CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 8, 1996
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5203
Bill C-54. Report stage 5204
Motions Nos. 2 to 5 inclusive 5205
Motion No. 1 agreed to. 5210
Motion No. 3 agreed to. 5212
Motion No. 4 agreed to. 5212
Motion No. 5 agreed to. 5212
Motion for concurrence agreed to 5212
(Motion agreed to, bill referred to a committee.) 5215
Bill C-26. Consideration resumed of third reading 5215
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5215
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5219
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5236
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5237
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5237
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5240
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5240
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5240
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5241
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5241
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5242
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5242
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5242
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5242
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5242
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5245
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5245
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5247
Bill C-26. Consideration resumed of motion. 5248
Division on amendment deferred 5248
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed at third reading 5248
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5252
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5254
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5261
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 5261
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 5264
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5264
Bill C-311. Motion for second reading 5269
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 5278
5203
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 8, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition on behalf of constituents from Ontario with
respect to concerned parents across the country who support the
effort to create a national pedophile registry.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets and homes safer for our children. They are opposed to the
current status quo in the screening of pedophiles as they enter our
communities.
The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile
registry will be established in order to better secure the safety of
our children.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have with me over 1,000 pages of petitions, bearing a total of
26,021 names.
Citizens from across Canada are demanding the following of the
government: Whereas incidents of serious personal injury crimes
and sexual offences involving children are becoming more and
more frequent, whereas each incident harms the public, and
whereas there would be fewer such incidents if certain legislative
measures were taken, the petitioners pray and request that
Parliament establish a procedure of public notification of a sex
offender being released and allow such notification to be made
available for viewing at RCMP stations and other government
agencies. They also request a central registry, amendments to the
Criminal Records Act and the Criminal Code.
I hope the solicitor general and Parliament will listen to the plea
of 26,000 more Canadians who are demanding greater protection
from sexual predators.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.
The first petition was prepared by the third quarter French
students of Madam Cadorette's grade 10 class at Cowichan
Secondary School who were inspired by young Craig Kielburger to
gather signatures for the following petition. That children as young
as four years old in the third world are forced into cruel bondage to
work as labourers on sugar and coffee plantations and the garment
industries requiring inexpensive, intensive manual labour.
For that reason the petitioners call on Parliament to voice formal
objections to the United Nations and to enact legislation requiring
all goods coming into Canada to be clearly labelled as not having
used children under the age of 15 in their production.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a second petition which was
gathered by the United Senior Citizens of Ontario Inc. and which is
supported by the New Democrat MPP for Windsor-Riverside, Dave
Cooke. The petition is signed by residents of his constituency and
elsewhere.
The petition notes that the safety of consumers, and senior
citizens in particular, is at risk because brand name drug
manufacturers are attempting to force generic drug manufacturers
to market their equivalent products in a different size, shape and
colour than the brand name medication. Any action which affects
the look of generic drugs could endanger patient safety through
improper use of medicines.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament regulate the
longstanding Canadian practice of marketing generic drugs in a
size, shape and colour which is similar to that of its brand name
equivalent.
5204
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
question No. 53 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 53-Ms. Meredith:
Pursuant to the modification agreement between the Department/Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Stone Ridge Estates Ltd. (British
Columbia) for a 20-year extension on the leasing of lands on the Tzeachten Indian
Reserve #13, what amount was paid by Stone Ridge Estates Ltd. to the
Minister/Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for this
extension?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): The amount paid by Stone Ridge Estates Ltd.
to the Minister/Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, in trust for the band, for the 20-year extension to the
lease is simply the amount of ongoing rents during the extended
term. Ongoing rents are determined by the minister, based on fair
market rent, at the start of each four-year period during the term of
the lease. The rent paid form 1992 to 1996 was $86,400 per year.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to ask the government House leader when I
can expect to receive an answer to my question on the Order Paper
numbered Q-52.
I would like to give the House a little background. The question
was placed on notice on May 16, 1996.
(1010 )
I requested an answer from the government within 45 days. As of
today, 146 days have passed. The answer to this question is about
the destruction of millions of dollars worth of assets by the
government.
The government has established a pattern of not answering
questions within the 45-day time frame. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I
am asking how long you are going to allow this oversight to
continue.
I have had another question on the Order Paper, Q-4, for a very
long period of time. If the government does not provide me with
this information to do my job, I am unable to represent my
constituents in this House. That is the concern.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, it is important that the hon. member not
misrepresent some of the facts. The facts are that the information
he requested is very comprehensive. It requires thousands of
inquiries throughout the country.
In theory the 45 days is a guideline that we try to respect. If
members look at the record, 75 per cent of all answers are returned
before the 45-day period. There are situations with which the hon.
member is more than familiar. He has two of the most
comprehensive questions that have been put on the Order Paper.
Thousands and thousands of person hours and dollars are going
into preparing the information. Perhaps at some other point we
could debate the merits of the system but the hon. member should
not misrepresent the facts about the information he requested.
An inquiry is going out to the RCMP stations throughout the
country asking a very specific question. In order to give a specific
answer, we do not want to mislead anybody with the information
that is coming forward.
_____________________________________________
5204
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-54, an act to
amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There is a ruling.
[Translation]
There are five amending motions on the Order Paper for the
report stage of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign
Extraterritorial Measures Act.
[English]
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate. A vote on
Motion No. 1 applies to Motion No. 2.
Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate but voted on
separately.
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-54, in Clause 7, be amended by adding before line 40, on page 3 the
following:
``7.1 Any judgment given under the law of the United States entitled Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 shall not be recognized
or enforceable in any manner in Canada.''
5205
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, in order to save time, I think you
would find unanimous consent in the House to deem that Motions
Nos. 1 through 5 have been moved and seconded.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-54, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 24, on page 5 with the
following:
``judgment has been satisfied outside Canada, or where a judgment has been
given under the law of the United States entitled Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996,''.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-54, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33, on page 5
with the following:
``recover, under the provisions of section 9 that the Attorney General identifies, any
or all amounts obtained from that party under the judgment, expenses incurred by
that party, or loss or damage suffered by that party.''
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-54, in Clause 7, be amended by
(a) replacing line 4, on page 6 with the following:
``by that person under the judgment,''
(b) replacing line 10, on page 6 with the following:
``judicial and extrajudicial costs, and
(iii) any loss or damages suffered by that party by reason of the enforcement of
the judgment; and''
(c) replacing line 21, on page 6 with the following:
``which the judgment was awarded,''
(d) replacing line 25, on page 6 with the following:
``judicial and extrajudicial costs, and
(iv) such proportion of any loss or damages suffered by that party by reason of
the enforcement of the judgment as the Attorney General may specify.''
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-54, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 7, on page 7 with the
following:
``is rendered, or any person who controls or is a member of a group of persons that
controls, in law''.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak
in support of this legislation and to the amendments that have been
put forward.
The Canadian government has been seized with the actions south
of the border with respect to the reprehensible piece of legislation
put forward, not affectionately know here as the Helms-Burton
legislation.
The Helms-Burton legislation is a piece of work that has come at
the height of the U.S. presidential silly season of U.S. politics. The
Helms-Burton bill defies the recent trend both in the United States
and in most western countries to try to remove those impediments
to free trade in goods and services.
When we speak of the free trade agreement that has been
negotiated between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, the
Helms-Burton bill-it is the strong view of the Government of
Canada and I think of most in this Chamber-is not only
extraterritorial in its application but is contrary to the free trade
agreement that was negotiated between these three sovereign
states.
(1015 )
In order to figure out exactly what Helms-Burton seeks to do and
to figure out the response of the government and the amendