent and have already spoken on this bill in the House.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York Simcoe, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition calling on Parliament to urge the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Health to commit to renewal of the
national AIDS strategy for at least the current level of funding.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my elected duty to table
petitions signed by residents from different regions of Ontario
regarding the national AIDS strategy.
Whereas the national AIDS strategy funds and co-ordinates
prevention, education, support and research in Canada, and
whereas the national AIDS strategy expires March 31, 1998, while
at the same time AIDS infection continues to rise, the petitioners
call on Parliament to urge the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Health to commit a renewal of the national AIDS strategy to at
least the current levels of funding.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table another petition against the
planned dredging operation at Pier No. 2 in the port of Sorel, which
would involve discharging sludge in open waters.
This petition is signed by more than 300 residents and these
signatures are in addition to the many already tabled. I am also
pleased to support this petition and to inform the House that, this
week, the Quebec Minister of the Environment, who finds this
project unacceptable, has given me his support.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions today.
The first is signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency of
Burnaby-Kingsway and elsewhere in the lower mainland, in
particular supported by A & A Foods, Cioffi's Meat Market & Deli,
Angelo Tosi, and National Cheese Co. (Western) Ltd.
3723
It notes that a new regulation proposed by Health Canada will
result in the banning of some imported Italian Parmesan cheese
as well as some other types of cheeses, that small cheese factories
and specialty cheese stores will be adversely affected, that Health
Canada has not adequately demonstrated the health benefits of this
proposed regulation.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to urge the
government not to proceed with the proposed regulations
concerning unpasteurized cheese. I strongly support that.
(1540 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the second petition is signed by residents of the Sunshine
Coast and elsewhere in British Columbia, collected by the
Sunshine Coast Peace Group.
The petition opposes the presence of nuclear powered and
nuclear armed vessels in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia,
and calls on Parliament to end the agreement allowing nuclear
powered and nuclear armed vessels to use CFMETR in the Strait of
Georgia.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the third petition is signed by residents of my constituency
in British Columbia, in particular Irene Tong and Leung Hok Sum,
opposing the recently adopted changes to the Canadian Human
Rights Act concerning sexual orientation.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the third petition has been signed by a large number of
residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway and
elsewhere in British Columbia. It concerns the veterans of the
merchant navy, co-ordinated by Roy Finlay of the Canadian
Merchant Navy Association. It calls on Parliament to consider the
advisability of extending benefits or compensation to veterans of
the wartime merchant navy equal to that enjoyed by veterans of
World War II armed services.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the final petition is signed by a large number of residents
of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway. It notes that gasoline
prices have increased dramatically in recent days and that two
committees of Parliament have recommended federal gas tax
increases which should be far lower than those which have
currently been proposed.
The petitioners therefore request that Parliament not proceed
with the a federal excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider
reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling
national highway infrastructure.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to
present a petition signed by 56 residents of Victoria, British
Columbia and related areas of Vancouver Island.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the
Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland.
They request that the problem of education reform in that province
be referred back to the Government of Newfoundland for
resolution by some other non-constitutional procedure.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,
I have a petition to present on behalf of citizens from across
Ontario, concerned about the national AIDS strategy.
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Health to commit to a renewal of the national AIDS
strategy at its current level of funding.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
like tot table a petition signed by 162 residents of Quebec, and
more specifically of my riding of bourassa, concerning the
minimum age for admission to employment. In 1973, the
International Labour Organization signed convention 138.
Unfortunately, Canada never signed this convention, in spite of the
fact that child labour, which affects approximately 200 million
children around the work, is a real scourge.
These petitioners ask that Canada sign this convention and I
support this petition.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
the pleasure to table a petition signed by approximately 71
members of the constituency of Wetaskiwin.
The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to enact Bill C-205,
introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the
earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no
criminal profits from committing a crime.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition signed by
approximately 60 people from the Scarborough area calling on
Parliament to take notice of the inadequacies in the sentencing
regimes of those convicted of criminal impaired driving causing
death and recommending that Parliament consider enacting a
3724
sentence regime of between seven and fourteen years as an
appropriate sentence for that crime.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to
present a petition from over 1,100 residents of Saskatoon,
protesting gas price hikes and the gouging of consumers as the gas
pumps by multinational gas companies without any intervention on
the part of the federal government.
The petitioners urge Parliament to establish an energy pricing
review commission to keep gasoline prices and other energy
products in check.
* * *
(1545 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
Question No. 37 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 37-Mr. Duncan:
What is the amount of financial assistance provided by the federal government for
Tsa-Kwa-Luten Lodge, Quadra Island, B.C., for; (a) construction of the lodge; (b)
operation of the lodge; and (c) total federal contribution to date since its inception?
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by
the Departments of Human Resources Development and Industry
as follows:
a) b) c)
Human Resources
Development Canada $92,834 $114,542 207,376
Industry Canada $1,800,000 $311,275 $2,111,275
$1,892,834 $425,817 $2,318,651
The following federal government departments have no
information on this subject: Canadian Heritage, Fisheries and
Oceans, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Natural Resources
Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Western
Economic Diversification Canada.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3724
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from June 11, 1996 consideration of Bill
C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee; and of motions in Group No. 11.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Richelieu has the floor to conclude his speech.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Madam Speaker,
around 9 o'clock last night, I received the unanimous consent of the
House to complete my speech. As the Chair interrupted my speech
at 9.30 p.m., I have the opportunity today to complete my speech
on the motions in Group No. 11 put forward by the Liberal Party.
I will not only conclude my speech, but also recap the reasons
behind our amendments to this bill. The government seems
uncomfortable with its bill, for it could not get any Liberal member
yesterday to explain the relevance of these amendments and of the
bill itself.
The Bloc Quebecois reiterated the reasons behind its proposed
amendments to this bill yesterday and we will do so again,
forcefully, today. This hastily introduced bill does not meet the
people's demands, the government's objective to cut spending, or
users' expectations. Yet, users told the committee they were ready
to share costs, provided this is done in a reasonable manner and
they can specify what their needs are in relation to the fee structure,
navigational aids on the St. Lawrence, as well as icebreaking and
dredging.
What hurts stakeholders is that the government based its bill on
the IBI report, which in no way reflects the reality. All the
witnesses who appeared before the committee said they were
appalled to see that the government's hare-brained bill is based on
that report.
This unfair bill has been condemned not only by members of the
opposition, and not for partisan purposes, but also, for logical
reasons, by well-known associations that realize what a heavy price
3725
they will have to pay, in economic terms. This could lead to
enormous job losses along the St. Lawrence.
This bill will result in unfair competition, making it impossible
for us to compete with ports in Halifax and Philadelphia. The unfair
fee structure will compromise any expansion plan for these
businesses and even threaten their very existence.
Speaking of the unfair fee structure, it is funny to hear the
minister invoke fairness and the user-pay principle to justify the
division of Canada into the three regions referred to in this bill.
(1550)
If we read this proposal, we notice that all the regions, and
particularly those of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, will pay
part of the marine services provided to Newfoundland, which
happens to be the province of origin of the minister responsible.
Ships going to Newfoundland will benefit from substantial
rebates paid for in part by ships elsewhere. Moreover, according to
the minister's policy, the port of Churchill, in Manitoba, would not
have to pay for coast guard services.
The bill creates a situation which could be described like this:
``Look, since you are my friend, I will give you an exemption. This
port is in my riding, so it will get an exemption. We are indebted to
that region, so we will also give it an exemption''. And then: ``The
coast guard is under the responsibility of the transport department,
but it will be transferred to the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans''. And finally: ``You will have to pay for the costs related to
the coast guard. Ports in the St. Lawrence will pay this amount,
those in the second group will pay that amount, while those in the
third group will pay that much'', without knowing the impact of all
this on the companies using these services. The government does
not even know about the impact. No economic impact studies or
economic forecasting were done to see what kind of operating cost
increase companies will face.
This is what we object to, and we want the government to think
things out thoroughly. After all, there is no urgency to establish a
new policy which could greatly hurt the economy of a region,
particularly Quebec. But the Liberal Party has a history of always
targeting Quebec. Such is the story of the Liberals and their leader.
If the government could not find a single person to speak in
favour of its bill, it is because there is something wrong with it. It is
because people, and particularly the 21 Liberal members from
Quebec, know this is a terrible blow to all Quebec businesses that
will be affected by these changes.
The government cannot find a single speaker. Last night, we kept
asking for a Liberal member to give us one reason why motions in
Group No. 11 should be passed, in fact not only those motions, but
all the other ones, the bill itself. We were interested in the
justification for the bill, but nobody wanted to explain it to us.
I can understand why Liberal members would hide behind their
desks and not want to comment on such an unacceptable bill. I can
also understand that they would see this bill as breaking their
promises, the promises in the red book. The bottom line is that they
are ashamed to have to appear in the House to defend a bill like this
one.
This bill has been rejected by all the people directly affected by
the amendments, in other words the users, and it has also been
rejected by the general public, when they see how unfair it is for
ports in the St. Lawrence. This unfairness will reduce, not to say
eliminate, the competitiveness of affected businesses.
We therefore say: Let us wait a few months, go back to
committee and, instead of hiring a firm like IBI, whose report just
went through the motions, make sure that users, all those who are
affected or who believe in the survival of shipping, who believe in
the development of ports along the St. Lawrence, who believe in a
fairer distribution of costs, are consulted. We agree with the
government that costs must be reduced, but why is this not done by
charging according to dimensions and not tonnage, for instance?
If we heard today that tariffs would be set according to the
dimensions of vessels, all regions would be treated equitably. But
no, the tariff goes by tonnage. Certain regions do mostly
transhipment, while others are primarily unloading points.
Adopting a different fee structure for every region would hurt and
do a flagrant injustice to Quebec ports.
In this regard, there is talk of going back to the table, looking at
the issues and taking the time to think about them. If the
government is so keen on seeing the bill passed at report stage
today, it should at least have the decency to defer third reading until
the fall.
(1555)
This would give users time to lobby the minister, to try to get
him out of his office and convince him to change his decision. This
would also give him the time to consult the members of his own
party and to come back in the fall and say that, through certain
procedures, the bill can be amended at third reading to make it
more acceptable.
This is quite simple. Like some of their Liberal colleagues, the
members of our own party regularly refuse to come to the House to
speak to this bill because they are so ashamed of it. Furthermore,
what can we say once we realize the new fee structure is unfair to a
given region of Canada? Since there are so many disputes, we
should go back to the drawing board. Let us take this month to
consider the issue more carefully, now that all the parties are aware
of the problems, that the responsibilities for dredging, ice breaking
operations and other fee-generating operations to be carried out on
3726
the St. Lawrence will be reassigned, that the costs will be shared
by users.
However, let us make sure that users will not be adversely
affected and forced to declare bankruptcy, shut down their
operations, or put projects on hold, as is the case for some
companies in the Sorel area, such as Fagen, and also Richardson,
the grain elevator company, which are greatly concerned that the
new fee structure might affect their projects for the future. These
companies were prepared to invest a lot in the Sorel region.
I could also talk about my riding, in the region of Bécancour,
which has the largest industrial park. A major dock, entirely built
by Quebec and used by all the industries in Bécancour's industrial
park, will be hard hit. This will hurt, among other things, major
industrial development projects in that park.
This fee structure could adversely affect one of the most
important economic sectors in Canada and in Quebec, because of
the minister's stubbornness. We say to the government: stop this
stubbornness, postpone the adoption of this bill for a few months
and listen, not to the official opposition or to the third party, but to
those who are directly concerned.
Let us have the committee accept briefs, submissions and
claims, to help the minister make a better decision in the fall. This
is what the official opposition is asking. We are not doing this to
stall the government's bill, but because the witnesses heard by the
committee said that something had to be done and that the famous
IBI report should be ignored.
I also read a release put out by the Montreal region, in addition to
the one sent by the minister, saying that the city's economy might
be significantly affected. It was not the Bloc Quebecois saying this.
It was the president of the executive committee of the Conseil
régional du développement de l'Île de Montréal, the president of
the executive committee of the Montreal Urban Community, and
Patrice Simard, president of the Metropolitan Montreal chamber of
commerce. These are not sovereignists or members of the Bloc
Quebecois. These are business people who want to work with the
government to defray the cost of using the St. Lawrence Seaway, as
well as look at the new fee structure and so on. They are prepared to
pay, but they say that the government is on the wrong track.
They sent official requests to the Canadian government and
obtained the consensus of the shipping industry to submit this
document to the government, which has turned a deaf ear and wants
absolutely nothing to do with it. It is stubbornly going ahead with a
bill that is not at all in the interest of those it claims it wants to
protect.
(1600)
As for what is at stake for Quebec and for Montreal, this letter
said: ``Shipping is a fundamental activity for the economy of
Quebec. All port activities in Quebec will be affected by the
proposed fee structure''. This was what Mr. Ménard, the minister
responsible for Montreal Island, had to say.
The port of Montreal handles 20 million tonnes of cargo per
year. I said it yesterday and I say it again today, 726,000 containers
go through the port each year. All this activity has created 14,000
direct and indirect jobs, in addition to generating revenues of $1.2
billion annually. Many industries in Quebec are dependent on this
mode of supply.
Furthermore, the port of Montreal is in stiff competition with
ports on the eastern American seaboard. Fifty per cent of
Montreal's container traffic has as either its point of origin or its
destination the industrialized regions of the U.S., the Midwest,
New York State, New England. Since 60 per cent of goods passing
through the port of Montreal are then loaded onto rail cars to be
shipped to various destinations across the continent, the minister's
planned fees will also have a negative economic impact on
Montreal's rail traffic. The Canadian government's projected
charges are a threat to the port of Montreal's competitive position
in the U.S. shipping market, as well as to the supply lines for
Quebec industries.
Such was the conclusion of the minister who joined forces with
the group I have just referred to in criticizing the bill. It is not a
member of the official opposition who is today asking the
government to change its tune and not blow the shipping industry
out of the water. Some 14,000 direct and indirect jobs in Montreal
will be affected, not to mention those in all the ports along the St.
Lawrence. They are the reason I am asking the minister on their
behalf today to listen carefully to what I have to say.
Yesterday, the House allowed me to speak longer in order to
make the reasons for our actions clear to the government. I could
repeat them here, since you offer me the opportunity and the time.
The Bloc Quebecois has issued several press releases as a result of
our consultations and the mail and phone input we have received.
Our correspondents were asking the Bloc Quebecois to save them
from this insensitive government. We have issued our press
releases in order to make the minister aware of the situation. But
since he continues to turn a deaf ear, now the press has got into the
act.
Look at what the business publication Les affaires used as a
headline. This is not a Bloc Quebecois publication, a Parti
Quebecois publication, a sovereignist publication. It chose as its
headline: ``The fee scale proposed by the Coast Guard primarily
penalizes the users of the St. Lawrence. The St. Lawrence shipping
community sees this as a concession to the Halifax lobby''. This
minister has been like a weather vane, letting himself be turned this
way and that, first promising to protect this or that port, and then
blowing in still another direction when the west wants this or that
port
3727
protected. Then he had to find the money, so he got the idea to raise
the charges for Quebec ports.
Its always the same, whether the government is Liberal or
Conservative, the insensitivity to the Quebec reality is unchanged.
It is worse when it is a Liberal government. Almost all of the harm
done to Quebec by the federalist regime has had the Liberals
behind it, the present leader of that party in particular.
In this article, the journalist for Les Affaires spoke of all the
reactions along the North Shore, the economic threat, the costs
industries would have to recover. Once again, we must quote the
minister, for he ought to take heed and to defer the adoption of this
bill on third reading at least until the fall, by which time he will
have had the opportunity to find out more about the harmful effects
of the bill.
On Saturday, March 16, a headline in La Presse read: ``Maritime
services: Quebec's bill goes up''. No one can say that La Presse is a
Bloc Quebecois publication, an official opposition publication. It is
the voice of Power Corporation, of the Liberals. Their very own
paper is telling them that they are overdoing it in raising the
charges to Quebec.
(1605)
The columnist, Mr. Arcand, goes on to say: ``Each revision hits
Quebec a little harder''. Quoting Mr. Massicotte, he gives
examples of the charges proposed by the Coast Guard for
maintaining navigational aids such as buoys, lighthouses, shipping
control, radio beacons.
The latest Coast Guard proposal, dated February 26, proposed a
set rate for Canadian vessels of $3.40 per ton gross tonnage, or in
other words per 100 cubic feet of cargo. With this proposal, the
charge would rise to $4.48. A laker has a gross tonnage of 25,000,
which would mean $112,000 per ship for navigation aids alone.
With this amendment, one vessel alone would have to pay
$112,000 more a year. Clearly things are unfair, costs are being
allocated crazily. We must come back to reality and have this
changed.
``In the context of cut-throat competition with east coast
American ports and even those of the Mississippi'', the journalist
went on to say, ``many shipowners, exporters and importers fear
that the St. Lawrence River is becoming too expensive. Montreal
could lose a lot of traffic''. The cost will stop the ports from
competing. And what will the ships do? They will head to
Philadelphia and the east coast. This bill will harm industry in
Quebec and Canada and will send it to the United States.
This is perhaps what free trade is understood to be. This is not
free trade was supposed to be, and we can talk about it. While they
were in opposition, for eight years, throughout the debate on free
trade, even during the electoral campaign, the Liberals were tearing
at their clothes in an expression of rejection. Once in office, they
were the first to sign NAFTA.
Yesterday, when the President of Mexico was praising free trade,
the Prime Minister was applauding non stop. The Liberal Party has
always been the party of double speak: one way for the electoral
campaign and one for after their election.
In another vein, The Globe and Mail said: ``Making deal to
replace GST evading Ottawa''. Even that paper spoke of the
injustice this bill creates. Raymond Giroux, a journalist for Le
Soleil said: ``A gunboat on the St. Lawrence''. That says a
mouthful.
It is not a Bloc member who said that, but a journalist who has
been following the economic situation for years, who has an in
depth knowledge of this issue, who has consulted users, the public,
read the documents submitted to the committee and heard the very
accurate arguments presented by the critic for our party, the
member for Gaspé.
Our colleague from Gaspé too has conducted many
consultations; in an attempt to get the government to see it was on
the wrong track, he gave an exceptional speech when this bill was
first introduced.
I mentioned the member for Gaspé, but I should also talk about
the fascinating speech the member for Trois-Rivières gave last
night. As we know, he is a former industrial commissioner, a senior
official in the Quebec government. Yesterday, in 10 minutes, my
illustrious colleague from Trois-Rivières briefly summarized the
problem in eloquent terms indeed. It seems to me that the few
Liberal members who were here were amazed at the logic of his
arguments since they were nodding in approval without even
realizing it.
As I was saying before, my illustrious colleague has spent many
hours researching this subject. In Miami, they throw rats on the ice
during hockey games; for our part, we are proud to have our own
book worm, our expert in research, our friend from Trois-Rivières.
He is so good that now our party's research branch consults him,
not the other way around. That says a lot.
(1610)
Yesterday, the member for Trois-Rivières pretty much covered
all aspects of the problem in just a few minutes. I must also
congratulate the member for Châteauguay who, after the member
for Trois-Rivières, gave his own description from another angle,
reviewing the issue from the Montreal point of view and explaining
how terrible the impact of that bill would be for the Montreal
region.
We all know the numerous observations of the member for Lévis
enlightened all members in the House; we hope they were also
3728
useful for the minister and will help him decide to postpone the
passing of this bill for a few months.
The member for Lévis spoke for several minutes after the
brilliant performance of the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, and we had the impression that
the government finally understood because no Liberal member
asked to be heard. Not one member spoke in favour of the
government's bill. The whip raised his arms to the sky and tried to
convince a Liberal member to speak for the bill, but he found no
one. Nobody dared to support that bill. This is very significant.
When a government party cannot find a single speaker to support
a bill in such a serious debate, at the end of a session when the
hours are extended hours because the government said the matter
was urgent, when not one government member will accept to work
overtime to speak in favour of this supposedly urgent bill, then
there is a problem. Not one speaker from the Liberal Party has risen
in support of this bill.
Of course, I understand them, they are ashamed. They are getting
ready to end a difficult year, a year of shame, of broken promises, a
year, in fact, in their party's image, a party that, during the election
campaign, can promise anything, but once in power, forgets its
promises and is content to encourage its buddies to make a few
backstage deals.
The former heritage minister was good at that; the defence
minister, with a $150,000 contract given to a buddy, is good at that;
the immigration minister, who uses his discretionary powers and
signs as a priority documents allowing into Canada criminal
immigrants who had been refused under the usual rules, is also
good at that. So, this is a ``scheming'' government, a government
unable to make the decisions that would satisfy the people as a
whole and, in this case, users as a whole.
Actually, this bill could go in the direction that all the people
want, that is, cost reduction in all departments, but, at the same
time, this reduction should not hinder industry, which creates jobs.
As I said earlier, it is not a few jobs, but 14,000 jobs in the Montreal
area that are affected.
I talked earlier about the reporter from the newspaper Le Soleil
who wrote, and I will conclude here: ``Ottawa has managed until
now to keep the lid on this volatile issue. The St. Lawrence River
will come out a loser, unless premier Bouchard and the business
community react strong and loud. Ottawa will not understand
anything else''.
This was not said by the Bloc or the Parti Québécois, but by a
journalist at Le Soleil, who, after analyzing the situation, concluded
it would be disastrous for the St. Lawrence if this bill was passed.
I would like to have another hour to comment more fully on this
bill, and my colleagues told me they, too, have more to say. I know
the hon. member for Champlain, for example, a former
businessman with experience in this area, could shed new light on
this issue for the government. He has had frequent business
dealings with St. Lawrence users. In that regard, this brilliant
businessman and dedicated member for Champlain will have an
opportunity later to speak to this bill.
(1615)
That is why I wish I had a few more hours, with the unanimous
consent of the House, to explain things to the government and the
minister, but I will conclude, to leave some time for the hon.
members for Lévis, Trois-Rivières, Gaspé, Champlain, and other
ridings to add their own voices, the voices of their regions and, in
fact, the voice of common sense.
In closing, I hope that, if the government stubbornly refuses to
withdraw its amendments, it will at least have the decency and
sensitivity to defer third reading until the fall. I challenge it to do
that. You will then see all the lobbying that will be done to make it
realize that this bill needs major amendments.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): According to
the agreement, Motion No. 67 in Group No. 11 is deemed to have
been put to a vote and the recorded division is deemed to have been
requested and deferred.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
Debate is now on Group No. 12, which includes Motions Nos.
76, 78, 80, 82 and 88.
3729
[English]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-26, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 30, with
the following:
``47. (1) The Minister may, subject to section 49.1 and to any''.
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-26, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 30,
with the following:
``48. The Minister may, subject to section 49.1 and to any''.
Motion No. 80
That Bill C-26, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 30,
with the following:
``49. (1) The Minister may, subject to section 49.1 and to any''.
Motion No. 82
That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 35, on page 30, the following
new Clause:
``49.1 The fixing of fees under sections 47, 48 and 49 is subject to adoption
by the House of Commons of a resolution debated for three hours in the
ordinary course of the business of the House.''
Motion No. 88
That Bill C-26, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 31, with
the following:
``51. The standing committee may make regula-''.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to
resume this marathon debate which has already lasted three
afternoons, 11 hours, 77 motions and as I recollect-my counting I
think is accurate-11 orators in a row from the opposition party.
There has been some comment made here on the absence of
interventions but one should always remember that one gains
nothing by iteration and reiteration if nothing new is said. When
the debate opened on the first evening, I was very much taken by
the witty and informative address of the hon. member for Chambly,
by the vigorous imagination of the member for Gaspé, but I have to
report, not in anger but with sadness, a certain decline in quality.
That comes from repetition. It seemed to me that the ghosts who
operate in this Chamber and outside may have become tired.
Certainly by last night I felt tiredness had set in with the ghosts.
I was hoping in the spirit of the first evening when the member
for Chambly gave us as the sacerdos musarum, the carmina non
prius audita, the new songs, new visions, new attitudes that
something in the same vein would continue. Instead we have had
Mount Pelion piled on Mount Ossa in the poet Flaccus' words,
forgetting that it is not by the number of speeches, it is by the
weight and content. In a certain sense we are returning again and
again to the same themes. I see no particular point in adding to
these labours of Sisyphus beyond saying that in the debate from
now on, could we hope for something new, something rather
exciting, something not very tiring?
To comment specifically on Group No. 12 which has been put
forward by the hon. member for Gaspé and which pertain to the fee
setting provisions of the oceans act, Motion No. 76 modifies clause
47 which provides the minister with the authority to fix fees for a
service or use of a governmental facility provided under the oceans
act. Motion No. 78 modifies clause 48 which provides the authority
to fix fees in respect of products, rights and privileges provided
under the oceans act. Motion No. 80 modifies clause 49, according
to which the minister may set fees for regulatory processes or
approval provided under this act.
(1620 )
These motions would subject the ministerial fee setting authority
to a condition outlined in Motion No. 82, namely that the House of
Commons be required to adopt a resolution debated for three hours
in its ordinary course of business before a fee could be fixed.
This amendment in our view would clutter House business and
cause delays and additional administrative processes when this
government is committed to modernizing Parliament, to
streamlining its internal processes. That would be a step backward.
In any case, the intent of these motions is already addressed in
existing governmental policy. There already exists a regulatory
parliamentary review process. It is government policy to consult
with affected users on any fees proposed. This serves to ensure the
minister is in touch with the views of his clients.
Clause 50 of the bill clearly describes the consultation
requirements the minister must comply with before fixing a fee.
The clause also provides for the referral of fiscal regulations to the
Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
Quite obviously Motions Nos. 76, 77, 78 and 80 serve no
purpose and should be defeated.
The last motion in this group, Motion No. 82, proposes to
authorize the standing committee to make regulations relating to to
the minister's powers to fix fees. I have already spoken of this
neo-Montesquieuian confusion of powers when of course we
respect the separation of powers as a basic issue of
constitutionalism. Do not try to mix up legislative and executive
powers unless you have a clear vision of where you are going. In
this sense the motion is not well thought out and does not deserve
support.
Treasury Board is the central federal authority mandated to make
regulations pertaining to fiscal issues. The board is there to ensure
consistency and fairness in regulations such as those provided
under the oceans act.
The Bloc motion implies that Treasury Board is not ensuring this
consistency and fairness and suggests the authority to make fiscal
regulations should be exercised by a standing committee. This is
entirely contrary to government policy and established
parliamentary practice. Indeed in its aspect of all power to the
assembly, it is
3730
what we might refer to in our law schools as a Henry VIII clause.
Need I say any more?
All of the motions in this group should be defeated. The House is
here to improve the quality of the legislation put before it, not to
hinder the progress of government. I hope I have not spoken too
long because I do not want to set a bad example for this House.
Brevity is the art of wit.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is always
with pleasure that I rise to speak when the subject-matter of the bill
under consideration is close to my heart. The hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra and parliamentary secretary, who knows the
customs and practices of this House as well as I do, will have to
graciously accept, as part of his parliamentary duties, the fact that
the hon. member for Richelieu has decided to use not only all the
time he was allotted, but time he was given by unanimous consent
of this House. I think it is very good for parliamentary relations that
the system allows this.
You know, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, how things work here-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Excuse me,
you must always address the Chair.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): I apologize, Madam Speaker. I was not
trying to initiate a conversation between the parliamentary
secretary and myself. The point I would like to put across, through
the Chair, is that British parliamentary rules are such that the only
way members of Parliament can express their views and make
themselves heard of the government is through the procedures
made available to them in Parliament. From time to time, our
friends opposite may find their decisions are not approved as fast as
they would like. What can I say? It goes with the territory.
Now, coming back to Group No. 12. As the official opposition
critic, the Bloc Quebecois critic on this matter, I would like to
discuss the substance of the motions in Group No. 12. The
substance is quite simple to understand.
(1625)
I will not read them in full, but we are talking about five motions
tabled by the Bloc. The gist of these motions is that, whenever the
minister's power to fix fees is referred to in clauses 47, 48 and 49,
the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, wants to promote
transparency, as it has been its goal since the beginning of the
proceedings at report stage of Bill C-26.
Such transparency would be ensured by Motion No. 82, which
reflects the other ones, and which provides, as regards the
minister's power to fix fees:
That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 35, on page 30, the following
new Clause:
``49.1 The fixing of fees under sections 47, 48 and 49 is subject to adoption
by the House of Commons of a resolution debated for three hours in the
ordinary course of the business of the House.''
The purpose of this motion is to promote transparency and to
provide all elected members of the Canadian Parliament an
opportunity to express themselves, regardless of their political
affiliation. Such a procedure would only require one afternoon, in
fact three hours. It would in no way delay any other decision which
the minister may make.
I hope it was not the minister's intention to fix these fees in
secret. The minister must give members of this House the
opportunity to express their views.
We could discuss the issue for a long time, or we could, as the
hon. member for Richelieu did on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois,
ask the government to postpone the bill at least until the fall, and to
review its form as well as its content.
My goal here is to get the message across. The spirit of the letter
must be preserved. If we manage to do that, we will have fewer
problems in administering the act afterwards. The hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra pointed it out to the Chair. The member for
Gaspé is also trying to make the best of the situation by improving
the bill, even thogh the Bloc Quebecois is devoted to sovereignty.
But as long as we are a part of Canada, I will try to improve this
bill, because it will apply to Quebecers too.
Whatever the political suasion of people in my party or of
Quebecers in general, I will do whatever I can to make laws of this
Parliament easier to implement and to live with. I urge hon.
members to read once more motion No. 82, which underlies all of
this, and see for themselves that openness is our goal.
I have even been generous enough to suggest a three-hour
debate, which is really not long, you have to admit. It would be
more of a technicality, but at least, the exercise would take place.
Nobody in Canada could suggest that we have not given it a try. But
time flies, and since a number of my colleagues would like to speak
to Group No. 12, I will yield the floor to the next speaker.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries has unilaterally decided to charge the
shipping industry fees for Coast Guard services, including the
provision of aids to navigation and ice breaking services. Clauses
41, 47, and 52 of Bill C-26 give the minister the power to charge
these fees.
(1630)
Several amendments to these clauses were put forward by the
Bloc Quebecois for the following reasons: to make the fees
3731
principle more equitable and to force the minister to co-operate
with the industry and the provinces before fixing or increasing the
fees. These changes would prevent the minister from making
unilateral decisions without holding public consultations, as he has
done for the fees he wants to charge as of June 1996.
In fact, all the witnesses who appeared before the fisheries and
oceans committee decried the decision making and consultation
process of the Coast Guard, especially the fact that the minister
went ahead with the fees without assessing the economic impact on
the shipping industry and all the other industries that rely on
shipping.
Also, 75 per cent of the witnesses asked the minister for a
moratorium on the fees until the impact studies ordered by the
Department of Fisheries come out next fall. The witnesses also
recommended that the minister cooperate with the shipping
industry in carrying out economic impact studies. Lastly, the St.
Lawrence River and Great Lakes stakeholders reached a clear
consensus against the minister's proposal which they, along with
the Ontario and Quebec governments, found unacceptable.
Dismissing all these recommendations and objections, the
minister is apparently determined to go ahead with this fee
structure and does not care about its possibly devastating effect on
jobs in the shipping industry, a very important sector of the Quebec
economy.
Moreover, several questions on the department's fee structure
policy remain unanswered. First of all, this whole policy is based
on the regionalization that divides Canada into three regions: the
West, the East and the St. Lawrence region. This rather artificial
division was advanced by the Coast Guard under pressure by the
maritimes and the West. Each new proposal by the Coast Guard
means higher fees for boats in the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes
region.
The minister mentioned fairness and the user-fee principle to
justify this regional division. Yet, when we read the proposal, we
see that all the regions and especially the St. Lawrence and Great
Lakes area will pay part of the marine services to Newfoundland,
which is the minister's province, since the boats that go there will
get substantial reductions at the expense of boats in other regions.
Moreover, according to the minister's policy, the port of Churchill,
in Manitoba, will not have to pay for Coast Guard services.
Another major problem is that the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes
ports are increasingly less competitive than American ports. On the
one hand, boats using the St. Lawrence Seaway to go to the United
States without stopping at any Canadian port will not pay for Coast
Guard services, thus greatly threatening the competitiveness of the
St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports.
On the other, the user pay principle advocated by the minister is
not respected in a number of instances, in particular for the ports of
Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier, which will pay up to $5 million annually
for the use of a single buoy.
Finally, the user fees the minister would like to impose are only
the tip of the iceberg, since they only include navigational aids such
as buoys, lighthouses, and so on. The other services the department
intends to charge for are the dredging of Seaway harbours and ice
breaking in waterways.
These other fees may turn out to be much higher than those for
navigational aids, and there is reason to be concerned about the
survival and ability to compete of ports along the St. Lawrence,
particularly the port of Montreal and a number of ports in the
regions such as those of Matane, Rimouski and Trois-Rivières.
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the effects of
this fee structure in my riding, the riding of Champlain, on pleasure
boats, pedal boats and other small craft. These should be exempt
from this tax in disguise. The riding of Champlain abounds in
hunting spots and lakes and is known as a tourist centre.
This disguised tax, or user fee structure as the government calls
it, will harm the tourist industry, which provides the riding with
jobs it needs to survive. Imagine the impact of charging user fees
for pleasure boats on the economy of a region such as mine. We do
not yet have all the details, but there is talk of charging fees for
pedal boats and sailboards. I do not know where they will hang the
plates, but I am sure they will think of something.
(1635)
You can imagine what fees on rowboats and canoes will do to the
tourist industry in my region. Small and medium sized businesses
which depend on the rental of this kind of equipment during the
summer season will have to pay these fees. Will they have to be
paid annually, every five years, every four years or every three
years? I do not yet know how it will work. We could have big
surprises. Will these fees be progressive? All that to collect a few
million dollars because the finance minister needs money. It is
absolutely outrageous!
And think about what it will cost to collect that money. How will
the government find all the people who own a pedalboat, a
sailboard, a rowboat or a canoe? It is practically impossible and
unmanageable. Again, in the end, it will be the small and middle
income people who will pay the bill, who will pay the price for the
federal government's financial problems. That is why the Bloc
Quebecois and myself, who represent the riding of Champlain, will
oppose Bill C-26.
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
3732
follows: the hon. member for Lévis-Quebec Bridge; the hon.
member for Regina-Lumsden-Hollinger Inc.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, this bill is
divided into three major sections. Part III, with which we are
dealing now, describes the powers of the minister. The amendments
in this group, and many of the amendments being proposed in other
groupings dealing with part III, describe limits to the minister's
power.
Motions Nos. 76, 78, 80 and 82 limit the minister's power. These
amendments state that any changes to the regulations with respect
to fees or other parts of the bill must be debated in the House of
Commons for three hours prior to being enforced or enacted.
I cannot see any reason why the House would not support these
amendments. I commend my friend, the hon. member for Gaspé,
for moving them. When we seek to limit the power of government,
we end up doing Canadians a service.
I am not saying that the minister is not acting in good faith or not
trying to do the best job he or she can, whoever the minister of the
day is, but it is important that there are limitations on the minister's
powers.
In this case, if the minister chooses by regulation to increase or
change the fee structure, it will be debated in the House for three
hours. That will give Canadians and their representatives an
opportunity to have some discussion before it takes place. Frankly,
I cannot see any reason why the House would not support these
amendments. Certainly Reform will be supporting them.
Reform will not be supporting Motion No. 88 because it
proposes that the standing committee would be the body to fix fees
in the future. I do not have a great deal of parliamentary experience
but I do not believe that standing committees are used in any other
areas to fix fees. I do not believe it is appropriate for the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to be fixing fees with respect
to regulations in this legislation.
It is appropriate for the standing committee to review changes to
regulations. I am certainly in favour of having the fee regulation
process opened up so that everybody can see how it works and
provide their input prior to the changes being made.
However, I do not see the standing committee being the body to
actually draft the regulatory changes or make the changes to fee
structures and so on in the future. I simply do not believe that the
standing committee is the appropriate body to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak again in this debate, this time on the
motions in Group No. 12.
(1640)
But before I go any further, with your permission, Madam
Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to our venerable
colleague, the member for Richelieu, who surpassed himself these
past few hours, last night especially, when he made an improvised
speech that lasted a good half hour and in which he succeeded in
casting the government in a bad light and in forcing it to think. The
few members who were around, even those in the government
members' lobby, heard the relevant and judicious speech delivered
by our colleague.
We saw how his experience as a former Conservative member
served him well because he knows the rules of procedure. We saw
how generous the member for Richelieu is, deep down inside,
because he succeeded in rallying all the members present, as well
as all those representing the region that will be affected by the bill.
This man is really a natural leader.
I would now like to recall the principal points of the speech I
made last night in the House. First, the whole process by which the
government presented this bill is questionable, very negative and
lacks transparency, starting with the study made by a private firm
called IBI, study that was denounced and ridiculed by all kinds of
experts, all interested parties and all stakeholders. As I mentioned
yesterday, one witness who appeared before the committee went as
far as to say that this report was not worth the paper it was written
on, which says a lot.
It is all the more serious not only because the report was paid for
by the public purse, but also because this document that is not
recognized by the people involved forms the basis of the minister's
rationale for implementing these fees. So if we want a healthy
debate where everybody agrees on the general parameters, we are
off to a very bad start. We do not have this basis for discussion
since the document in question is not recognized by the people
involved.
Then, under pressure from the official opposition, the fisheries
and oceans committee heard witnesses. There again we saw the
same attitude on the part of the government, an attitude of non
transparency, of narrowmindedness, a kind of military attitude in
some way-it is understandable-from the commissioner to the
minister, who both happen to have the same profile. It is an attitude
of non openness to the very sensible and very sincere arguments
presented by witnesses who came maybe not to talk about their
survival, but about good management, in the public interest.
Unfortunately, our colleagues opposite did not listen seriously to
the evidence presented to them and made absolutely no effort to
follow up on it. There was a huge gap between the comments made
by the commissioner of the coast guard, our first witness-I sat on
this committee as an associate member-and the comments made
by the other witnesses, the users, who came to criticize the
commissioner's position and to tell us how they perceived the
situation and how they intended to co-operate. In point of fact, by
this operation, the government is trying to get money from
3733
users-though we do not know at what cost and what the impact it
will have-to the tune of $160 million by the year 2000, in four
years.
Witnesses mentioned three major grievances concerning the
approach adopted by the government and it is obvious users are
also upset for three basic reasons. First, no impact study was done
to evaluate the impact of the fee structure although several
witnesses talked about the potentially destructive effects of this
new fee structure. Secondly, no detailed description has been given
of services actually provided by the Coast Guard to users, despite
the fact that the term user-payer is used. The government wants
them to pay because they use services but there is not precise
description of those services. I find that approach a bit clumsy and
arrogant. If they said: ``From now on, you will have to pay a
precise fee for such and such a service'', that could facilitate a
positive dialogue between the parties. Instead, people are plainly
told they are getting a service for which they will have to pay a
given amount.
(1645)
Finally, despite what users wanted, the Coast Guard made no
effort, in their opinion-and this is the third complaint-to
streamline its operations. This would have reduced potential costs
to users all the more. These then are three aspects of the debate to
bear in mind, because they illustrate the almost extemporaneous
and extremely arbitrary position taken by the government in this
matter.
Yesterday, I related a number of distressing facts, but I would
like to carry on in this debate. It was said, among other things, that
Canada is being arbitrarily divided into three regions with different
rates for each: the west, the centre-Quebec and the Great
Lakes-and the maritimes. Three different rates for three different
regions, to the great chagrin of the federalist witnesses.
We were told that for a 25,000 tonne vessel-as the member for
Richelieu said earlier-with respect only to aids to
navigation-buoys-the cost would be $112,000 a year. That is
awful. Imagine the shipowner with 12 or 15 ships. He will have to
pay $112,000 per ship just for aids to navigation, the least
expensive of the three items, the others being ice breaking-the
most expensive-and dredging-of both the St. Lawrence and
approaches to harbours and wharves. That means $112,000 for a
single 25,000 tonne vessel, just for aids to navigation.
Another fact we should take into consideration is that a foreign
vessel entering the largest inland waterway in the world-the St.
Lawrence River-en route to an American port will pay nothing.
There is no charge to such a vessel for aids to navigation and ice
breaking, because it is not stopping in Canada, but going directly to
the States. This will no doubt increase competition between
American ports on the Great Lakes and the ports along the St.
Lawrence. There will therefore be no charge to foreign vessels
heading directly to the United States.
Another item that arose out of the committee's deliberations
concerns ice breakers and ice. The fact is that, in the case of the
ports along the North Shore, such as Baie-Comeau, Port-Cartier
and Sept-Îles, there is no ice. There is no ice in Halifax, another
major port, either. Except that user fees will be charged for
ice-breakers in Port-Cartier, Sept-Îles and all along the North Shore
whereas Halifax will not pay a cent for ice-breaking. Members
must know that Halifax is the home port of the big ice-breakers that
come all the way up to lake Saint-Pierre, where I come from, so the
economic impact on the region will be dramatic.
Finally, I want to say a few words about Trois-Rivières, in my
riding. For the port of Trois-Rivières only, the new fee schedule
will entail additional costs of $500,000 per year for navigational
aids and buoys alone, not including ice-breaking and dredging.
This is awful and unacceptable. Everybody will have to pay these
new fees even though there was no debate.
This measure is based on an accounting approach not even
tempered by political sensibility and not taking socioeconomic
consequences into account. We must put all our energies in
denouncing such a politicy.
Hopefully the government will come to its senses and postpone
until the fall third reading of this bill to allow all stakeholders to
make their opinion known once and for all, after having heard from
the minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Hopefully the minister and his whole department will bow to
public pressure and come to their senses in the best interests of
everyone.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, this is
the third opportunity I have to address this bill and the amendments
in Groups Nos. 11, 12 and 13.
(1650)
Before beginning to seriously address this bill, I want to voice an
objection against what the member for Vancouver Quadra said,
despite the kind words he had for me. He said the last Bloc
Quebecois speakers were running out of arguments. True, this is a
political arena and we play the game. The member for Vancouver
Quadra came to politics after an outstanding university career and
he is fast learning the political role in this House.
However, he must recognize that the role of MPs, especially
those of the party I represent, is to express their views and that this
role is inalienable. Members of the Bloc Quebecois, at the risk of
repeating themselves, properly exercise their parliamentary right to
speak. It is about the only thing we have here.
3734
I would like to point out to the member for Vancouver Quadra
that we have been debating this bill, its inherent nature, for two
days and that there are also Quebec members in his party. There
are about 20 Liberal members from Quebec and they are absent
from this debate. I do not mean they are not in the House. What
I mean is they do not show any interest whatsoever in this debate.
They are invisible on this matter. They are not taking to heart the
interests of their constituents because they might be at odds with
the national caucus of their party.
This is not the first time. It has happened on several occasions. I
remember when Ontario Liberal members tried to quash, annihilate
and have declared ultra vires the regulations under the Drug Patent
Act. Quebec Liberal members remained quiet then also so as not to
go against the impressive representation of Ontario Liberal
members which had won 98 seats out of 99.
I would like to bring to the attention of my colleague from
Vancouver Quadra that Bloc members have not only the right but
the duty to speak up on this bill, to take it completely apart to try to
explain what is at stake to people who voted for the Bloc Quebecois
but also-this is politics-to those who, in Quebec, voted for the
Liberal Party, which is not doing a very good job at defending their
interests in this matter. Of course, they would have to forget
partisanship and realize what the dangers of this legislation are.
The fees are arbitrary. The minister in charge, a former
professional soldier, is the only one in his army who marches in
step. He knows it all. He is the one who decides what is good for his
government and his department.
I will give you an example. Clauses 25 and 26 deal with
regulations concerning fees and extraterritorial fishing zones. I
would like the member for Gaspé, through you, Madam Speaker, to
allow the member for Vancouver Quadra to listen to the important
remarks I am going to make. I know you agree, Madam Speaker,
since you are not saying anything. Silence gives consent. I assume
you have recognized how right I am.
All this to tell the member for Vancouver Quadra that when you
write, in clause 25, ``The Governor in Council may, on the
recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs-''
(1655)
A little further it says: ``The governor in council may, on the
recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans''. This
may seem harmless. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who
is also an expert in administrative law, will understand that this
would deprive the House of its only power in the decision to
legislate or regulate.
As the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra knows, the old
wording was: ``The governor in council may, by order'', that is to
say, after the House of Commons has made a decision to that effect.
But this government, as it is wont to do, is now trying to make the
presence of members representing all the regions of Canada
irrelevant, because bills like this one affect everybody.
Therefore, if the minister can decide with his friends, in a Sparks
Street restaurant, to regulate, to raise fees, to designate or eliminate
an area, to redefine boundaries, he can do so. It used to be said that
the only thing he could not do was to turn a man into a woman, but
even that is possible today.
Through you, Madam Speaker, and with all the respect I have for
my colleague, I wish to say that the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra is nonetheless a not-so-young man-no offence-who has
been left with the burden of defending this bill to save his Liberal
friends and colleagues from Quebec, who are hiding behind the
curtains or in the lobby on the other side.
They have nothing to be proud of, unlike the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra, who, at his age, had the courage and the heart to
stoically rise in this House to defend what I would not have
defended, but at least he is doing so with conviction and
intellectual honesty. Such is not the case for the Liberal members
from Quebec.
I would like him to suggest that his minister defer third reading
of this bill until the fall and finally listen to reason and realize that
this bill will have a disastrous, unspeakable impact on the Quebec
economy, and on transport in particular.
Are the senior members of the Liberal Party currently deciding
to do to maritime transport what they did to rail transport, that is to
say, deprive Quebec of most of its traffic, leaving only pleasure
boats to sail without hindrance on the St. Lawrence? Did they
decide to favour other means of heavy transport, even if this
benefits our American friends' eastern ports? We have a right to
ask this. I would like the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, in an
ultimate effort to be fair and honest, to set the record straight and
be fair to Quebecers in this matter.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like
to add that I support the point the hon. member for Chambly made
quite eloquently about the major impact this bill will have on
Quebec in particular.
Since the rules of this House do not allow us to speak of the
absent, I am delighted to see that the minister responsible for
Quebec is here. I think that references to someone's presence are
allowed. At any rate, he is here and he has been all ears, especially
since the remarks made by the last few speakers, including the very
significant remarks made by the hon. member for Richelieu, have
also attracted another minister from Quebec, I think.
It seems that our efforts to catch the attention of ministers from
Quebec through our arguments are starting to pay off. Great. We
commend them for being here and for listening to what we have to
3735
say. We must take advantage of their being here to go over the
economic considerations coming into play.
(1700)
Let me remind the House that the Minister of Finance told the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to come up with savings of $120
million over four or five years.
For this year alone, the finance minister's order is for $20
million. What were the options? The minister first considered
implementing a fee structure. I need not elaborate on this subject,
as my colleagues discussed it at length, but I feel that there would
be room for improvement and, if the Liberals agree to defer
consideration of this bill at third reading until the fall, this might be
a good time to invite suggestions.
Here is what I have to suggest, in my personal capacity and as a
member from the Quebec City area, after wondering if it would not
be possible to further streamline coast guard services. Indeed, this
is an option the administrator of the port in Trois-Rivières had
come up with some time ago. He said: ``At present, all of eastern
Canada is divided into three areas and administered by three
separate regional directorates. Why not consider merging the three
into a single regional directorate for the whole region? This would
cut costs by at least $17 million, with $2 million in savings coming
just from moving icebreakers from the maritimes to bases located
closer areas where the Coast Guard operates''.
It is surprising indeed that nine icebreakers are currently based
in Halifax, when we know that the eastern coast of Nova Scotia is
ice free year round. That is incredible. Icebreakers are based in
locations where there is no ice. To break the ice in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, they must travel 460 kilometres from their home base.
Only four icebreakers are based in Quebec City's harbour. In 1993,
there was an incident and it took more than five days for an
icebreaker to travel to Lac Saint-Pierre, to break the ice that
completely paralysed marine traffic.
Since 85 per cent of the goods transiting through the Cabot Strait
are headed for ports in the St. Lawrence, it would make sense to
establish the regional centre in Quebec. A journalist recently said I
wanted to have the centre in Saint-Romuald, in my riding. I am not
asking for that much. I am not trying to convince the minister
responsible, but the centre should at least be located in Quebec, in
the most appropriate location, since that is where icebreakers are
needed, in the St. Lawrence River and in the gulf.
There are other issues which come to mind. The Louis S.
Saint-Laurent, an icebreaker, costs $56,500 a day. It is the most
costly ship to operate in the whole coast guard fleet. If we stopped
using it, we would save $12.4 million. Why are we making this
request? It is because the Louis S. Saint-Laurent has not been used
to break the ice in the last five years. It was used for all sorts of
other tasks. In other words, we were able to do without it.
It comes down to one thing: Why would rescue operations not be
taken over by others? The Auditor General of Canada tells us they
could be taken over, for instance, by the Canadian Navy, since it
already does rescue work. I am not saying the coast guard is not
doing a good job in Quebec, quite the contrary. However, since we
must streamline operations, we should, instead of increasing fees,
better integrate these services.
I know that other members wish to speak on Group No. 13.
(1705)
Since there is only a half hour left to discuss this group, I will
conclude by paying tribute to the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra and by asking the Secretary of State responsible for Quebec
to use his influence within the Liberal caucus, so that third reading
be postponed until the fall to allow the various stakeholders to
make suggestions.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): As agreed,
Motions Nos. 76 and 88 in Group No. 12 are deemed to have been
put to the vote and recorded divisions are deemed to have been
requested and deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 76. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 88. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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.
3736
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded
division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to Group No. 13, which includes Motions
Nos. 77, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-26, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 13, on page
30, with the following:
``(2) Fees for a service or the use of a facility that are fixed under subsection
(1) shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the
specific service or the use of the facility to each beneficiary, within the specific
marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the
service is delivered.''
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 21, on page 30, the following
new Clause:
``48.1 Fees in respect of products, rights and privileges fixed under clause 48
shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the
specific product, rights and privileges to each beneficiary, within the specific
marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the
product, rights and privileges are delivered.''
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-26, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 35, on page
30, with the following:
``(2) Fees that are fixed under subsection (1) shall not exceed the cost to Her
Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific service or the use of the
facility to each beneficiary, within the specific marine sector within the specific
geographical marine environment in which the service is delivered.''
Motion No. 83
That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 39, on page
30, with the following:
``50(1) Before fixing a fee under this Act, the Minister shall consult with all
beneficiaries, according to stipulations in subsection 41(2). In this context a
recommendation shall be sought from the Marine Advisory Board to the
Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.''
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 84
That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 30,
with the following:
``the Minister shall consult with the provincial governments and with such
persons or''.
Motion No. 85
That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 30,
with the following:
``the Minister shall consult with the standing committee and with such
persons or''.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 44, on page
30, with the following:
``(2) The Minister shall, within 30 days after fixing or amending a fee under
this Act, publish the fee in the Canada Gazette by such appropriate electronic or
other means that the Treasury Board may authorize by regulation. A subsequent
period of 90 days shall be allowed from the date of publishing in the Canada
Gazette before implementing the fee or an amended fee. The text of the Marine
Advisory Board's recommendation shall be included in the published
announcement, together with a clear illustration of the justification for the new
fee.''
Motion No. 87
That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by adding after line 44, on page 30,
the following:
``(3) Any interested person who has reason to believe that the proposed fee is
not fair and equitable may file notice of objection with the Minister no later than
30 days after the publication of the proposed fee.
(4) Where a notice of objection is filed, the Minister shall appoint a person to
investigate whether the charging of the proposed fee is fair and equitable. The
person so appointed shall report to the Minister within 60 days and the Minister
shall, by order, approve or amend the proposed fee. The Minister's decision
together with the report shall be published in the Canada Gazette with
immediate effect, namely at the end of the original 90 day period as specified in
subsection 50(2).''
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to
rise again on what looks like the end of our odyssey. We have had a
good debate. I appreciated the last several interventions from the
Bloc with wit and brevity which, as we have said, is a delightful
fact in a debate on a hot, muggy Ottawa afternoon.
The suggestions made in the debate have been valuable. I have
listened and I have heard what has been said. There is a distinction
between those two phrases. It is part of the government's attitude to
respect parliamentary debates and to acquire wisdom from the
process of give and take. On that basis we can certainly look
forward to a valuable third reading.
I have to make some comments on the motions as presented
which are without prejudice to positions I might take on third
reading.
In the atmosphere of goodwill that attends us in the twilight
hours of this debate I hate to say that Motion No. 77 would create
an administrative nightmare and an expensive one at that. It would
obligate the minister to calculate the costs of the facility or service
for each beneficiary on a sector specific basis. It would provide an
administrative, expensive, time consuming need to calculate cost
per individual user. It would rigidly and arbitrarily preclude the
minister from choosing any other fee implementation scheme,
even if it were preferred by the beneficiaries.
The government feels this would not meet favourably with the
many Canadians who have expressed to us that they want to avoid
excessive governmental regulation.
3737
Motion No. 79 proposes the same thing. The minister has to
calculate the cost of providing a protected right and privilege to
each beneficiary on a sector specific basis. The government feels
that would be impractical.
With respect to Motion No. 81, technically we feel it is incorrect.
Clause 49 refers to fees in respect of regulatory processes or
approvals. The proposed amendment refers to the use of facility or
service. Therefore, technically the motion is not relevant to the
provision it seeks to modify.
Motion No. 83 concerns clause 50 of the act which pertains to
consultation and publication requirements. It would obligate the
minister to consult with all beneficiaries before fixing a fee and to
seek a recommendation from the Marine Advisory Board regarding
the proposed fee. It would obligate consultation in perpetuity. We
think it would be an administrative nightmare and on that basis we
suggest against its adoption.
Bloc Motion No. 84 deals with the same clause. It would
obligate the minister to consult with the provinces before fixing a
fee. We do not think the minister should be so obligated.
Motion No. 85 deals with clause 50. We feel it again attempts to
fetter the discretion of the minister.
Motions Nos. 86 and 87 were put forward by the hon. member
for Skeena who has made very thoughtful contributions to the
parliamentary committee and in this debate. Motion No. 86 would
allow any interested person the right to object within 30 days of
publication. The minister must appoint an investigator. It would be
a very heavy administrative burden with astronomical costs at a
time when we are stressing economy: cutting back on big
government and costs.
The Canada Oceans Act is based on consultation, co-operation
and partnership. It is in that spirit that we have approached it. We
are therefore recommending that members reject Motions Nos. 77,
79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87.
(1710)
We believe the act will provide the legislative foundation upon
which federal, provincial and territorial governments can work in a
full spirit of co-operative federalism, sharing in decision making
on a basis of functional utility in the good interests of all
Canadians. In recommending the rejection of these motions,
nevertheless, I assure hon. members that I have benefited by their
valuable contributions to the debate and that I will pass on their
views to the government.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was a bit surprised that the government member spoke to
our motions in this group before the Reform Party had spoken, but I
am glad he did.
I am very pleased to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra
thinks we should not consult with provinces like British Columbia
that he is from. He thinks we should not have any obligation to talk
to the various users and beneficiaries, for example the Marine
Advisory Board. He thinks that we should not talk to any of these
people, that it would be time consuming. He is right. It would be a
total waste of time because clearly the minister of oceans does not
listen to anybody anyway.
The Reform Party believes in the user pay concept but it also
believes in-and I think I have even heard a few Liberals use
it-user pay, user say. That has not happened. Furthermore, it is
abundantly clear from the words of the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra that they have no intention of changing their tune and
giving the users any say or any input into the various fees and
policies they come up with.
I am not a regular member of the committee that dealt with the
matter but I sat in on a lot of the meetings. It was pretty clear what
was being said by the users the government was pretending to
consult with. They understood the user pay concept, the need for
them to pay for the services they used, and they are to do that.
However first they wanted to make sure they were paying a
reasonable amount for it. They had no idea of the true costs of the
coast guard.
They are prepared to pay for them but they should be
implemented after an economic impact study to determine the real
costs and how to bring them forward in a manner that does cripple
the industry.
I have risen in the House several times and referred to the
minister as the minister of oceans. I specifically and intentionally
leave off fisheries. It is not the minister himself, but certainly the
department has all but destroyed the east coast fisheries and many
species over the years. Now it is doing a hell of a job of doing the
same thing on the west coast. If the bill were implemented in an
irresponsible and improperly thought out and possibly premature
manner, it would do the same thing to the oceans the minister's
department has done to the fisheries.
The Reform Party policy dealing with user pay has three basic
concepts: first, the users should pay for what they use; second, they
should only have to use those things they need; and, third, it should
be on a commercially fair and reasonable basis.
With regard to the coast guard, it has not opened its books. We
do not even know if it keeps books, in the regular concept of it. We
do not know if there somewhere sits a coast guard as a business
with a ledger showing its expenses, its revenues, where it spends
money, where its costs are, and what it is doing to control costs.
There is none of that. Nobody has opened the books.
3738
The coast guard is saying: ``Trust us. There is a lot of costs out
there and you should pay them''. Then it says: ``We are even going
to be real fair in implementing this. We are only going to charge
you 20 per cent so how can you possibly object?''
If the 20 per cent represents 100 per cent or more of the
reasonable costs of that portion of the service they are applying to
cost recovery and to the marine users, perhaps they are paying too
much.
(1715 )
The coast guard says this is something the users should be able to
absorb without any harm. The minister says that yes, a study is
need but he has done one. He has consulted with the Mariport
group which stated in a report that the users are going to be able to
accept the impact of this with no harm.
Why should we believe some of the other things we are being
told if this is the justification the minister is using? The person
from Mariport who did the report has recanted the entire report.
The report found there would be no unbearable impact and that
these costs could be absorbed based on the information the
department supplied.
The department changed all of the parameters after the report
came in. The department told the consultant it was going to do this,
this and this, (a), (b) and (c). On the basis of that the department
wanted a study done to see if it was feasible and absorbable by the
users. The department then turned around after the fact and said it
was going to scrap (a), modify (b), double (c) and add (d), (e), (f)
and (g). The consultant said they were now looking at fees that
were four times as much as what they were led to believe would be
imposed when they did the study. There is no credibility at all in the
ministry or in the minister in the way these fees have been
introduced.
As far as an impact study, the minister has said there should be
an economic impact study. That is a great idea. It is exactly what
the users asked for so it seems they may be on line. The only
problem is that the users said they needed to do an impact study to
see how to implement this and the minister said something totally
different. He said they were going to go ahead and implement it.
The minister's own notes state that they know there will be
damage and problems; they know there will be loss of business to
American shippers which is going to cause problems. He stated
they are going to wait and see what kind of devastation the bill does
on the industry and then do an economic impact study to see what
they did wrong and how much damage it caused. That is a pretty
backward way of approaching this.
Reform has a total of six amendments and the Bloc has two in
this group. Contrary to what the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra said, we do not think it is unreasonable to consult with
people. In fact, we are here as the representatives of people, at least
that is what I and my colleagues in the Reform Party are here for.
We did not get elected to be the rulers.
It is absolutely despicable that the Liberal Party says it should
have no obligation to consult with the provinces that are impacted
by this. It says it should have absolutely no requirement to talk to
the marine advisory board which is supposed be the expert on this.
It says it should have no obligation whatsoever to talk to the users
who are going to be impacted by this. Given that the Liberals never
listen when people do talk, I suppose they are trying to save the
taxpayers money by not bothering with a process that they will end
up ignoring.
Contrary to what the hon. member says, I implore members
opposite to join with us in bringing in reasonable measures. We
need measures that limit the powers of the minister and ministers
who follow him in the future, that limit the powers of the
government, and which make it necessary that we, the elected
representatives of the people, must actually talk to the people so we
know what it is they want us to represent.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, following on the
words of my colleague, when we look at these motions they deal
with principles: the principle of fairness, the principle of
efficiency, and the principle of cost effectiveness.
Last year the coast guard announced to the Canadian shipping
industry and ports that it was going to start charging fees for
services that heretofore had been paid for by the Canadian
taxpayer.
(1720 )
The Reform Party and I believe in the concept and principle of
user pay. It is not right that Canadian taxpayers living in Winnipeg,
Calgary, Thunder Bay, or in Vancouver for that matter, should be
subsidizing Canada's shipping industry any more than they should
be subsidizing any other industry. In principle, we believe the
government is going in the right direction.
There is a serious problem with this legislation. We on this side
of the House would like to be able to support this legislation but if
these amendments cannot be passed by the House, I fear we will
not be able to support it. The powers granted to the minister under
this legislation are so broad and there is no provision for
accountability that down the road regulations can be changed at
whim.
The minister does not even have to go through the process of
gazetting. He does not have to go through the process he currently
is required to go through in order to raise additional money. We
fear that in the future there will be a powerful temptation on the
3739
part of whoever is fulfilling the role of Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans to use this legislation to raise additional money.
That is why we view these amendments and this part of the
regulations, sections 81 through 89, as important. We believe
strongly that this is a window of opportunity to ensure for all time
that any future changes to the regulations with respect to fees for
services the coast guard may charge will have to be dealt with fairly
and up front, in a manner that is going to require Parliament's
perusal.
The way it is set up now, unless these amendments are adopted,
there is no requirement for scrutiny down the road. There is no
requirement for any future changes to come back to the House or to
come back to the standing committee. There is no requirement for
any kind of review. We argue strongly that this is wrong in
principle. It does not provide anything for the shippers and the
people who depend on the shipping industry.
We on the standing committee heard witnesses from coast to
coast telling us about their concerns with this new fee for service.
They talked about the viability of their businesses. They were not
in the shipping industry, but were people involved in the oil and gas
business, people involved in the aggregate business, people
involved in other bulk products such as iron ore, grain, lumber and
coal. We heard from all these people. They have real concerns
about how viable their businesses are going to be down the road as
the government moves to higher and higher user fees.
Each and every witness who appeared before the committee said
that before the coast guard implemented user fees, it ought to be
able to justify those fees on the basis that the services it is
providing are actually priced at fair market values. It should be able
to justify that the services it is providing are actually services the
customers want and need and that they are being delivered
efficiently.
The parliamentary secretary knows there are many instances
where witnesses appeared before the committee and said: ``You are
proposing to charge us for something that we can do ourselves for
far less cost. We are willing to take that responsibility on. We will
go out and service that navigational aid. We will go out and look
after our own ice breaking. We will go out and look after it
ourselves. We do not need the government to do it. We do not need
the coast guard to do it''.
The people who are being forced to pay the user fees ought to
have that opportunity and that right. With the way the legislation
now reads, there is no requirement on the part of the government or
on the part of the minister to sit down and negotiate a deal with
these people in good faith.
(1725 )
A hue and cry went from one end of the coast to the other after
the coast guard announced its intent to collect a user fee last year. I
would suggest that there has been a fair bit of movement on the part
of the coast guard to take into consideration the concerns of many
of the people we heard at the standing committee and this is a good
thing.
However this legislation is our window of opportunity. It is our
way of guaranteeing as parliamentarians that Canada's shippers
and shipping industry are not going to be faced with costs down the
road that they will have no opportunity to address and which
parliamentarians will have no opportunity to review.
I represent a riding that has a significant marine shipping
industry. There could be changes to the regulations that we as
parliamentarians may never know about unless the affected bodies
complain to us. That is no way to run the country. For us to say:
``We can do as we like until people yell and complain at such a
level that we obviously have to stand back and take a different
approach'', is no way to govern the country and no way to change
or enact regulations.
In closing, these amendments are important to the Reform Party.
We would like to be able to support the bill. We would like to say:
``In principle the oceans act is a good bill. There are still some
things we would like to see changed but on balance we can support
it''. However unless we get the motions passed that demand some
accountability from the minister, the department and the
commissioner of the coast guard, I fear we cannot support the
legislation.
Recently we found out that boaters from one end of the country
to the other-never mind people who depend on the shipping
industry-but boaters are going to be forced to pay a registration
fee. If a person owns a rowboat or a canoe an annual fee will have
to be paid to the government. For what?
These matters have to be debated in the House Commons and the
standing committee. Right now they are not. Some bureaucrat on
Kent Street dreams up a regulation and says: ``This is where we can
make more money. We can tag those guys. We have not tagged
them before''. In essence it becomes a hidden tax and it is passed
without any scrutiny, without any accountability. In some instances
parliamentarians are not even aware of it.
We insist that these amendments be passed. If they are not
passed, the Reform Party cannot support the legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to speak on Group No. 13. These are, again,
very important motions. Since this is that last group of motions, let
me start with a brief preamble, nothing too long.
3740
During the report stage here in the House, every time I rose to
speak on the 13 groups of motions with, as the hon. member for
Chambly put it, a hand held out in co-operation and a new
approach to constitutional negotiations, because I did not want to
launch a constitutional debate, I only wanted to make the
government realize that to reach this bill's goal, which is to
implement an integrated oceans management strategy, it had to
create some kind of partnership.
I wanted to draw the government's attention to the fact that, in
my opinion, the government's major partners are the provinces,
because they are the ones that formed Canada. For each part of this
bill-there are three-I asked the government not to forget about
the provinces and to consult with them right at the beginning and,
in some cases, to work with them.
(1730)
Since we are talking about Motions Nos. 84 and 85 concerning
the fees stipulated in clause 50, let me say again that I am asking
the government to consult with the provinces, because it is within
their territories that the action will take place. In many cases, we
want the provinces to levy the fees.
In order to improve transparency, I am urging the government in
Motion No. 85 to consult with the standing committee. I want to
reassure the House that consulting with a House committee is
nothing to worry about, especially since the majority of the
standing committee members are from the Liberal Party. That is
what my motions on this issue are all about.
As for the other motions, Motions Nos. 77, 79 and 81 presented
by members of the Reform Party, I regret to say that we are not in
agreement with them. We think that the idea of setting fees by
specific marine sector runs counter to what the witnesses who
appeared before the standing committee were saying. The majority
of witnesses objected to the government's proposal of dividing the
country into three regions. I therefore cannot go along with the
Reform Party's motions.
However, in order to show you that, in the House and in
committee, we have taken a non-partisan approach for the good of
the cause, the Bloc Quebecois will support the Reform Party's
Motion No. 83, since the purpose of this motion is to force the
government to consult with the users of services.
It would be only natural to consult the users, given that, in the
case of fees for navigational aids for commercial vessels, the
government has often used the expression ``user pay''. But there is
also the expression ``user pay, user say''. I think that this is the
thought behind the Reform Party's Motion No. 83, which the Bloc
Quebecois will support.
Motions Nos. 86 and 87 are very interesting and very forward
looking. I would not want to get into the wording as such. But I am
very interested to see that they contain the idea of a two way
communication. Motion No. 83 provides that users shall be
consulted. Motion No. 86 specifies how users shall be informed.
The idea is a very good one and we will support it.
Time is flying and I must quickly wrap up. Motion No. 86 sets
out when the information shall be published and how must time
shall elapse. Motion No. 87 provides for a process of feedback. It is
not enough to announce something. You must make sure that it will
produce the expected results. If someone in Canada can show the
government that it is on the wrong track, there has to be a review
mechanism. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore support the Reform
Party's Motions Nos. 86 and 87.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I have appreciated
working with parliamentarians from all parties, especially
members of the Bloc Quebecois, who sometimes got quite carried
away. You cannot blame them for their enthusiasm, with all they
had to say, and their responsibility as representatives of the people
of Quebec. I think we should be proud of the work they did.
We hope that the work we did as the official opposition will
bring the government around to delaying third reading of this bill,
because they need to go back to the drawing board. On that note,
and in the hope that the government will be understanding about
third reading, which, we hope, will take place as late as possible
next fall, the Bloc Quebecois is ready for the vote.
(1735)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I understand that, under an
agreement made earlier, if there is no other speaker at the report
stage of Bill C-26, the question is now to be put. I would remind
you also that, under a further agreement, the question is deemed to
have been requested on Motion No. 77 and to have been deferred.
Furthermore, as requested by the whips, the bell will be rung for
only 15 minutes instead of 30.
The vote is on Motion No. 77. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill
C-26.
3741
Call in the members.
(1755)
[English]
Before the taking of the vote
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 1. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 obviates the necessity
of putting the question on Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4. A negative vote
on Motion No. 1 necessitates the question being put on Motions
Nos. 2 and 3. A vote on Motion No. 3 applies to Motion No. 4.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 102)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Althouse
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Williams
Wood
Zed-162
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-40
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
de Savoye
Fillion
Gauthier
Goodale
Guimond
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Mercier
Paradis
Phinney
Whelan
(1800 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1
carried.
The hon. member for Skeena has moved an amendment to
Motion No. 90. As a result, it will be voted on separately.
The question is on Motion No. 5. A vote on Motion No. 5 applies
to Motions Nos. 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57 to 64, 72, 74, 75, 89 and 91.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 obviates the necessity of
putting the question on Motions Nos. 47, 48, 51 and 52. A negative
3742
vote on Motion No. 5 necessitates the question being put on
Motions Nos. 47 and 51.
[Translation]
If Motion No. 47 is adopted, a vote on Motion No. 48 will not be
necessary. If Motion No. 47 is defeated, then a vote on Motion No.
48 will be necessary.
(1805)
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the result taken on report
stage Motion No. 1 to report stage Motion No. 5, as well as report
stage Motion No. 33 and report stage Motion No. 65.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 102.]
[Translation]
As well, I think you would find unanimous consent in the House
to apply the vote just completed, but in reverse, to the following
motions: Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 31, 9, 18, 20, 50, 53, 54, 71 and
88.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the House give its
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 104)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-40
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Althouse
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Williams
Wood
Zed-162
3743
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
de Savoye
Fillion
Gauthier
Goodale
Guimond
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Mercier
Paradis
Phinney
Whelan
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 31, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 5
carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57 to
64, 72, 74, 75, 89 and 91 carried. Also Motions Nos. 33 and 65 are
carried.
(Motions Nos. 5, 22, 33, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57 to 64, 65, 72, 74, 75,
89 and 91 agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on the
amendment to Motion No. 90. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you were to seek it
you would find unanimous consent that all members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay on the
motion.
(1810)
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will be voting nay on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members present
will be voting yes, unless instructed by their constituents to do
otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, NDP members would vote no on this
motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division):
(Division No. 103)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Williams -30
NAYS
Members
Adams
Althouse
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
3744
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Wood
Zed -172
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
de Savoye
Fillion
Gauthier
Goodale
Guimond
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Mercier
Paradis
Phinney
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment to
Motion No. 90 defeated.
The vote on Motion No. 5 also applies to Motion No. 90. I
therefore declare Motion No. 90 carried.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 8. The vote on this motion will
also apply to Motions Nos. 14 and 17.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent that those members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform
you that the members of the official opposition will be voting yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting yes, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, NDP members in the House tonight
vote no on this motion.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes no.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, I was late and would like to be
recorded as having voted with my party.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 105)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
3745
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-71
NAYS
Members
Adams
Althouse
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Wood
Zed -132
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
de Savoye
Fillion
Gauthier
Goodale
Guimond
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Mercier
Paradis
Phinney
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 8 lost. I
therefore declare Motions No. 15 and 17 lost also.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent in the House to apply the vote just
completed to the following motions: Nos. 32, 24, 25, 39, 66, 28, 30,
36, 41, 44, 45,73, 76.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 25, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 39, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 66, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 28, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 41, which was negatived on
the following division:)
3746
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 45, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 73, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
(The House divided on Motion No. 76, which was negatived on
the following division:)
[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]
Mr. Boudria:Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent in the House to apply the vote just completed, but in
reverse, to Motion No. 67.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 67, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 108)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Althouse
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Wood
Zed -132
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-71
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
de Savoye
Fillion
Gauthier
Goodale
Guimond
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Mercier
Paradis
Phinney
Whelan
3747
(1815)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 67
carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you
would find unanimous consent that those members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, the Liberal members voting yea.
At the same time, might I ask that the same vote be applied in
reverse to Motion No. 84?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the official opposition
will be voting nay on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, yes, we can apply the results in
reverse. Reform Party members present are voting yes unless
instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this
motion and agree to the reversal suggestion.
Mrs. Wayne: I will be voting yea, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 29, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 106)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Williams
Wood
Zed-157
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
3748
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-46
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
de Savoye
Fillion
Gauthier
Goodale
Guimond
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Mercier
Paradis
Phinney
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 29
carried.
(The House divided on Motion No. 84, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 110)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Gagnon (Québec)
Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-46
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Williams
Wood
Zed-157
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
de Savoye
Fillion
Gauthier
Goodale
Guimond
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Mercier
Paradis
Phinney
Whelan
3749
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 84
negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 55. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motion No. 55 agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 69.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that all members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on this motion, with Liberal members
voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral:Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will be voting yea on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present are
pleased to vote yes unless instructed by their constituents to do
otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yes.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, this Conservative in a Liberal red
jacket votes yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 69, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 107)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Canuel
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
Williams-77
NAYS
Members
Adams
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-126
3750
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
de Savoye
Fillion
Gauthier
Goodale
Guimond
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Mercier
Paradis
Phinney
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 69
negatived.
(1820)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would also find
unanimous consent to apply the results of this vote to MotionNo. 85.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 107.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 85 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 77. A vote on Motion No. 77
applies to Motions Nos. 79, 81, 83, 86 and 87.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 77 obviates the necessity of
putting the question on Motions Nos. 84 and 85.
[Translation]
If Motion No. 77 is negatived, we will have to put the question
on Motion No. 84. If Motion No. 84 is agreed to, it will not be
necessary to put the question on Motion No. 85. If Motion No. 84 is
negatived, we will have to put the question on Motion No. 85.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members present
will be voting yes, unless instructed otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yes.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, we vote yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 77, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 109)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Wayne
Williams-36
NAYS
Members
Adams
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
3751
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-167
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Beaumier
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
de Savoye
Fillion
Gauthier
Goodale
Guimond
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Marleau
Mercier
Paradis
Phinney
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 77
defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 79, 81, 83, 86 and 87
defeated.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to apply in reverse the vote of report stage Motion No. 8 to
the motion now before the House.
Let me take this opportunity, in anticipation of that agreement, to
thank my colleagues, the whips in other parties, as well as all hon.
member for facilitating the voting process.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the House give its
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 108.]
* * *
(1825)
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code
(minimum wage), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am very pleased to
present Bill C-35, amending part III of the Canada Labour Code to
increase the federal minimum wage rate.
In the 12 years I have been sitting in the House, I have never
missed an opportunity to stand up for the most vulnerable in our
society. The bill we are studying today goes precisely in this
direction. I will not go as far as to describe it as a revolutionary
measure that will change the life of millions, but it is a
long-awaited amendment, because the federal minimum wage rate
has not been changed for ten years. It is $4 an hour since 1986.
With Bill C-35, our government wanted to kill two birds with
one stone. First, it provides that, as of next July 17, the federal
minimum wage rate will really increase. It also includes a
mechanism ensuring that, from now on, the rate will be
automatically adjusted according to the economic realities of the
various regions of our country. After studying several different
formulas, our government chose to align the federal minimum
wage rate with those established by the provinces and territories.
This dynamic initiative is quite logical, practical and fair.
It is logical, because 98 per cent of the workers that are paid the
minimum wage rate are employed in industries regulated by
provincial or territorial legislation. Every province or territory
regularly adjusts its minimum wage rate to meet regional
requirements. Indeed, the economy and some of the market
conditions
3752
vary from region to region. And so does the minimum wage. Thus,
across Canada, it varies between $4.75 and $7 an hour. If we had
established a federal minimum wage, we would have gone against
this reality.
Our formula is also practical, because it simplifies the process
for keeping these rates up to date. By harmonizing our rate with the
provincial rates, we avoid having to make statutory changes on a
regular basis to reflect change in each of our regions.
Therefore, this initiative reflects our government's commitment
to simplify government processes and reduce red tape wherever
possible. Besides, business people will no longer have to worry
about rate differences between both levels of government. Their
employees will always be sure to get a pay equivalent to that of
their peers.
This is unquestionable proof that the Canadian government is
willing to co-operate with the provinces in order to give taxpayers
good service quickly and at the best possible cost. We have always
said that we should analyze which jurisdiction is in the best
position to deliver a service, and adapt our operating procedures
accordingly.
(1830)
This is what we did in the case of Bill C-3 and this is what we are
doing now with Bill C-35.
I hope my colleagues opposite, and especially members of the
Bloc Quebecois, will recognize that we are serious and consistent
in our approach. We have always said that Canadian federalism was
flexible and dynamic. Here we have further proof that we can
improve our operations without resorting to useless and
unproductive jurisdictional squabbles.
[English]
Bill C-35 clearly reflects the strong commitment of the
government to decentralization and to eliminating duplication and
overlap. This amendment to the Canada Labour Code increases the
federal minimum wages in a new and innovative way by aligning
them with provincial rates based on regional economies. This
clearly demonstrates our strong commitment to work with the
provinces and territories to establish which jurisdiction is in the
best position to deliver a specific service to Canadians.
In this case it is clear we are happy to harmonize our rates with
those of the provinces and territories and to follow their lead in
setting an appropriate increase in the future.
I strongly believe that everybody will gain from this simple and
dynamic initiative. I also believe this new system will be practical,
efficient and reliable.
However, should it be proven otherwise, the federal government
will be ready to intervene to protect the interests of minimum wage
workers. Those workers are generally not unionized and have little
bargaining power with their employers. We retain the power to set
our own federal minimum wages in the event that a province
withdraws this floor or sets it an an unreasonable level.
[Translation]
I can say that Bill C-35 is based on the indisputable principles of
justice and equity. It eliminates any possible discrimination
between workers under federal jurisdiction and those under
provincial or territorial jurisdiction.
It also allows for more balanced and sounder competition
between businesses in any given region because now the
obligations will be the same for everyone.
As far as equity is concerned, I would like my colleagues in the
House to note that the new minimum wage rate will apply to all
employees under federal jurisdiction, whatever their age. You will
remember that in some Canadian provinces rates for young people
and adults still differ. However, in order to be fair to our young
workers, we chose to implement one single rate, that of the adult
workers, to all businesses under federal jurisdiction.
Before the government decided to harmonize the federal
minimum wage with that of the provinces and territories, it did
what it always does: it consulted the major stakeholders.
The provincial governments welcomed the proposal, which will
simplify the procedure and guarantee fair treatment of all workers
in a given region.
On the management side, there were no opposition since the vast
majority of employers under federal jurisdiction are already paying
their employees the equivalent of the minimum wage in force in the
various regions of the country.
The unions supported this measure because it implements the
long awaited increase of the federal minimum wage and it also
provides for automatic adjustments in the future.
All the interested parties recognize that this proposal is
reasonable and that it takes into account the realities of today's
labour market.
(1835)
I must say, that in my work as Minister of Labour, I am
impressed by the spirit of co-operation in our sector. I am delighted
by it, because I am convinced that it is through dialogue and
consultation that we will maintain effective and harmonious labour
relations in Canada.
I think this attitude also reveals that labour and management are
aware of the great challenges we must fact together at the dawn of
3753
the new century. Their sense of responsibility and maturity are the
envy of a number of other industrialized countries.
I therefore set myself the objective of channelling all this
goodwill positively in order to amend our Canada Labour Code and
to adapt it to the new realities of the labour market in Canada. We
are currently working very hard to modernize part I of the Canada
Labour Code, which concerns the labour relations process and
structures in industries under federal jurisdiction.
Already, the members of the task force under Andrew Sims have
agreed on a whole range of recommendations. Rarely have we seen
the process of consultation achieve its objectives so successfully,
and we must congratulate all those who have helped build this
impressive consensus.
One major question, however, remains unanswered: the use of
replacement workers during a legal strike. The members of the
Sims committee have made two different suggestions. Other
options were suggested by different experts, but I wanted to see for
myself the mood of the people.
This is the reason why, during the month of April, I participated
in consultations all over the country. Almost all stakeholders
mentioned the problem of substitute workers and the relevance of a
potential federal act respecting strike breakers. I took good note of
their opinions, recommendations and warnings.
Consultations on Part I being completed, I am determined to go
ahead rapidly. Officials at the bureau of legislation review are
currently preparing the amendments I want to submit very soon to
my colleagues in cabinet and to Parliament.
At the same time, our analysis of Part II of the labour code,
which deals more specifically with health and safety in the
workplace is progressing rapidly. Dozens and dozens of changes
have been proposed and in this case also, an important consensus
has developed. There is consensus on 90 per cent of the changes.
There remain only a few questions for the minister to answer.
Finally, we are starting to study Part III of the Code on labour
standards. This is the part I consider most crucial for the coming
years. Everywhere in the country, a great nervousness and a strong
concern can be felt in the face of the rapid changes occurring in the
workplace.
[English]
This is why the second priority I have chosen as Minister of
Labour is the workplace of the future. The shift from an industrial
society to the information age, globalization, demographic changes
and the imperatives of budgetary control is causing tremendous
worries in society. How we work and how we prepare for our
working lives are changing profoundly and irreversibly.
To begin with, fewer and fewer people are working year round,
nine to five, Monday to Friday, for one employer on common
premises according to established rules. Over the past decade the
number of self-employed Canadians has grown twice as fast as
traditional job opportunities. In Canada more than three quarters of
a million men and women are working out of their homes, and that
number is expected to double in the next five years. Furthermore,
two-thirds of these home based workers are employed by a
company which has its headquarters somewhere else.
(1840 )
At first glance some of these facts appear disturbing. It is true a
large number of workers are resigning themselves to
self-employment, part time jobs and home based jobs because they
have been unable to find traditional work. Sometimes they
accumulate two or three part time jobs.
However thousands of Canadians deliberately choose this type
of work. Usually they do so to more effectively balance family and
work related responsibilities. A growing number of workers are
doing so to improve the quality of their lives or to make better use
of their creativity, expertise and spirit of entrepreneurship.
[Translation]
Obviously, this more individualized and independent approach
to work does not suit all workers. Therefore, in co-operation with
the private sector, we must continue to do everything possible to
create jobs of all kinds.
At the same time, we must seriously look at the challenges to
industrial relations in Canada because of the new trends.
Several questions come to mind: What should be the role of the
government when work becomes more individual than collective?
How do we define the workplace when a considerable number of
employees work at home? How do we better protect transient
workers who do not enjoy a continuous employer-employee
relationship? How can freelancers and contract workers have
access to some kind of social benefits, of security? How do we
prevent abuses on both sides?
These are questions we must answer very quickly. The Sims
report touched on the subject in its last chapter entitled Beyond the
Code. Last year, the Donner report carefully studied the whole
issue of work distribution. Several researchers in the area of
industrial relations are also working on this issue.
This is why I thought it would be appropriate to take a few
minutes during our debate to raise the awareness of my colleagues
regarding these issues and to ask them to take part in the
brainstorming I want to have on the future of work. This is an issue
which has a direct impact on Canadians. It is at the basis of our
ability to adapt to change and compete in a global economy in the
years to come.
3754
In the meantime, I would invite all hon. members to fully
support Bill C-35 before us now. This is a simple piece of
legislation aimed primarily at bringing justice and fairness to those
who are at the bottom of the pay scale. They are entitled to the
dignity of work. They deserve our support and our help. We have
the duty to provide it to them.
I trust you will find there is unanimous consent, once my
colleagues opposite have stated their position, to go into committee
of the whole, proceed with the report stage and third reading and
refer the bill to the Senate.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the request from the Minister of Labour. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is no unanimous
consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. First of all, I want to
say that the official opposition will support Bill C-35.
I just discovered that, in his own way, the Minister of Labour
follows the principles of Mao Zedong because he proposed several
bills in a series that, we know, will culminate in the presentation of
a legislation on replacement workers and the more comprehensive
reform of the labour code that the minister will propose, naturally.
We must not underestimate the impact, the importance of
legislation like this one, because it affects the most vulnerable
people in our society.
(1845)
The minister is right to remind us that the minimum wage
issue-and I will get back to this later on-is all about individuals
who generally share three characteristics. More often than not they
are not protected by a collective agreement. Their jobs are unsure,
often in sectors more sensitive to economic contingencies.
Moreover, very often these jobs are part time.
It is a good thing the government decided to put an end to a
situation that was absurd for two reasons. First of all, the federal
government had not increased the minimum wage since 1986; it
was still at $4. Later on I will show how this $4 rate ties in with the
poverty levels. We had a ridiculous situation where a worker
working for a company under federal jurisdiction was not entitled
to the same wage as other workers in British Columbia,
Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan.
The Minister of Labour, with this bill, is correcting an unfair
situation by ensuring that, in a given province, all workers will be
entitled to the same minimum wage.
I have looked at this bill carefully. I want to point out that we
will reach heaven once we have antiscab legislation and once we
have revised as fully as possible the Canada Labour Code, which is
very complex, with its three parts. I want to let the minister know
that I am deeply interested in these issues. We would be very happy
to work in committee, because the labour market is, as we have
pointed out, about to undergo major changes.
I need only give my family as an example. I believe it is typical
of what is going on in the labour market. My father is almost sixty,
and has had only one career. He made an honest living, but has
always worked for the same employer. I turned 34 in May-I know
I do not look that old-and this is my third career. We know that,
by the year 2000, workers will go through five or six careers, and
that the employer-employee relationship will be considerably
weakened because of the increase in home teleworking.
This means that, as lawmakers, we must look carefully at the
protection we want these workers to enjoy.
The minister has introduced a bill that we will support and that
covers, if I read right, six main points. To start with, the minimum
wage would be harmonized with that in effect in the various
provinces, and that we agree with. That is central to the bill and we
support it.
Let us remember, for the benefit of our audience, perhaps, the
reality of the minimum wage across the country. We have said that
the federal minimum wage has not changed since 1986 and stands
at $4. It Alberta, the minimum wage is $5, but a distinction is made
between workers under l8 and those over 18. This distinction will
be done away with. Unless I am wrong, the minister feared, rightly,
that it would not stand the test of the Canadian charter of rights.
Such distinctions based on age will be tolerated less and less as
time goes on.
British Columbia is the wealthiest province. I do not know
whether you have been to Vancouver lately, but I have and I was
astonished at the meaning of wealth in a province. British
Columbia has the smallest debt. There is a correlation between the
debt of a province and its ability to provide services. I was
surprised to find that in B.C.-to give an example with which I am
familiar-25 medications are made available to people with AIDS.
You will understand, then, that this global wealth index is
reflected in the minimum wage. It will come as a surprise to no one
that the minimum wage in our westernmost province is the highest
at $7 per hour.
Prince Edward Island, which expects to have increased its
minimum wage three times between 1991 and 1997, will reach the
Canadian average of $5.40.
3755
(1850)
The minimum wage in Manitoba is $5.40; in New Brunswick, it
is $5.50; in Nova Scotia, it will be increased from $5.35 to $5.50 in
February.
In Mike Harris' Ontario, where, as you know, the situation is not
always rosy, the minimum wage is $6.85 but we understand that,
with its industrial structure, Ontario may be in a better position
than Quebec to support a slightly higher minimum wage.
Quebec's minimum wage is $6.45, but one might think-I do not
know if the minister has a scoop on that subject, but there is a
rumour going around-it could be increased in the very near future,
thanks to the bread and roses operation. This beautiful operation
came about because of a willingness to link social awareness and
economic awareness.
In Saskatchewan, the minimum wage is $5.35; in
Newfoundland, about which we have talked a lot in the House in
the last few weeks, it is $4.75; in the Northwest Territories, it is $7
and in the Yukon, $6.86.
So, there is a variety of viewpoints that may appear to be
discriminatory toward workers and that cannot be explained. One
cannot explain why there are two rates in effect in the same
province or territory.
So, the minister has done something useful in proposing a bill
aimed at harmonizing the wages that will be in effect on the same
territory.
Second, if Bill C-35 is passed, the general rate will apply
regardless of occupation, status or work experience, which is also
desirable.
Third, there are still people who do piecework and therefore are
not paid by the hour. My understanding of the bill is that the
minister is making provisions so that, where applicable, an
employee will never get less than the minimum wage.
Fourth, as it was said, the minimum wage based on age will not
be permitted any more.
And fifth, the federal government-I had some questions about
that, but the issue will probably be raised in committee of the
whole in a few minutes-retains the authority to clearly set the
minimum wage. The minister has been discreet on that matter, but
he will be able to explain it, if it is indeed the legislator's intent.
This is essentially what the minister is proposing.
I would be doubly satisfied because, as I have said, we agree
with the minister's logic. We are happy to see that the proposed
harmonization really provides an increase in the minimum wage,
given that the federal government was the jurisdiction with the
lowest wage rate. We are happy to see that workers will no longer
be discriminated against because of their age.
Of course, this legislation will affect a limited number of
workers, as the Code protects only 10 per cent of the workforce.
According to department officials, only 2 per cent of those 10 per
cent will be affected. So, while we must recognize that the
legislation has limited scope, it is important for the workers
concerned.
I was pleased to hear the minister saying that, all through his
career, which I followed from a distance, he has always stood up
for the poor in our society. This awareness was apparent when we
discussed the Program for Older Workers Adjustment or issues
related to social legislation. The fact is that we witnessed a
considerable erosion of what the minimum wage represents in
relation to the policies needed to fight poverty.
Let me remind the minister that he should-and perhaps would
like to in the coming days-review the report tabled by the
National Council of Welfare, as I did last night. The report was
tabled in October 1993 and is entitled Incentives and Disincentives
to Work.
(1855)
The National Council of Welfare is an organization which is
affiliated with the Department of Human Resources Development
and which must regularly report on the evolution of poverty levels.
I simply want to tell you about what the 1993 report said:
comparing the reality of the minimum wage in 1976 and in 1992
leads to two findings. In 1976, most people who were paid the
minimum wage had an income above the poverty line. In 1992, in
every province, the minimum wage was below the poverty line.
It goes without saying that this situation is not the exclusive
responsibility of the Minister of Labour, but involves the whole
issue of policy directions. But the fact is that, as we speak, the
minimum wage in effect in every province is below the poverty
line.
This means that, for some people, there is no incentive to work. I
often meet, in my riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, in
Montreal, people who have difficult choices to make. When they
are beneficiaries of income security programs, it is sometimes
more advantageous for them, particularly couples with children, to
remain on these programs than to work. As a society, we have to
have to wonder about this.
I know the Minister of Human Resources Development also has
something to say about that, but the fact is that the minimum wage
is now below the poverty line.
Let us take 1976 as an example. Collectively speaking, 1976 was
a particular year. The minister surely recalls that, in 1976, a very
progressive government came to power in Quebec. It is therefore a
benchmark I like to refer to. In 1976, in Newfoundland, a person
with a salary comparable to the minimum wage had an annual
income of $5,200, an amount which was 5 percent above the
poverty line.
3756
In 1992, the minimum wage in Newfoundland gave an
income of $9,880, which was 74 per cent of the amount needed
to be at the poverty line. As you can see, there has been
significant erosion of what the minimum wage buys for those
who must live with it.
The same thing goes for Prince Edward Island. In 1976, the
minimum wage meant an income of $4,992, which was 3 per cent
above the poverty line; in 1992, this income was $9,880, or 76 per
cent of the amount needed to reach the poverty line. I could give
the numbers for all 10 provinces. This is a fact that the Minister of
Labour, who invites us to ponder, should not forget.
Without underestimating the scope of Bill C-35, of which the
Bloc Quebecois supports both the principle and the
self-explanatory references, it would have been interesting if the
government had introduced a single bill proposing to harmonize
the minimum wage and concrete measures to fight poverty.
Let us never forget that. I hope we shall never discuss social
policy or make reference to the minimum wage without keeping in
mind that, overall, Canadian society is poorer than ever. There are
in Canadian society people who are far from getting richer. Poverty
is reaching classes that until now were believed to be protected
from it.
I would like to remind the House of what the National Council of
Welfare told us in its report last year. It wrote that 4.8 million
children, women and men, that is one Canadian out of six, live in
poverty. Poverty is defined as spending more than 56 per cent of
one's income for basic needs such as clothing, food and housing. A
person who spends more than that for basic needs is poor,
according to the National Council of Welfare.
(1900)
One Canadian out of six, or 16 per cent of the Canadian
population, is in that situation. We have a fairly precise knowledge
of the patterns of poverty. For example, single parent families
headed by females are now significantly poorer. In 1994, the
poverty rate of single mothers aged less than 65 with children
under 18 was 57 per cent.
Now, one Canadian out of six, or 16 per cent of the population,
lives in poverty, but the situation is much worse in certain segments
of our society. We know that 57 per cent of lone-parent families
headed by women with children under 18 years of age live in
poverty. There is something very worrisome about this grim reality.
I appreciate the work done by the National Council of Welfare,
because it showed us some possible ways to eradicate poverty.
Since we have two ministers sitting side by side, two ministers
from Montreal, which is quite something, who are committed to
promoting liberty and equality, I want to take this opportunity to
remind the House that the National Council of Welfare indicated
that, if the Canadian government had invested $15 billion, we
would have been able to eradicate poverty in just one year. Since I
cannot say that to the Reform Party, I have to tell the government
majority.
I am now quoting, for the listening enjoyment of the Minister of
Labour, the National Council of Welfare: ``In spite of the grim
reality, it is not wishful thinking to think we will win the war
against poverty. According to Statistics Canada, to help all the poor
improve their lot would have cost $15 billion in 1994''. This is a
huge amount. Of course, we are not saying this is insignificant, but
it is surely not exaggerated for a country where the federal,
provincial and territorial governments spent some $350 billion in
1994 and where the value of all produced goods and services
exceeded $750 billion. Is this not a reason to be hopeful? Should
this not be the way to go?
It would have been very interesting for the Minister of Labour to
put forward with this legislation a more general one providing job
creation and full employment measures aimed at getting people out
of poverty.
To conclude, I ask for the unanimous consent to refer Bill C-35
to a committee of the whole after the intervention of the Reform
Party.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the terms
of the bill before us are under the guise of giving more powers to
the provinces. If it did that, I would be all for it, but I suppose Bill
C-35 is a small step toward eliminating useless, outdated
regulations. The Canada Labour Code covers less than one million
workers.
In 1986, the last time there was a change to the federal minimum
wage, only one-tenth of one per cent or roughly 7,000 workers
under federal jurisdiction were directly affected. While updated
estimates are not available from department officials, there is a
presumption that little has changed in that length of time.
(1905)
In 1935, Canada ratified the ILO Minimum Wage Fixing
Machinery Convention, 1928, which specified that workers would
be guaranteed a minimum wage in cases where wages were
exceptionally low.
It was 1965 before Canada actually began setting minimum
wage rates. Since the provinces regulate over 99 per cent of
Canadian minimum wage earners, there was not much need for
expediency. Since there have been only sporadic changes in the
rates since 1965, it is evident that the federal minimum wage is not
necessary.
3757
Back in the 1930s an argument may have been made to justify
a minimum wage in some countries to ensure that workers were
not taken advantage of by single industry employers.
There is a general misconception that without a minimum wage
workers would be exploited. Employers want the best workers
available and often compete to hire them. Low wages often show
there is an abundance of workers available, which is just an
example of the supply and demand concept.
The minimum wage, rather than bringing the poverty level up,
has the reverse effect. It encourages exploitation. It protects highly
trained, well paid workers against competition from the young who
lack experience and the unskilled people who require on the job
training.
Unions, whose mandate it is to protect jobs and increase the
wages of its members, support minimum wage rates to protect
themselves from cheaper or trainee labour. Naturally, when asked
to respond to the initiative aligning federal minimum wage rates
with provincial rates, labour groups wanted the federal government
to show leadership by maintaining a single rate that is higher than
the provincial and territorial minimum wages.
Business groups, on the other hand, indicated the change would
have virtually no impact on their operations as the lowest paid
wages were competitive with and generally higher than the
provincial wage rates.
In the last 10 years Canada has entered into international trade
agreements with the U.S. and Mexico which include labour
co-operation. There were also agreements with the provinces to
cover the provisions of these accords.
If a minimum wage is deemed to be necessary to meet
international agreements and conventions, the government could
guarantee the continued existence of a minimum wage by
concluding federal-provincial agreements on minimum wage rates.
This would eliminate the perceived necessity of section 178(2)
which gives the governor in council power to set rates should it
disagree with the rate set by a province or territory.
The Minister of Natural Resources boasted a new spirit of
co-operation between the federal and provincial governments to an
Edmonton group last week. If this spirit of co-operation really
exists, section 178(2) can be deleted. The understanding works out
to ensure that the provinces maintain reasonable minimum wage
standards.
High wages cannot be decreed but must be arrived at through
years of experience in the workplace. In the nineties, advances in
human rights, collective bargaining and consumer awareness make
minimum wages, especially in the federal context, irrelevant.
(1910 )
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.) moved that Bill C-23, an act to establish the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the
House on Bill C-23, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
In 1946 when the Canadian nuclear industry was in its infancy,
Parliament passed the Atomic Energy Control Act which gave the
federal government control over the development, application and
use of nuclear energy. Fifty years later, despite the dramatic
changes in the size and the scope of the nuclear industry, that
legislation has never been significantly revised or updated. Clearly
changes are long overdue, changes that this House can help bring
about today by supporting Bill C-23 at second reading.
I would like to take this opportunity to review the key elements
of this proposed legislation so that hon. members will have a true
appreciation of why Bill C-23 is important for the nuclear industry
and for all Canadians.
I will talk about the paramount importance of worker and public
safety and environment protection and a more modern and
effective regulatory framework that focuses on these goals. I will
talk about reduced overlap and duplication, improved efficiency of
the federation, increased competitiveness and job creation but,
most important, I will demonstrate that Bill C-23 is a bill of good
government.
When the current legislation establishing the federal role in the
nuclear sector came into force, Canadians could only dream about
the benefits of nuclear technology. Today each and every one of us
in this House and each and every one of our constituents has
experienced those benefits firsthand.
Nuclear power now accounts for approximately one-fifth of
Canada's electricity supply. The nuclear sector has brought
tremen-
3758
dous economic benefits to our nation by ensuring a safe and
reliable source of energy, supporting industrial growth and high
technology jobs and contributing to our balance of trade. Nuclear
technology has also brought enormous social benefits. For decades
nuclear isotopes have been crucial for a range of medical uses.
The nuclear industry has grown to the point where it affects the
lives of Canadians in many different ways. Yet the law governing
the industry has not changed significantly since 1946. The focus of
regulation is no longer the security of atomic secrets as it was in the
1940s, but it is now on the health, safety and environmental impact
of using nuclear technologies.
Societies expectations about how and why government should
regulate the nuclear sector have also changed considerably. For 50
years the Atomic Energy Control Board has used its authority
under the current act wisely and effectively. The AECB has been
influential in the development of strong safety cultures at Canada's
nuclear reactors. Its vigilance with regard to safety is one reason
why the safety of Canada's nuclear sector is second to none in the
world.
Nevertheless, the status quo is no longer acceptable to Canadians
or to this government. The current legislation's deficiencies have
been noted by the courts, the media, special interest groups,
committees of this House and Canada's auditor general.
(1915)
Bill C-23 addresses these shortcomings by providing for more
explicit regulation of nuclear activities and by ensuring that the
regulatory body will have the legislated powers needed to fulfil its
responsibilities.
Canada's nuclear regulatory agency will be given a clear
mandate to focus on public concerns about the safety of nuclear
facilities and the environmental impact of nuclear activities in
Canada.
In keeping with this mandate, the AECB will be renamed the
Canadian nuclear safety commission. This name change will help
Canadians better identify with the principal role of the commission
and will eliminate confusion with the Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited or AECL, the crown corporation responsible for the
development and support of Candu nuclear reactors.
The Canadian nuclear safety commission will continue to have
responsibility for nuclear security issues. Bill C-23 will ensure a
firm basis for implementing Canada's nuclear policy and fulfilling
our obligations with respect to the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons. Under the non-proliferation policy, for example, the use
of certain nuclear materials including uranium must be fully
accounted for by Canada's nuclear customers. Bill C-23 clearly
defines the new commission's responsibility for ensuring the
proper accounting of these materials.
Nuclear matters are a federal responsibility. Over the past two
decades this has led to some jurisdictional problems and to some
overlap and duplication in regulations. The federal government has
worked with the provinces to address the issue. For example, the
government recently introduced amendments to the Canada Labour
Code that would allow the government to adopt provincial
legislation governing labour matters including labour relations and
occupational health and safety, and to delegate responsibilities for
administering these laws and regulations back to the provinces.
The proposed nuclear safety and control act includes similar
interdelegation mechanisms that will give the Canadian nuclear
safety commission the authority to enter into agreements with each
province to adopt other relevant provincial standards, codes and
laws that would then apply to nuclear activities. This would
effectively establish a regulatory regime that respects provincial
jurisdiction. The legislation also allows for the responsibility for
administering regulations in these areas to be delegated to the
provinces.
This new power to co-operate with the provinces is expected to
reduce regulatory duplication between federal and provincial
orders of government. In so doing it will help reduce administrative
costs and establish greater certainty for the industry, thereby
increasing the competitiveness of Canada's nuclear sector. This
increased competitiveness will in turn preserve and create high
tech jobs in Canada.
By explicitly referring to health, safety and protection of the
environment, the proposed legislation will clearly match the
commission's mandate to public expectations of its role. The
government is committed to protecting the health and safety of
Canadians and our environment.
The proposed legislation will permit the Canadian nuclear safety
commission to order the clean up of radioactive contamination
when responsibility for the contamination is unclear, under dispute,
or where the polluter refuses to act. Currently the AECB does not
have this power. This is precisely the kind of protection for
Canadians that the auditor general called for in a report to the
House in 1994.
It is also worth noting that the high standard for worker
protection enshrined in Bill C-23 has received significant support
from labour. In fact I have received a letter from the Canadian
Labour Congress urging quick passage of Bill C-23.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources I am pleased to inform the House that Bill C-23 has a
strong environmental focus which is in keeping with the
concerns of all Canadians and with the promise made in the red
book that the Liberal government would lead in protecting
Canada's environment.
3759
(1920)
Bill C-23 will explicitly require that the environmental effects of
a proposed nuclear facility be assessed as part of the commission's
licensing process. However I assure hon. members that the
legislation will not in any way change the process for ensuring that
the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
continue to be met. In addition, Bill C-23 will make it possible to
substitute the commission's hearing process for that of the CEAA.
The proposed legislation also contains many other
characteristics of a modern regulatory system. The power of
federal inspectors will be enshrined in the law. The maximum
penalty for offences will increase dramatically from $10,000 to $1
million.
The new commission will also have the clear authority to order
remedial action where necessary and to require financial
guarantees for decommissioning, thus ensuring that owners meet
high environmental standards.
At the same time the proposed legislation is intended to conform
with the mining reclamation trust provisions of the Income Tax
Act. This means that mining companies could be eligible for
certain tax benefits, if they are required to settle such a trust as a
licence condition.
Bill C-23 authorizes the new commission to charge fees to
recover the costs associated with its regulatory activities. Although
the AECB has collected fees from licensees to recover costs since
1990, its authority to do so is not explicitly legislated.
Bill C-23 proposes that the number of members of the
commission be increased from the current five to seven. The
government believes it is important to have a sufficient number of
commissioners to deal expeditiously with all licensing decisions. It
has become apparent that the current complement of five board
members, only one of whom is full time, is insufficient. We believe
the commission needs members who represent a wide range of
expertise to deal with the broader set of issues now considered by
this regulatory body.
These objectives can be achieved by increasing the number of
positions on the commission. The cost of this increased
representation, which amounts to approximately $100,000 per year,
will be funded from internal reallocations.
Like any other modern regulatory agency, the new commission
needs certain authority to function effectively. Consequently the
commission will be declared a court of record and will have the
authority to conduct formal public hearings, compel witnesses to
appear, take evidence and control its proceedings.
Bill C-23 responds to the calls from many quarters for a modern
law that will reflect the federal government's responsibilities and
powers relating to the regulation of the nuclear industry.
The legislation will enable the federal government to ensure the
nuclear industry continues to operate in a manner that protects the
health and safety of Canadians and their environment.
Bill C-23 is an important step toward avoiding unnecessary
regulatory overlap and duplication between the federal and
provincial orders of government. It will also ensure that federal
regulations are applied in a fair and just manner.
The steps will minimize the cost to the nuclear industry and
allow it to pursue opportunities in an increasingly competitive
world, creating new jobs for Canadians and contributing to the
country's economic growth.
The commission will be better equipped than the current Atomic
Energy Control Board to conduct public hearings and
environmental assessments. It will have clear powers to inspect
nuclear facilities and other premises where licensed activities are
carried out, to enforce federal regulations, to order environmental
clean-ups, and to seek suitable penalties.
Further, the use of additional commissioners will enable the
commission to work in a cost effective manner while ensuring
balanced decision making that fulfils the public interest.
Clearly the proposed legislation represents good government in
action. The legislation acts on commitments outlined in the recent
speech from the throne for sustaining our environment and for
ensuring a modern regulatory regime that will meet the needs of the
21st century.
(1925)
Based on an open and honest discussion of Bill C-23 and its
many merits, I am confident hon. members on both sides of the
House will join me in voting to send the legislation to committee.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the purpose of this bill is to create the new Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission. As my colleague has just pointed out, the old
legislation dates back to 1946, so it can certainly be described as
outmoded.
This commission is primarily a monitoring body, and whenever I
hear monitoring, I wonder who will do this. Will the number of
monitors be increased? What will their qualifications be? What
will this all cost?
The commission's mandate is also to monitor the impact of
nuclear activities on health. This is very important. In my riding I
see people from Russia who have been the victims of nuclear
3760
accidents. They take years to recover. They need fresh air and good
food as well. It is obvious that there can never be too many
protective precautions taken.
The commission will also be responsible for safety, which is all
very well and good. The environment needs more looking after, as
we are told, and I feel that the commission will be better able to
protect our environment. Very often the opposition is criticized for
doing nothing but finding fault, but I think that, when a bill is
worthwhile, that must be acknowledged. The Bloc acknowledges
the definite quality of this bill.
The commission may also set national standards. I believe that it
is important, yet my colleague was saying earlier that ertain powers
can be turned over to the provinces. Here again-alas, too
often-that can lead to quarrelling. I wonder why more powers are
not turned over to the provinces.
The commission will also play a role in implementing policy and
international commitments concerning the non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons. Finally, it has a major role to play in
co-ordinating emergency measures, for instance in the event of a
leak at a nuclear plant.
Where nuclear energy and radioactive emissions are concerned,
it is essential that safety be a government priority. Clearly, the old
Atomic Energy Control Act which, as I have said, dates back to
1946, was essentially focussed on national security.
Today, as everyone knows, there is a far wider use of sources of
radiation. The legislation must, therefore, be brought up to date.
The new bill is an improvement over the old. Still, Quebec has
voiced certain concerns relating to workers in the nuclear industry
who were not covered by either the Canada Labour Code or any
provincial legislation.
This legal vacuum posed certain safety problems, in nuclear
plants for instance. The Act to amend the Canada Labour Code,
passed this March 26, filled the need. It also contains the concept
that a person may not be held responsible for an incident if he or
she has taken all reasonable steps.
(1930)
But here again, we must agree on the meaning of the word
reasonable. Who is going to define it? I do not think we can be half
reasonable. There are however a number of questions to be
answered when we look to the courts of law for an exact definition
of the criteria of the word reasonable. As for the expression
``exercise diligence'', ``diligence'' is a big word, but it must be
clarified in this legislation, in the application of the standards in
effect, to prevent an error occurring.
The Bloc Quebecois would like this to be included in Bill C-23,
as it is in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The Canadian commission would also monitor the use of
instruments with a radioactive component. Hospitals also use
radioactive equipment in certain treatments and diagnoses. The
commission would inspect this equipment and ensure it meets
safety standards. Business does its own inspections and sends
samples to the experts on the commission. Both large and small and
medium size business do so.
The commission claims to charge companies using its
radioactive source services the actual cost of the inspection.
However, certain companies claim that the federal government is
not doing everything in its power and that, very often, it is too
expensive. Therefore, business has a different story.
The big power companies argue that it is the consumers who end
up paying for the ever-increasing fees set by the commission.
We are also in favour of cost recovery so that a balance can be
struck. Annual fee increases would, I feel, be improper. A
commission like this one is sometimes used to generate profits,
even when the fees are said to serve other purposes.
This bill should require the commission to consult with licensees
and consider their views before imposing or raising user fees.
This, of course, is a sensitive issue. Some argue that the safety
benefits are priceless, that safety standards could always be more
rigorous, regardless of the implementation costs. But there is a
limit. Few people feel that a regulation's advantages and
disadvantages should be assessed before it is imposed on
governments, businesses and individuals.
The Bloc Quebecois recognizes the need to act very carefully in
this regard, as well as the risk of giving too much weight to
economic interests compared to the significant safety needs. Let
me give you an example. I was in committee earlier and mention
was made of imposing a tax to register small boats such as pedal
boats. This shows how a government can take advantage of the
people at any time. A supposedly noble motive turns into a money
grab. The initially noble motive becomes perverted.
It is, however, necessary to consider the possibility that the
commission may have the mandate to conduct its own cost-benefit
analysis of the regulations and standards it applies and intends to
apply in the future. This would better protect the interests of
businesses and their customers.
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the many nuclear
disasters that have occurred around the world. It can be said that we
all played sorcerer's apprentice with nuclear energy.
3761
(1935)
In certain respects, we went much too fast. We did not have the
expertise, but we thought it would be the best form of energy in the
world. We are paying the price today.
Man has played sorcerer's apprentice with some extremely
dangerous products. We became involved in the production of
nuclear energy without being able to effectively deal with the
consequences. We became involved in the development and
production of nuclear energy without really knowing all the facts.
We generated tons of nuclear waste without being able to process
them effectively, and that is a tragedy.
Our governments have failed to effectively manage health and
environmental hazards. Our governments also proved to be
incapable of exercising effective control. It is no wonder that, every
time an attempt is made to develop or use new nuclear
technologies, environmental organizations cry out against the idea
and the public itself is wary, and rightly so.
We must not overlook the fact that the nuclear arsenal currently
available worldwide could totally destruct humanity and the public
is perfectly aware of this. I would not take much to blow up the
planet, just one madman, and in this world of ours there is no lack
of madmen.
We all know that there are huge stocks of nuclear weapons,
plutonium and heavy water in Russia, and that our governments are
afraid a black market might develop. Non democratic countries and
terrorist groups could then have access to atomic weapons or
anything they need to build such weapons.
How can we expect those who develop and sell new technologies
to be able to exercise control? In a great many cases, they should
exercise control but do not even have this control they should be
exercising.
It took the federal government 50 years to come to the
realization that this ill-conceived legislation does not adequately
protect the people of Quebec and Canada. How do you expect
nuclear wary people to trust this government and the new
commission after that? Even with the right tools, will the
commission be able to ensure adequate monitoring?
It will also be difficult to restore public confidence. I just cannot
believe that passing this bill will solve all our problems. Prudence
dictates we must give ourselves monitoring standards. In fact I
suspect this government is trying to make us forget about the Prime
Minister's last visit to Russia, when the purchase of nuclear waste
to be processed in Canada was discussed. Members will recall that
there had been an outcry over this decision. And for a very good
reason.
The government could probably have resolved another problem
by dealing with the nuclear energy issue and introducing a bill on
this subject. It is clear from analyzing nuclear energy research and
development investments made in Canada that almost all the
economic benefits in that area go to the same province, and this
province, as you know, is Ontario.
In Quebec, we inherited the unemployment insurance-which I
call and will always call poverty insurance-while Ontario gets
money for research and development. We are still, unfortunately,
the forgotten ones.
Who, in this federation, benefits as much from the federal
government's generosity? Who else in this federation has such an
interest in seeing Atomic Energy of Canada maintained? Who else
in this federation benefits as much from the spinoffs of this
industry? No one else. Ontario is the only one.
Had this government been serious in its approach, it would have
seized the opportunity to look at this issue. The government greatly
favours the development of nuclear energy, but does so only as a
service to the Ontario industry.
(1940)
While amending the current act, the government should make a
formal commitment to better distribute its R and D money between
the provinces, particularly those which receive the least, such as
Quebec.
But the government did just the opposite when it recently
announced the closing of EACL regional offices in Montreal.
Montreal was hit again, not to mention the decision affecting
Varennes and before that, the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute.
I would also have liked to see the government clearly affirm its
will to promote R and D for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. As we
know, nuclear energy can be used for the best and for the worst
purposes. It can be useful and it can kill. It can save lives and it can
eliminate thousands.
The public will only accept atomic energy when it will see its
peaceful applications and its usefulness in everyday life.
It will only accept atomic energy when it will see that the
government gave itself the means to control almost perfectly-I
am tempted to leave out the word almost, but let us keep a margin
for human error-all the risks related to its use and its
development.
Another important problem we should have been able to tackle
openly in considering this bill in the House is the financing of
Atomic Energy of Canada, the financing of CANDU reactors
throughout the world. Financially, Atomic Energy of Canada is just
as much of a bottomless pit as the Hibernia project off
Newfoundland may turn out to be.
Since this agency was created, billions of dollars have been sunk
into it, and the government is only able to sell CANDU reactors by
3762
financing them with money from Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.
If that is not a scandal, what is?
In reality, the sale of CANDU reactors, with their supposedly
safe technology, is nothing more than a clever way of subsidizing
Atomic Energy of Canada. This government would have done
better to overhaul Atomic Energy of Canada's operating methods.
The days when the government could squander taxpayers' money
have long gone, and gone, I hope, forever.
When a government slashes employment insurance,
unemployment insurance, and gets ready to cut pensions and OAS,
when a government attacks the poorest members of society, it
should first clean up its own act.
Yes, Bill C-23 represents a step forward. The Bloc Quebecois
will vote in favour of this bill.
I pointed out a number of things, and some amendments could
probably be made.
I am still critical of the fact that this bill should have been
presented 10, 15 or 20 years ago, and at least at the beginning of
this Legislature. But we we always have to wait. At a certain point,
the government wakes up, but it is always ordinary citizens that get
it started. In other words, this government needs a good push
before it says: ``Oh dear, we have not been careful enough. For 50
years now, safety has been lacking in the nuclear field''. In 1996,
they told themselves it was time to get moving.
This government is like that. The preceding government was no
better. So, listen to the opposition for a bit longer. We are making
some very good suggestions, because we listen more carefully to
our constituents, and our constituents have a lot to tell us. I say that
the average citizen is incredibly wise.
(1945)
When in power, a governement realizes that it is inevitably
drawn away from the people. After three or four years, it realizes
that the people are on one side and it is on the other. At this point in
time, those who represent the people best are, of course, the
opposition parties, and particularly the official opposition because
it does not lean to the far right. When the left has good ideas, they
are well received, when the right has good ideas, they are also well
received. The important thing here is good ideas.
I will conclude by saying that this bill is a good bill and that it is
long overdue. We will follow it closely because a bill in itself is not
much, what counts is the way it is implemented. In that regard, we
will be there to call the government to order if need be.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise tonight to express general support for the changes
included in Bill C-23, the nuclear safety and control act.
In part they reflect the changing background against which this
act was originally written. The main present day concerns involve:
the health and safety of Canadians working in and around
radioactive material from the initial stages of mining right through
to such things as nuclear power stations; medical and educational
purposes; disposal of radioactive waste, both low level and high
level; environmental concerns for all, especially for people living
in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities; the safe disposal of
nuclear waste; and the safe transportation of such hazardous
products.
I express general support for the method of putting this
legislation together. This included reasonably extensive
consultation with the four provinces which use nuclear power or
mine uranium: Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and New
Brunswick.
We understand there are concerns from the Government of
Saskatchewan that Bill C-23 might hamper discussions regarding
regulating the uranium mining and milling industry. There is also
the possibility that Saskatchewan may wish to develop proper
regulations of its own and may wish to license uranium mining and
milling. Apparently the federal government's legal beagle so to
speak has said that Bill C-23 does not interfere except where
federal oversight is needed to maintain the federal role in nuclear
matters.
Reformers approve that regulating is being done on a cost
recovery basis after some consultation took place with the industry
about the fee schedules, with fees being phased in over a fairly
extended period of time since the start of the procedure in 1990. I
believe Canadians would strongly approve that hospitals and
universities should be exempt from such fees.
On the possible objections to Bill C-23, what bothers me the
most is that it has taken 50 years to revamp an act which was
passed in 1946. The government of the day, and whether it is
Liberal or Conservative it never changes, always blames the other
for taking so long to get something done, or for putting an act in
place and the other one has to follow through on it. I remind the
Liberals that probably for 38 years out of the past 50 years their
party was the government so that excuse no longer washes.
I also understand from a departmental briefing that changes to
the Canadian Labour Code are needed regarding employees in
nuclear industries if we do not want to have the federal government
intervening in labour matters which are more properly dealt with
by the provincial governments. This is a concern. I sincerely hope
somebody has ensured that the changes were made. That was
mentioned in a departmental briefing yesterday afternoon. They
also mentioned that an update was needed on that point. I would
appreciate it if the minister or the parliamentary secretary could
confirm that for me.
3763
(1950)
Another concern arises where the federal government possibly
will not do all in its power to eliminate overlap and duplication
with the provinces by delegating responsibility for administration
and inspection. Would there be one environmental assessment
needed for the federal government and the provinces? Another is
provincial inspections for normal health and safety of employees.
The provinces could add radioactivity which would then not
require that a separate federal inspector race around the country
checking on this.
I caution that every effort must be made to protect the safety of
Canadians as cost effectively as possible. Nuclear disasters are a
terrible risk to all of us and we have to have zero tolerance for
serious accidents. We also recognize that uranium has tremendous
potential to supply the energy needs of future generations, once
adequate research has resolved the problems of the safe disposal of
nuclear waste.
We also recognize that uranium mining and milling is a
developing industry which is significant for provinces such as
Saskatchewan. The regulatory process must be kept clear, timely
and based on science rather than politics or fearmongering.
I also wonder about this government when, on a trade mission, it
sells a nuclear reactor to China. Yet there seems to be great concern
in this country, especially from the Reform Party, on human rights
in that country. Where is the government coming from? Is it more
in love with the almighty dollar than it is with human rights? I am
concerned about this.
In conclusion, when I was young I read the story about Rip van
Winkle. I would have to say that after 50 years it is Rip van
Liberals. Something hit them on the head and they woke up to the
fact that they had to make this outdated policy more modern. They
say it may be better late than never and I guess it is better late than
never.
We will support the bill. It is long overdue. I can do nothing but
blame this government for the length of time it has taken.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this bill
is intended to replace the 1946 Atomic Energy Control Act. It is
destined to remedy some of the problems encountered in the
existing act and replace the Atomic Energy Control Board with a
nuclear safety commission as described in Bill C-23.
It seems to me one area of progress is that the new commission
will have the authority to order remedial actions and seek financial
guarantees for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. This is a
very important central theme when it comes to nuclear power. This
is important because in May 1995 the auditor general estimated
that nuclear waste disposal solutions will cost at least $10 billion, I
repeat $10 billion, over the next 70 years. He estimated that the
federal government's share of this cost would be around $850
million minimum, and that this cost could increase if the federal
government had to assume responsibilities for nuclear waste
producers who fail to meet the clean-up and decommissioning
obligations.
(1955)
This bill requires that all reactors and mines produce
decommissioning plans by as early as January 1, 1997 which
include cost estimates for so-called cradle to grave waste
management responsibilities associated with the facility. This is a
very good initiative embodied in the bill.
In a cursory look at the bill itself, the language in clause 24(5)
needs to be strengthened to ensure that licences necessarily contain
a condition that the applicant provide a financial guarantee in a
form and to an extent acceptable to the commission itself.
Every effort must be made to ensure that the real cost of nuclear
power production is absorbed by the producers and consumers. It
must not be externalized, postponed or pushed into the future to be
paid for at some later date by the Canadian public.
At the present time, the decommissioning and nuclear waste
disposal costs at Ontario Hydro are carried as an internal debt. In
other words, as far as I was able to determine, no real dollars are
being set aside for future decommissioning. Perhaps it is being
done on paper, but that is the extent of the provision being made
right now for future generations. When needed, Ontario Hydro
would then borrow the money.
I have been informed by the Minister of Natural Resources that it
is Ontario Hydro's intention to change this practice in the near
future and to begin to set aside real dollars in an external fund. This
is an urgent matter. When the time for decommissioning comes,
one is not certain that the utility will be in a position to borrow the
required funds. Only through setting aside dollars in an external
special fund that is known and visible to the public can the long
term interest of the public be properly served.
In addition to setting aside real funds for decommissioning
reactors, the cradle to grave management of nuclear waste also
requires that an appropriate amount be set aside for that purpose.
Here again the auditor general has warned us of the magnitude of
the nuclear waste problem over the next decades. It seems only
reasonable to say at this stage that the new commission must ensure
the necessary funds be made available.
For example, there are some 130 tonnes of radioactive sand in
Elliot Lake which must be stabilized. By contrast in the United
States, there are only 200 million tonnes of radioactive tailings. By
law there, the tailings must be properly stabilized. Mining
companies have already spent $2 billion to accomplish this. Here in
Canada the mining company in Elliot Lake is talking of posting
3764
some $4 million in the form of a bond to cover the stabilization of
the tailings. You can see the difference in approach, Mr. Speaker.
(2000)
It is hoped the new commission will ensure that in both the
private and the public sectors-I hope the production of nuclear
electricity will be in the public sector-the full cost of nuclear
power will be paid by producers and consumers from start to end,
from production to the final disposition of the spent materials, from
cradle to grave as it is commonly said.
Another aspect of this bill requires attention. Bill C-23, which is
entitled an act to establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
allows for the incorporation of provincial laws in the nuclear safety
and control act and the delegation of administration and
enforcement to the provinces. This legislation could lead to the
devolution of regulatory powers for nuclear energy to the
provinces. With provincial budget cuts of the magnitude that have
been announced, for instance in Ontario, one wonders whether the
delegation of administration and enforcement is desirable and in
the public interest.
Premier Harris and his government have shown a real interest in
deregulation in areas of environmental protection and public
responsibility by government. For instance, the Ontario
government's red tape commission is presently examining
proposals to increase toxic effluents from mines into water bodies.
Second, the omnibus Bill 26 opens up conservation areas for
development. If this were not enough, omnibus Bill 26 shifts the
liability for abandoned mines and tailing sites from the private to
the public sector.
The risks associated with nuclear power are, as we all know, to
be watched. They require direct federal regulatory approaches.
They require a federal presence, a federal responsibility in order to
ensure the safety of Canadians and their environment.
In a cursory review of the bill, I notice that clause 24 needs to be
strengthened. I would say the same for clause 42 which deals with
indemnity and liability under the Nuclear Liability Act, and for
clause 46 which deals with the treatment of contaminated land.
The Nuclear Liability Act must be mentioned in this debate
because it is an act that needs to be revisited. It needs to be
strengthened. The liability in our statutory legislation is too low.
Times, costs, inflation and other factors require that the
government bring this legislation to the House and modify,
increase and modernize the approach that was perhaps adequate
when that legislation was passed a few decades ago but is no longer
adequate now. Therefore I urge the government to bring the
Nuclear Liability Act into this House with the necessary
amendments.
(2005 )
I would like to make two points. First, the nuclear industry is
most likely the most subsidized industry in Canada. It has received,
since its inception, over $5 billion of direct payments. Even now, in
times of austerity, we will find an item in the budget of the
Department of Natural Resources for a direct grant which exceeds
$100 million, maybe in the range of $142 million or $145 million.
Last year it was twice as much. It is an industry that is constantly
being subsidized by the public at large. It is a subsidy that must
come to an end. If everybody has to tighten their belts, from those
who have to go on unemployment insurance to those who receive
pensions, then the subsidies to industry also have to stop.
Second, our dependence on oil and nuclear sources of energy has
to be examined and gradually changed. We need to plan for the
future by shifting our dependence from the non-renewables such as
fossil fuels and our dependence on the renewables as represented
by the rather costly and, at times, dangerous nuclear source of
energy to renewable sources.
However, in order to do that research and development have to
be activated. Emphasis should be shifted from the continuous
support for nuclear and fossil fuels to sources that range from
biomass to solar and other forms of energy that are definitely
within reach if the funds are put into research and development that
are required in order to enhance and accelerate the process of
reaching these potential alternatives that are definitely available to
humanity.
Therefore, I hope this bill represents a temporary measure. It
recognizes our dependence on nuclear power. I call on the
government to ensure that this dependence is not increased, that the
constant subsidization of the nuclear industry is eliminated, that we
ensure that the liability is adequate, and that we move to the
discovery of technologies that will provide Canadians and society
at large with clean and safe sources of energy.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
know the members opposite are keen to hear another speech on Bill
C-23, the nuclear safety act.
As members know, I have a new role within the party and I do
not have a lot to do with this bill, but I did spend several months as
the critic in the natural resource area and did quite a bit of work in
this area. Therefore, I would just like to make a few comments
before the bill passes.
As has been mentioned already by our critic, Reform members
will be supporting this bill, but there are a few things we would like
to see changed. However, this is a good bill and long overdue.
The comments made by the hon. member for Davenport were, by
and large, very accurate and very well taken. His concern with the
3765
decommissioning costs, with the true costs of the creation of
electrical power from nuclear energy being reflected in the cost to
the consumer, is an accurate statement and something that has not
been done. It has created an enormous liability for the federal
government and provincial governments, but specifically for the
federal government as it is on the hook for billions of dollars. That
is an unfortunate and should have been addressed years ago. This
bill starts the process of correcting that but it has been a long time
coming.
(2010 )
We can do a few things to strengthen the bill. It has been
mentioned by several people that the bill has been a long time
coming. The minister promised it a year ago, again last fall and it
finally came in this spring. We are grateful for it after a 50-year
wait. It increases some of the fines and punishments that can be
dished out. The existing punishments are ridiculously low. A
maximum of $10,000 can be charged under the old act, which is a
laughable amount.
The bill deals with the overlap and duplication of arrangements
between provinces and the federal government. However,
Reformers have several concerns about the bill.
First and most important is the treatment of radioactive waste. I
mentioned that the bill has been a long time coming. While we
have been waiting, in the last year or two there have been
developments which are placing the federal government and the
taxpayers on the hook for big bucks. It is going to end up costing a
lot of money.
This has been delayed not only by this government but by
previous Liberal governments that had introduced bills and then let
them die on the Order Paper. It was introduced by the
Conservatives who also let it die. Now finally, hopefully, we can
get through the bill quickly and get royal assent.
In 1994 the Atomic Energy Control Board Secretary General
J.G. McManus said about the old Atomic Energy Control Act:
The deficiencies of the Atomic Energy Control Act have been noted by the
courts, the media, special interest groups and parliamentary committees. They
include the lack of formal powers for AECB inspectors, an inadequate ceiling
on the $10,000 on fines, no stated provision for public hearings, lack of explicit
power to recover the cost of regulation from the users, an inability to hold
polluters financially accountable for their actions or for the AECB to initiate
remedial action and recover the costs-the AECB is handicapped by its
statutory underpinnings which reflect the needs of another age.
This is really a synopsis of the speech by the hon. member for
Davenport and almost a synopsis of mine. However, I should go
through it in just a little more detail for the hon. member opposite.
There are no nuclear reactors in British Columbia. It is not a big
issue and I doubt that it ever will be because I do not think that
there is a chance to get public approval for a nuclear energy plant in
British Columbia. I cannot foresee that day. However, people in
B.C. are very environmentally concerned and this is very high on
their list of concerns. As taxpayers they are also concerned about
the amount of money that may be required to fix this long lasting
nuclear problem.
Nuclear waste is a big problem. To dispose of low level waste in
Ontario is going to cost at least $300 million. That is just an
estimate. If anything goes wrong in the transportation or the
disposal it could be much higher. That is just $300 million to start.
I have been to the high level waste test sites where they are
trying to find ways to dispose of the high level wastes in Pinawa.
To bury this high level waste will cost from $13 billion to $16
billion and that is just an estimate. If track records mean anything it
is likely to be much higher. The problem for everybody across
Canada is that the tab will have to be picked up by the Canadian
taxpayer.
I think members on the other side are trying to make the nuclear
sign with their hands. So I will go on for a bit longer about this
particular cause.
Over the last 20 years if there had been a fund established to look
after the decommissioning costs of the nuclear sites and the wastes
generated, then this would almost be a housekeeping bill. No one
would much care about the details because at least the dollars
would have been looked after. However, there was nothing set up
20 years ago and billions of dollars are going to have to be paid by a
generation that did not benefit from that electrical energy.
(2015)
This is a principle which I would hope the Liberal government
would pay attention to on more issues. The government is now
concerned that the generation which will benefit from this
electrical power should be the one that pays for it. If we translated
that into other government legislation, we would not have a
national debt which is pushing $600 billion.
If the government was concerned about ensuring that the
generation which is benefiting from programs or benefiting from
government largesse was the one paying the bills, who could argue
with that? However, governments have saddled future generations
with excessively high tax rates and problems such as this one which
will cost billions of dollars to correct.
When I talk to high school students about this intergenerational
transfer of wealth and the fact that people in the federal
government have been satisfied to saddle them with these bills,
they are upset. We cannot blame them. They will be paying the
taxes, the pensions, UI premiums and everything else at
excessively high
3766
rates. When I mention to them that there will be another $13 billion
or $15 billion for a nuclear clean-up and that their environmentally
conscious generation will have to pay the bills which their fathers
and grandfathers ran up, they are not impressed. It is not right.
The principle should be that if we create an environmental mess,
we should clean it up. If the government has a problem, it should
pay for it now. It should not ask our children and our children's
children to clean up the mess which is being created now.
Procrastination has created the problems. It is unfair both
financially and environmentally to put off what should have been
done a long time ago.
With respect to the funding of the clean-up, there is no fund in
place. It is a real problem. There are some bookkeeping entries and
yes there is an obligation. However, as the hon. member for
Davenport has pointed out, there is no fund. If it is going to cost
$10 billion or $20 billion to clean up this mess and we ask where
the money will come from, the government will say that it will
come out of general revenue when the time comes. That may be 10
or 20 years from now. If that is not another intergenerational
transfer of wealth I do not know what is.
The government is going to ask somebody to pay for it down the
road. When we think of the clean up of the tailings from mines, the
clean up of some sites such as the Bruce power plant and so on, we
should start setting aside a significant amount of dollars now so
that the current consumers and producers will fund those clean-ups.
Reformers believe that the policy of pay as you go certainly applies
to environmental clean-ups and definitely to the nuclear industry.
In April I received a letter from the Saskatchewan minister of
energy and mines, the hon. Eldon Lautermilch. It was in response
to a letter I had written to him concerning this legislation. He said
that there was concern about overlap and duplication in the
regulation of the uranium mining and milling operations and that
therefore they were disappointed with the limited provisions within
the act to delegate administration to the provinces.
That lack of ability to delegate responsibility is something we
will address in committee with an amendment to try to at least give
the power to delegate. In other words, we will try to reduce the
amount of duplication between the federal and provincial
governments and allow the federal government to delegate to the
provinces on that issue. Saskatchewan would be the major
benefactor of that.
(2020)
We have suggested that the act could be amended to allow for a
clearer division of responsibilities between the federal and
provincial governments in the whole area of the clean up of the
tailings from uranium mines that have now been decommissioned.
There are problems with leaching and with who is responsible for
the clean up. On the one hand it is a provincial resource and on the
other hand it has been regulated by the federal government. We
have to solve the financial mess and the environmental mess that
goes with that.
We have general concerns about the independence of the board
from politicians. We do not want a board that is made up of people
who have been appointed because they have a paid up Liberal card.
We want to make sure that people who are appointed to this board,
a superboard with superpowers, will be qualified and will be the
right people.
We have suggested that board members not be appointed by a
House of Commons standing committee but could be approved or
vetoed by the committee. In other words, let us have people who
have general qualifications. They could come before a committee
and say what they were going to do and why they should have the
job regardless of their political background and we could be
satisfied with their qualifications. That would be an improvement
as well.
We have a small problem with the make up of the board. In 1985
the Nielsen commission said the board was too small and the size
of the board has been increased somewhat. That was a good idea
but it has still been left that just two members have to be full time
members. We think two full time members on this board is not
going to be enough. This board is going to have a lot of powers and
a lot of responsibilities. With the responsibilities the board has
been given under this act, more members will be need.
This new act is going to add legitimacy to this commission. The
confidence Canadians have in the nuclear industry will increase if
they see that the commission has powers and follows through on
some of the problems that the member for Davenport, the auditor
general, the Nielsen report and other reports have consistently
identified for all to see.
To give Ontario credit, hearings on the nuclear industry have
been held from time to time and in times past all these hearings
have been public hearings. But the act does not specify that any
hearings relating to the nuclear industry must be public hearings. It
should be changed so that hearings must be held. Canadians can
then be assured that the process is very open and that nothing is
hidden from them and nothing is being done behind closed doors.
I know the government, given its track record for example on
constitutional issues, would never want to do something behind
closed doors I am sure. Well maybe I am not entirely convinced but
certainly that is an amendment we will be proposing because we
want things out in the open.
In conclusion, we welcome this act. As it goes to committee we
are going to find widespread agreement on the act.
3767
I will put in a little plug for my private member's bill which also
deals with the nuclear industry and the need for liability insurance
in order to protect the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian public.
There is some room for that which is not addressed in this act.
There is a necessity to update the nuclear industry regulation into
the 21st century so that Canadians can have confidence that the
regulation and control of the industry will make it as safe as
possible.
(2025 )
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-25, an act respecting
regulations and other documents, including the review,
registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations
and other documents, and to make consequential and related
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move that Bill C-25, the new regulations act, be approved in
principle.
Let me say how pleased we are to have had the benefit of
prestudy by a subcommittee of the government operations
committee in the last session. Even though the subcommittee's
hearings were interrupted by the prorogation, the input we received
has allowed us to make some slight technical modifications to the
bill that result in an overall improvement without altering the
substance of the bill. We are very much appreciative of the
assistance provided by the government operations subcommittee
and the members of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny
of Regulations who sat on the subcommittee.
Regulatory reform continues to be an area of broad interest to
Canadians. There are many avenues which the government is
pursuing in a way to improve the way it regulates. The new
regulations act offers important improvements to the Canadian
system of regulation established almost a quarter of a century ago
by the Statutory Instruments Act. This act will streamline the
regulatory process and reduce delays in the current process by
which regulations are made at the federal level in Canada. This will
allow regulations to be changed more readily to respond to new
circumstances and needs.
Although these reforms were announced as part of this
government's broader efforts toward building a more innovative
economy and improving jobs and growth, the problems created by
the current regulatory process have been identified many times
during the past few years. Calls for changes have been most
recently heard in the course of the public consultations that took
place during the government wide regulatory review in 1992 and
1993. As well, the reforms aim to modernize and reform the legal
framework for regulation making at the federal level.
The Statutory Instruments Act was designed for an earlier era of
regulation. It is complex, cumbersome, slow and overburdened and
this imposes a real cost to all Canadians. Outdated and
inappropriate regulatory schemes can impact negatively on respect
for law, competitiveness and economic growth as well as upon the
working relations of the regulated private sector and government
regulators.
Outdated regulatory schemes that are not well tailored to
changing circumstances increase the government costs of obtaining
compliance. Delays in modernizing and improving regulatory
schemes reduce the ability of government to respond to new
developments in the fields of health, safety, the environment,
international trade and federal-provincial relations.
(2030 )
The negative impact of a slow and cumbersome regulatory
process is also experienced by Canadian businesses because of
outdated and inappropriate regulations that tend to reduce
competitiveness and economic growth, generally speaking.
The limitations and the delays that are created by the existing
regulation making system result in hidden, but very real, costs to
all Canadians in the form of increased expenditure of revenues
spent in enforcing outdated and inappropriate regulations and
reduced competitiveness in the global marketplace.
No one could seriously dispute that the current regulatory
process must be reformed in order to keep pace with the current
realities of regulation in the 1990s and into the 21st century. Bill
C-25 will improve the regulatory process for the benefit of all
Canadians. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that reform
of the Statutory Instruments Act calls for a careful balancing of
different interests.
3768
In the new act, the objectives of streamlining, simplifying and
expediting the regulation making process are achieved without
compromising equally important goals of ensuring adequate
opportunity for notice, public comment and effective oversight by
Parliament of the creation of binding, subordinate legislation.
It is important, therefore, to emphasize that the reforms being
proposed in the regulations act are largely technical improvements
that would not radically alter the existing process. Rather, they will
clarify existing legal uncertainties that give rise to debate and
delay, simplify steps where appropriate and modernize the process.
I would like to emphasize that the new regulations act will
preserve and strengthen the fundamental principles and objectives
of the Statutory Instruments Act, which provides legal safeguards
necessary in making binding laws such as regulations.
These objectives include ensuring the legality, transparency and
accessibility of regulations and providing a meaningful opportunity
for parliamentary oversight of the executive in the exercise of this
law making power.
The new act will improve the capacity of government to respond
quickly and effectively to public concerns as well as to changing
rapidly for the circumstances of the global economy. It will also
reduce the overall volume of regulations that go through the system
and provide an expedited process, where appropriate, and allow for
a more effective use of incorporation by reference. It will create a
framework for achieving important administrative improvements
in the way government departments handle regulation making as
well.
By facilitating amendment or replacing an outdated regulatory
scheme, regulating departments will be better placed to implement
new ideas about how to regulate more effectively, and at a lower
cost, to all Canadians.
The reforms found in Bill C-25 will create a new regulations act
that will be better tailored to the contemporary regulatory climate.
I would like to briefly outline some of the key elements of
reform that are found in this bill. They are a simpler, more
principled definition of regulation and other plain language
improvements; an appropriate view of different classes of
documents, including an expedited process for documents that do
not require legal review; a revised exemption power that will now
be subject to an express public interest consideration; a
codification and clarification of the law by expressly authorizing
the incorporation by reference of international and other standards
into regulations, subject to an express accessibility requirement; a
modernized process that allows for the creation of an electronic
registry of regulations; and finally, maintenance for government
accountability for regulations through parliamentary scrutiny.
(2035)
The new regulations act will relieve the system of documents
that do not need to be subject to the regulatory process or at least to
the whole process, either because they are not substantive or truly
regulatory in the sense of establishing generally binding rules of
conduct, or because their legality and accessibility are assured in
some other way. This will allow the attention as well as the
resources of the regulatory process and of the Standing Joint
Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations to be focused on the
important legal instruments that warrant that attention.
With respect to the provisions on incorporation by reference, it is
important to understand that they do not create a new regulatory
technique. They merely clarify and codify a legal technique that is
currently being widely used across Canada, and whose legitimacy
has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. This
technique is widely employed in Europe and has been advocated by
the Standards Council of Canada and many international bodies,
including the International Standards Organization in Geneva.
Incorporation of standards into regulations, particularly as they
are amended from time to time, is an important way for
government to promote the goals of international and
intergovernmental harmonization of regulatory standards. Reliance
on the expertise and timeliness of international and interprovincial
standards writing organizations is of significant value in promoting
Canadian competitiveness, particularly in contexts of rapid
technological change. The usefulness of this technique in
promoting Canadian competitiveness was recognized in the 1993
report of the finance subcommittee on regulations and
competitiveness.
I am confident that ministers and cabinet can be relied on to
ensure that incorporation by reference of standards that exist as of a
certain date or as amended from time to time will be employed in
appropriate circumstances and that the bodies creating the
standards are expert and reliable such that Canadians will be
satisfied with the standards that are being adopted.
While these provisions on incorporation by reference simply
reflect the current law and practice, I would like to draw members'
attention to the fact that we are also proposing a significant
improvement over the current practice in that the new regulations
act would create an expressed statutory duty on regulating
departments to ensure that incorporated materials are accessible.
I also want to emphasize that the improvements offered by Bill
C-25 will not be at the cost of the equally important objectives of
the regulatory process, including necessary parliamentary review
of regulations. The new act will not only preserve but strengthen
the role currently played by the Standing Joint Committee for the
Scrutiny of Regulations by providing that all regulations that meet
the new simplified but principled definition of regulations will
stand permanently referred to that committee, together will all
other documents that are required to be registered. The standing
joint committee will be free at any time to call for review and
3769
comment on regulations that incorporate materials, and in so doing
will have access as well to the incorporated material. The structure
of the current Statutory Instruments Act limits the instruments that
are referred to the standing joint committee in a way that the
proposed act will not do.
(2040)
Clear cost savings and environmental benefits will result from
the proposed electronic registry with a reduced reliance on paper.
The registry will also ultimately provide regulated communities,
interest groups and the public generally with quicker and more
direct means of consultation and commentary on proposed
regulatory changes.
We are well aware that not all Canadians are computer literate
yet and that access to laws published in paper form will continue to
be the method of choice for many Canadians. Therefore, I would
like to emphasize that the proposed electronic system is intended to
supplement and not replace the existing system of paper,
publication and access. Regulations will continue to be widely
available in paper format. They will be published in the Canada
Gazette which is accessible through local libraries and by
subscription. Under the act paper copies can also be requested from
the Office of the Clerk of the Privy Council or from the
departments responsible for the regulations.
The regulatory process provided for in the Statutory Instruments
Act is too complex and burdensome to be able to keep pace with the
changing regulatory needs. The overall effect of the reforms
contained in Bill C-25 will be less stress on the existing system by
reducing the number and volume of regulations subject to the
general regulatory process while preserving the important value
embodied in the original scheme.
The result will be a system that is more responsive and efficient,
which will be in a better position to give the federal government a
renewal that modernizes the existing regulatory process and put in
place regulatory schemes that better address the need and the
interests of Canadians, both the general public and the regulated
communities.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is the
first opportunity I have to speak to Bill C-25, entitled Regulations
Act. This bill had been introduced in the House last fall under the
number C-84. Before that, there was the famous Bill C-62, the
Regulatory Efficiency Act. I think the hon. member for
Fundy-Royal remembers it. Bill C-62 died on the Order Paper
and, as he was saying, Bill C-84 was introduced last fall.
I believe the hon. member for Fundy-Royal should remember
the saying that the bird that sings best does not always sing the
longest. He would certainly have heaped less praise on Bill C-84. I
would just like to remind him that I was a member of the
sub-committee he mentioned. That sub-committee convened once
to set up and, a second time, for about half an hour, in the building
facing us, to meet the officials who came to explain the bill to us.
Unfortunately, that meeting was interrupted by the bell calling us
in. We came to vote and, after that, we never heard about the
sub-committee on Bill C-84.
We had made some recommendations to the justice department,
particularly to the solicitor general of Canada. We had told him it
would be worthwhile to examine that bill in committee, before
second reading, because of its effects on the daily lives of
businesses, of citizens, of all Canadians. That committee should
have been made up of members of the Joint Standing Committee on
the Scrutiny of Regulations.
(2045)
As you know a committee was created some 20 years ago,
pursuant to Standing Order 90, I believe, namely the Joint
Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which I co-chair with
Senator Lewis. The main purpose of this committee is to scrutinize
all regulations under federal legislation. The work load of the
committee is staggering. Every year, we must study between 800
and 1,000 statutory instruments. We report to the House and make
recommendations to the department concerned. We have a team of
lawyers working for the committee.
This committee of experts would have been in the best position
to give advice to the House. We know what happened last fall. The
House adjourned for the Christmas recess. In February, the session
was prorogued to the end of February. All the bills which had died
on the Order Paper reappeared on the legislative agenda under a
different number and Bill C-84 became C-25. In spite of these
cosmetic changes, the content of the bill is still the same.
When I told my colleague opposite that sometimes the bird that
sings best does not sing the longest I meant that, if I were him, I
would not have dared to praise this bill and present it to the House
as if it were the best thing since sliced bread. On the contrary, I
believe the member should think twice about it, and I am going to
give him arguments which hopefully will make him change his
mind.
Mr. Speaker, your silence tells me you support my approach.
Silence gives consent, obviously. Through you, I will make my
arguments known to the member for Fundy-Royal. Regulation is
defined as a series of rules established and enforced by the state to
limit or clarify the nature of a society's economic and social
3770
activity. Regulation is made following the adoption of a law. That
is our rule, the one we know now, the one that has always prevailed
in this Parliament.
In practice, most regulations are drafted and adopted by Cabinet.
There are an average of 800 new regulations each year. They deal
with all kinds of things, some very significant, others less
significant, from the diameter of dimes to the fission of the atom.
Regulations are always important and must be consistent with the
spirit and letter of the enabling act. So, in practice, regulations are
proposed by Cabinet and adopted by the governor-in-council.
Regulation has become the most common form of public
intervention. It would be unthinkable to monopolize the House and
its 295 members every time a regulatory change is needed. If the
House was called upon to make these changes, it would soon be
completely paralysed. The regulatory process is something useful
that we all want.
It is governed by the Statutory Instruments Act. The revision
process was initiated in January 1993 when the finance committee
called for a comprehensive review of the regulatory process. Bill
C-25 is the final result of this reform undertaken more than three
years ago.
(2050)
As I said earlier, it is almost identical to its predecessor, Bill
C-84, which was introduced during the first session of this 35th
Parliament. In December 1993, the subcommittee on regulations
and competitiveness of the Standing Committee on Finance of the
House of Commons released its report entitled Regulations and
Competitiveness, in which it included the results of its analysis of
the impact of regulations on competitiveness.
The then Conservative government gave the report a rather good
reception. The Bloc Quebecois does not deny the fact that the
current process can sometimes, and I would go as far as saying
quite often, lead to delays and thus additional costs. So, it was in
everyone's best interest to try to review the regulatory process so
that our corporations which rely on it could benefit from it, by
reducing their production costs or simply their operation costs.
The objectives of the parliamentarians were to develop a
regulatory system that could produce a high quality product while
eliminating all the garbage by improving the drafting,
implementation and evaluation of regulations.
Since several recommendations found in the subcommittee
report support a more comprehensive framework for the regulatory
process and for the role played by the Treasury Board president and
secretariat in that process, the government should have included in
Bill C-25 additional obligations at some other stages of the
regulatory process.
For instance, the government could have racked its brains a bit
more-although that is not its forte-and tried to elaborate some
more on the decision to regulate. It could have asked
parliamentarians or the appropriate authority to hold hearings and
consultations, to develop the regulations and do a cost-benefit
analysis of the regulations.
It could also have defined the powers of the Treasury Board
president and secretariat. Thus the government would have
respected the will of the elected members of the last Parliament and
put into place a more restrictive legislative framework for the civil
servants. Remember this: the legislative framework is the
watchdog of the subdelegation of powers as we see it.
If we let the civil servants do as they want, without any legal
restriction whatsoever, we may after a while find ourselves with
legal monsters, a court overload never ever seen before and
administrative costs a hundred times higher than those we wanted
to avoid in the first place with this defective regulation.
What I understand also is that, since the administration of justice
is a provincial responsibility, the federal government keeps its
money and sees to it that others foot the bill. It legislates on
principles but never on anything more definite. It says: ``The courts
will decide.'' But the provinces are the ones who pay the courts.
They are the ones who pay the judges. That costs a bundle.
What is saved with one hand is spent with the other. The hon.
member for Fundy-Royal did not dwell on that because he is not
known for helping taxpayers or the provinces save money.
As it is, Bill C-25 does not provide any framework for the
regulatory powers of the Treasury Board. Several stages of the
regulatory process, that is, the decision making, the preparation of
the regulation, the consultation of all those concerned and the
cost-benefit analysis, remain the responsibility of the civil servants
pursuant to Bill C-25.
The President of the Treasury Board is under no legal obligation
to develop such directives and the regulatory agencies are under no
legal obligation to respect them. This is swell.
I will take Bill C-25 as is but I will not examine it in detail.
(2055)
I will not do a clause-by-clause review. However, I must admit
there are some good things. First off I said we must try to reduce
costs associated with the regulation process as well as the
repercussions it can have on businesses.
Section 2 of the old Statutory Instruments Act gave an
ambiguous definition of statutory instruments or regulations. It was
confusing. Sooner or later, lawyers from the department or the
3771
private sector take the matter before the courts. Then people
complain about the cost.
Therefore we have grouped under the word ``regulation'' general
implementation texts established under a federal law and creating
unilaterally binding rules of conduct. This is fine, but we must still
take into consideration the way the government sees privatization.
It happens on a regular basis. Airports are privatized. We have
autonomous Crown corporations like Post Canada, Atomic Energy
of Canada, Telesat Canada and numerous other agencies which are
creations of the federal government but still have powers of their
own. Their enabling act empowers them to adopt standards and to
legislate.
These people, companies, interests, are not touched by Bill C-25.
This was a concern for the Standing Committee on scrutiny of
regulations, of which I am a joint-chairman. We received
complaints from people affected by the regulations. We could
easily see there was something wrong. The legislator's intent had
not been respected.
Since their regulation did not stem from a statute of Parliament
but rather from an independent agency, we could not check it or
make recommendations to the House. Bill C-25 does not change
that; the situation will be the same and could even get worse. We
talked, for example, about the corporation created from scratch by
the federal government to provide air navigation services. That
corporation, like others, will be exempt from control under Bill
C-25.
Already Bill C-25 has the pernicious, and I almost said perverse
and secret effect of excluding all parliamentarians from the
decision making process. This is again a new approach, a Liberal
type of neo-federalism whereby management is all done behind
closed doors. They make regulations which, more often than not,
give preference to major contributors to their slush fund.
They can adopt standards that apply only to them, that are
profitable only for them. They can do it secretly, without
publishing the information so the adversaries will not know about
it, so that the Tories will not know that Mr. Bronfman gave to both
the Liberals and the Tories. Nothing is published, all is kept secret
so everything looks fine.
I can see where they are going. They come here and sit down and
say that the past can vouch for the future. It is easy to say that with
a $600 billion debt. It was not the Bloc Quebecois that invented all
those standards. My great-grandchildren will still be paying for
that debt.
They can very well brag and say that if God had not created
them, the world would be coming to an end, but I disagree. It might
be the beginning of a better world, since the debt might not be so
huge.
I listen to the member for Mount Royal- You know, I think I
preferred the great Groulx to Pettigrew.
Mr. Pettigrew: So you prefer that type of approach?
Mr. Lebel: I was referring to the priest.
(2100)
The regulatory process can be very onerous at times, but
democracy has a price. All of us would like everything to be
democratic, but we would rather not pay for that. Unfortunately,
human beings will be human beings, Mr. Speaker. I know from
your silence that you agree. I am sure my remarks are accurate, and
I can assure you I have the best intentions. Even the Prime Minister
would not stand up to contradict me. And the hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel will not do so either, because they know I
am right. These people know that governing a country is important,
and that the implications are enormous. Sometimes, when we make
miserly economies, we run the risk of stalling the economy and
doing more harm than good.
I let the hon. member across throw me off track, but I will now
go on. I was commenting on a few clauses in the bill. The hon.
member for Fundy-Royal has praised incorporation by reference.
It is not that simple. Clause 19 or 20 of the bill, I believe, deals
with incorporation by reference. The hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel will no doubt agree that this procedure
can be interesting when you need to incorporate things like
automobile standards. Instead of putting them in regulations, it is
more simple to say that we accept the standards set in such and
such a book of specifications by General Motors on such and such a
date. That is fine, but incorporation by reference can also have
unwanted consequences.
You will recall an incorporation by reference involving the
number 6803, which states that calculating pension income for
someone who has worked in the U.S. for some years and might be
entitled to a pension requires reference to American Government
Order no. 6803 to determine the amount of pension. Order 6803,
however, may be cost of living indexed, and we who have referred
to it, to an authority outside of Canada, attempt to comply because
we are not the ones to decide, a foreign government is.
It might have been wise to state, and I am in agreement with the
government on this, that when there is incorporation by reference,
this may include a foreign government such as the U.S.
Government. This is not done, however, and so we find ourselves
before the courts, who will tell us that it is unacceptable for a
regulation passed in the United States to be applied by reference to
Canadians.
There will also be another problem. Some will say that the
regulation was adopted in English only in the United States. Does
that not contravene section 133 of Canada's Constitution? This is
going to be another problem. The intent was to lower the standards,
3772
and then we will be forced to increase the number of justices on the
Supreme Court from 9 to 27 overnight.
So you see, in an effort to make savings, we are going to find
ourselves with additional expenditures. Thus, although we start out
with good intentions, when laws are badly written, we end up with
legal monsters of a sort. It does not look like anything. We cannot
make head or tail of it. We do not know what it is. After all, it
probably does not amount to much. This could, however, reward
and benefit friends of the party, who, thanks to vague and
ambiguous documents, could end up getting some kind of norm
applying only to them.
(2105)
One of my constituents, for whom I have the greatest respect,
told me he had heard that the post office in Chambly was for sale. It
could have been. When you do not need a post office any longer,
you sell it. He was interested in bidding for it. So, I called Canada
Post to ask if the post office was for sale. I was told that, no, they
had not decided to sell it. So I ask for an assurance that if ever it is
put up for sale there will be a public call for tenders. They replied:
``Oh, no, Mr. Lebel, we cannot give you that assurance''. If they
wanted to, the post office could even be given away. They are not
under any obligation to follow the regulations of the House of
Commons, to call for tenders, etc. If they want, they can give it
away even if people are willing to pay a good price for that post
office.
The only rule Canada Post Corporation has to abide by is that it
must come before the House of Commons every year to say it is
making profits. As long as there are profits, nobody complains.
That is what I was told and I know these people are acting in good
faith. They will not give the post office away. However, I know that
legally they could do so because they do not come under the control
of the House of Commons.
All we are doing here is giving them some appropriations when
they are in the red. However, we do not ask them anything when
they are making money. In this way, it is always the taxpayer who
pays.
What I just said pertains to incorporation by reference. There is
another aspect to this bill. It also deals with the publication of bills
and regulations. The rules are changed by saying: ``The Governor
in Council may, by regulation, exempt from the application of the
regulatory process a regulation or class of regulations that was
prescribed under- the- Act as exempt from examination,
registration or publication under that Act immediately before its
repeal''. There was none. There were not many, but there were still
a few.
It says a regulation may be published, but also that it may not be
published. No one can be convicted on the basis of the publication
of that regulation, if means had not been taken to make it known
appropriately. But this provision is rather vague. It says that people
should know about a regulation even though it was not published.
They should have realized that; they are smarter than that. There is
no strict rule. That is the bill's greatest flaw.
I said at the beginning of my speech that the hon. member for
Fundy-Royal should not have been so full of praise; I wonder if
he did read the bill.
The Prime Minister is still sitting; he is not rising to his feet
because he knows I am right. He will not rise. The leader of the
opposition agrees with me on this. The hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel will not rise either for the same reason.
As for the Prime Minister, he is not rising because he agrees with
me and will probably send you back to the drawing board since, as
you know, this kind of wording makes it impossible to save money.
Mention is made of defence mechanisms. ``No person may be
convicted of an offence or subjected to a penalty for a
contravention of a regulation''. The hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel, who is responsible for international
affairs, should listen. He should pay attention to clause 11. The
Prime Minister may even step in at this time. Listen to this: ``No
person may be convicted of an offence or subjected to a penalty for
a contravention of a regulation that was not published in
accordance with section 10 on or before the date of the alleged
contravention''.
(2110)
We are reasonable people. We do not want to convict someone
who committed an offence unwittingly, someone who did not
comply with unpublished regulations, regulations hidden in the
minister's office. Fortunately not in the office of the hon. member
for Papineau-Saint-Michel.
However, it says here that this person can be convicted of an
offence if it is proved that, on or before the date of the alleged
contravention, the person had actual notice of the substance of the
regulation or reasonable steps had been taken to bring its substance
to the notice of persons likely to be affected by it.
Again, what constitutes reasonable steps? Whatever seems
reasonable to us invariably seems unreasonable to them. I guess the
opposite is also true: What is reasonable to them can seem
unreasonable to us. How can an agreement be reached then, if not
through a tribunal, which will have the unenviable task of
determining what is reasonable and what is not? I say to the
Minister for International Cooperation that this is what I call poorly
designed legislation. And I know that his department would not go
for this kind of an enactment. He could not show up in Europe with
something like this; they would send him packing, and I know he
can do better than that.
I must tell the minister that we, the humble people living in
Canada, do not find it easy to submit to such legislative
imperatives. It is not easy, especially when we are told that, from
now on, the regulations will be hidden and will be administered in
such a
3773
way that the taxpayer will not even know what is happening. It is
their friends who will benefit. It reminds me of what family
trusts did with $2 billion and was discovered two or three years
after the fact.
In any case, I can tell you that my father did not benefit from
these $2 billion. Look elsewhere, but not in our house.
There is something wrong in all this, and yet it is still going on.
And this is nothing, just think of Bill C-62. I wonder if we are not
having the same problem with Bill C-64, or Bill C-25 as it is now
called, as we did with Bill C-62 regarding the standards of practice,
since what is not prohibited in a statutory instrument is permitted.
So, there was a general outcry. The media were quick to react,
saying that this was not possible, that it was impossible to pass a
measure such as Bill C-62. The minister backed off. He could no
longer go ahead. He was knocked out, if I can put it that way.
I wonder if, with Bill C-84, we are now once again facing the
harmful effects of Bill C-62, but in an even more insidious way.
This would really be dangerous. We would be missing an
opportunity to reduce costs and all that, setting absolutely
unbelievable precedents and leaving the door wide open to
astronomical legal costs to correct these situations through the
courts.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill. We
could not vote in favour of it, despite the fact that initially I
detected some rather interesting ideas in it, but there are too few
good ones as opposed to bad ones.
My mother, who is not as young as she used to be, was very well
brought up. She did not want us to use certain words. One day, I got
a nail through a foot and the wound looked real bad; my mother, not
wanting to call a spade a spade, said that the wound was full of rust
and bad stuff. Well, this is it: your bill is full of rust and bad stuff.
You should amend it and put forward something palatable,
reasonable and transparent. I am sure that this time the Prime
Minister, even at this late hour, will jump up and applaud his
ministers' initiative.
The Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. member concluded his
remarks? Concluded.
The hon. minister wants the floor on a point of order.
Mr. Pettigrew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
(2115)
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the hon. member has finished
his remarks. The minister wishes to raise a point of order, and he
now has the floor first.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, being a new member of Parliament,
I would like some advice. The hon. member opposite has
repeatedly mentioned a member who is not here, suggesting that
he should jump to his feet because of the outlandish statements he
made during his speech. I wonder if this behaviour is
parliamentary.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleague that
the last speaker never mentioned the presence or absence of
another member. If the hon. member is present, then he will no
doubt jump to his feet, but if he is absent, the expression was no
doubt used in a figurative sense. But since nobody mentioned the
presence or absence of that other member, I think this is not a point
of order.
The Deputy Speaker: This is interesting but it is quite obvious
that the hon. member did not say that the member in question is not
here. The hon. member for Joliette is quite right.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, judging by that last little go round you can tell this is a
long, hot summer night. We are so fortunate to be here in the House
discussing Bill C-25, which could only come from the minds of
Liberals. The bill is a very complex piece of legislation. It is
difficult to read, it is difficult to interpret and it is difficult to
discuss. It is typical Liberal legislation.
As a matter of fact the bill could almost be called frightening
from the perspective of the average Canadian. Understanding the
intent of the bill, which is suspect in itself, and based on reading the
text, it is a challenge.
We Reformers are up to challenges from the Liberals when they
bring in complex legislation, thinking that perhaps the average
Canadian whom we represent is not going to understand it. We are
the watchdogs. We are leading the charge for average Canadians.
We attempt to clarify complex bills with which the Liberal
government tries to fool the people.
Despite the complexity of the bill, it is clear that the government
is following a trend which has already been set in other
parliamentary democracies, like Australia. It is hard to believe but
the trend is toward simplification and streamlining of the
regulatory process. That is also hard to believe coming from the
Liberal Party. It is to make the regulatory process more compatible
with the present day needs of commerce, government and the
public.
Goodness knows, if there is one thing the public, commerce and
government need is more simplified regulations. Any chamber of
commerce, any business organization will tell you it costs
Canadian consumers and businesses billions and billions of dollars
a year because ineffective and unnecessary regulations are still on
the books that some government in the past has put in place.
3774
What this country really needs, and what this government
should do, instead of trying to put in complex legislation, is do
a cost test on every regulation we have and find out whether it
is really worthwhile or whether it is just sitting there in a
redundant state. There is no doubt that streamlining and
simplification, in itself, are both desirable and necessary.
However, we found a flaw in this bill and it is a deadly flaw. There
is no provision for disallowance. In other words, the regulatory
committee, the watchdog of the regulations, cannot disallow a
regulation that is unlawful or ultra vires.
(2120)
My colleague, the member for North Vancouver, sits on the
Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. It is a
committee made up of members from the House and from the
Senate. The task of the committee is to examine regulations that
have been made by the government and its departments in order to
determine whether they are legal and consistent with the intent of
the legislation under which they are made.
The vast majority of the regulations that pass through the
committee are entirely in order. They may not be good regulations
but from a legal point they are entirely in order. They generally
require no comment.
A small percentage have to be followed up with the department
involved. Quite often the problem is simply a matter of correcting
minor differences in the meaning between the English and French
versions of the regulations or clarifying the meaning if a
misinterpretation is a possibility.
As I said, under this bill the committee does not have the power
to disallow a regulation which is ultra vires or unlawful. This
power is rarely used, but nevertheless is a very important power for
the committee to retain. I think most Liberals would agree with me
on this. The regulation watchdog must have the ability to enforce
its decisions or those decisions could be rendered meaningless.
Bill C-25 makes the provision for regulations to be referred to
the committee, but contains no provisions for disallowance. This
means that even if the committee found that a regulation was
illegal, it simply could not disallow the regulation.
It is the failure to include a disallowance procedure that makes
Bill C-25 significantly different from the streamlining legislation
passed in Australia. That government had the foresight to put in a
disallowance clause so that the committee could do some
meaningful work and make some meaningful decisions.
My colleague from North Vancouver, in his wisdom and in his
common sense, introduced a private member's bill that would add a
disallowance procedure to Bill C-25.
Everyone in this place knows that the chances of a private
member's bill, no matter how good it is, no matter how much
common sense it contains, no matter how it would help democracy
in this place, no matter how much it would make the lives of
Canadians better, no matter how much it would make the lives of
Canadian business people better, has very little chance of getting
through this House.
The reason sits right across the way. This Liberal government
allows very few private member's bills to proceed. I can talk
personally about that. I knew halfway through this speech I would
get to this private member's bill problem.
My Bill C-201, for example, deals with the sentencing of drunk
drivers who kill. Liberals know it is a bill that the Canadian people
want. They know it is a bill that is long overdue. They know it is a
bill that is going to create a deterrent to people who drink and drive,
and as a result, kill.
(2125 )
A Liberal legal mind is telling me that because of some legal
complication my bill cannot be put through. Despite these legal
minds in the Liberal Party or maybe because of these legal minds in
the Liberal Party, they are unable to understand what the average
Canadian wants.
We have presented thousands and thousands of names on
petitions demanding that Bill C-201 go through, at least to
committee. This Liberal government, through the whip, through
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, has not
allowed any Liberal member who wanted to speak in favour of this
bill to speak. That is shameful, absolutely shameful.
My colleague from North Vancouver introduced a private
member's bill that would add a disallowance procedure to Bill
C-25. Everyone in this place, because of the hard headedness of
this Liberal government-I take that back, soft headedness-
Mr. Solomon: Empty headedness.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will be more kind than my friend
from the NDP, although he is correct.
No matter how much merit it has, the Liberal government will
not let that private member's bill go through. As a result of its
decisions Bill C-278, the private member's bill to have a
disallowance procedure in this legislation, was defeated by that
party.
The real responsibility for the failure to provide a disallowance
procedure lies fairly and squarely with the Minister of Justice. This
is not the only mistake that has made since he came to this House.
The Minister of Justice, despite several requests by our party,
still has not explained why he refuses to incorporate that
disallowance procedure. He has simply not allowed that procedure
to go through, and has given no rationale or explanation.
3775
The Liberal government and the Minister of Justice missed a
tremendous opportunity when they left out the disallowance clause
in this bill. As Reformers, the watchdogs of the Canadian people,
the watchdogs of Canadian business, the watchdogs of all that is
right and just in this country, we say shame on the Liberal
government. We cannot support a bill that has a fatal flaw in it.
This bill has a fatal flaw in it and we will not support it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The deputy whip for the government has
requested the division on the motion be deferred until tomorrow at
the end of Government Orders.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think if you
would ask you would find unanimous consent in the House to
further defer the division until next Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, is there unanimous
consent to defer the division until next Tuesday?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3775
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(2130)
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, in this House, on
May 10, I asked the minister of Transport a question on the federal
government's responsibility with regard to the Quebec bridge.
Again, in his answer, the minister of Transport refused to
acknowledge that the federal government had any responsibility
with regard to repairing the Quebec bridge. Well, his government
changed its mind because last week, on Friday, June 7, during a
meeting at the Quebec Citadel, Canada's Prime Minister and
Quebec's premier entered into an agreement establishing the costs
to be assumed by the various parties: 60 per cent for CN, 30 per
cent for the provincial government and 10 per cent for the federal
government, through its Department of Transport which, until then,
had refused to acknowledge its responsibility.
Let me tell you a short story. This afternoon-it is purely a
coincidence-I asked a question on another subject, the closure of
a CN service shop, and the minister of Transport refused to
acknowledge his responsibility in this area. So, in spite of
everything, I remain optimistic regarding this matter, because of
the minister's flip-flop on the issue of the Quebec bridge.
But this is not the point. Now that the issue has been settled, I
would like to ask the Minister of Transport, or his representative,
what led him to change his answer, which he had given me on
several occasions, including on May 10, and recognize that the
federal government did have responsibility, since it is paying 10
per cent.
I would also like to ask him not to change his mind and to stand
by this good decision regarding repairs to the Quebec bridge, which
is a significant symbol in the Quebec City area. I would like to
know the terms of the agreement, and how long the federal
government's involvement-the 10 per cent previously
mentioned-will last. I would also like to ask the minister if he
recognizes that the federal government can pay immediately or as
soon as possible, because people believe that the repairs only
involve a paint job on the Quebec bridge, when in fact, important
girders have to be replaced. It has been estimated that materials
represent a third of the costs involved.
I would like to ask the minister why could we not use the
services of a company in my own riding, namely Dominion Bridge,
which actually built the bridge and recently acquired the MIL
Davie shipyard. Since the government has given no money to the
MIL Davie shipyard in the last three years, the Transport
Department has a good opportunity to influence CN to have the
work carried out by Dominion Bridge's workers at MIL Davie,
because we know that its president, Mr. Tellier, is a former senior
public servant. They say it is private, but we know that he has spent
his whole life here.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
address the question of the hon. member for Lévis concerning the
government's contribution on the maintenance on the Quebec
3776
bridge. I would think that as a member from Quebec who has in the
past harboured some suspicions about whether or not the federation
actually works, the member would be standing in his place and
congratulating the federal government on its announcement of a
contribution toward the ongoing maintenance of the Quebec
bridge.
As the hon. member is no doubt aware, the Prime Minister and
the premier of Quebec met last week and discussed various issues,
including the Quebec bridge. That very successful meeting is
further proof of the good work this federation can do when
members of the federal cabinet meet with premiers of the
provinces. They can work out some of their differences and do
what is best for the country.
(2135)
It was announced by the Prime Minister that an agreement for a
maintenance program had been made. The hon. member is also no
doubt aware of the framework of the agreement which was outlined
during the press conference held by the Prime Minister and the
premier of Quebec. It has been agreed that $60 million will be
spent over the next 10 years on a maintenance program. Of that
amount CN will contribute 60 per cent, the province of Quebec will
contribute 30 per cent and the federal government will contribute
10 per cent.
We are very happy to see the province of Quebec working with
CN, the owner of the bridge since 1993, to agree upon an
accelerated maintenance program for this important transportation
link for the people of Quebec City and all the people of Quebec. In
addition to the 14 daily train crossings, 25,000 vehicles use that
bridge every day.
Deterioration of the Quebec bridge has resulted from its traffic.
Now there is a tripartite agreement between the federal
government, the government of the province of Quebec-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. The hon. member's time has
expired.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on May 28 on behalf of many Canadians I asked the Prime Minister
to investigate the concentration of ownership in the print media.
The Minister of Industry replied that there are no legal grounds
for intervening on this issue. This is a very puzzling response. If I
take this a step further, the federal government had no legal
grounds to prosecute Canadians for paying for sex with minors in
foreign countries, that is, until it passed legislation on the issue. If
the Liberals have no legislation to assist in their investigation of the
concentration of media ownership, they should pass some.
Freedom of the press is very important as is the public's right to
know. When the newspapers and any other media are not in a
competitive environment the fundamental principles of democracy
are compromised. It is simply wrong that the Liberal government
refuses to correct this situation.
The Bureau of Competition Policy quickly approved the mergers
of these newspaper sales, but the minister knows that the Bureau of
Competition Policy is ineffective. It has no mandate to investigate
concentration of ownership. The bureau does not at this time have
the power to look into the problems of having one individual
owning 53 per cent of all daily newspapers and 42 per cent of the
circulation across the country.
What Canadians need is a Canada newspaper act that would limit
concentration of ownership of Canadian newspapers and encourage
new newspapers to start. This new law would give Canadians more
choice and would ensure more balanced news stories and editorials.
Print journalists play an important role in this country. They
inform Canadians about what is happening in their governments,
their communities and around the world. They also represent and
present opinions. These are basic functions of newspaper
journalists. They also have responsibilities. They have the
responsibility of telling us what is really going on from a balanced
perspective. It is an awesome responsibility that is carried out by
the frontline reporters. They carry out their tremendous
responsibility by interviewing people, researching issues and
investigating stories. I applaud them in their efforts.
This line of work is not without risk. Around the world scores of
journalists have been murdered carrying out their jobs. This is the
price of effective reporting. Reporters strive to bring us the truth
but they cannot do their jobs properly when newspaper budgets are
slashed until one reporter is carrying out the work of three.
In the case of the Regina Leader-Post, there is no longer a full
time reporter dedicated to the agricultural beat. This has happened
in a province where agriculture is the very heart of the economy.
This is not being accountable to the readers; this is only being
accountable to the bottom line of the newspaper's owner, Conrad
Black, who is interested in greater profits only.
Hollinger Inc. controlled by Conrad Black now controls 53 per
cent of the daily newspapers in Canada. It means one individual is
controlling the editorial content of 58 daily newspapers and
dictating the activities of their reporters. As Peter C. Newman
points out in Maclean's magazine: ``There isn't the slightest doubt
that Mr. Black will use his 58 Canadian daily newspapers to
promote his neo-conservative views,'' as he did with the Jerusalem
Post just recently.
3777
It is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that
newspapers are carrying out their responsibilities. When news is
suppressed or censored because of the prejudiced views of one
person, then democracy is threatened. In turn, the federal
government is not serving democracy well when it does nothing.
Doing nothing means the Liberal government agrees with Conrad
Black that the ownership of newspapers in this country should be
concentrated and democracy should be compromised.
Why is this so? Why are the Liberals not acting? Is it because
Conrad Black and the Prime Minister are good friends, as reported
in the June 1 Globe and Mail? Or is it simply because political
contributions have been made to the Liberal Party for ignoring the
concerns of Canadians on this issue? Which is it? Canadians want
to know. Canadians have a right to know.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden, I have some general comments.
First, this government has no authority to freeze or block
commercial transactions, as he suggested. He should also take a
look at the provincial government's jurisdiction. He should be
talking to his counterparts, the NDP government in Saskatchewan,
when dealing with matters that are within the jurisdiction of a
provincial government and not the federal government.
Second, freedom of speech is guaranteed under the charter of
rights and freedoms.
Third, there are fundamental changes under way in methods of
communication. Radio, television and now the Internet provide
excellent vehicles for the exchange of information and opinion.
The enforcement of the Competition Act is entrusted to the
director of investigation and research who is an independent law
enforcement official. The director has a longstanding enforcement
history in the newspaper industry.
In 1974 monopoly charges were laid against K.C. Irving Ltd. In
1980 criminal charges were brought against Southam and Thomson
for market sharing. In 1990 the director challenged the acquisition
by Southam of community newspapers in the Vancouver area
where Southam already owned the two daily newspapers. The
director concluded that the acquisition of two community
newspapers resulted in a substantial lessening of competition in the
advertising markets served by these newspapers. This matter is
currently before the supreme court.
The focus of the director's examination is on the economic effect
a transaction will have on competition in advertising markets. The
director is not mandated to look at social issues such as editorial
diversity. Newspaper advertising markets are local in nature. A
newspaper operating in Vancouver cannot be said to be in
competition for advertisers with a newspaper in Calgary. When
there is only one newspaper in a community its acquisition does not
constitute a lessening of competition but only a change of
ownership.
The director has closely followed developments in this industry
since 1993 when he reviewed Hollinger's initial 19 per cent
investment in Southam. Every subsequent acquisition of
newspapers by Hollinger was reviewed to see whether there was
any overlap between the newspaper being acquired and either a
Hollinger or Southam publication.
With respect to the latest acquisition of Southam shares by
Hollinger, Hollinger and Power Corporation approached the
competition bureau and made representations. The director
reviewed the proposed transaction and concluded that it would not
lessen competition in any newspaper advertising market.
Finally, Hollinger's day to day conduct will continue to be
governed by all the provisions of the Competition Act. Any further
newspaper acquisitions by either Hollinger or Southam will be
reviewed by the director.
Indeed, Mr. Black acknowledged publicly that he would likely
be-
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 9.43 p.m.)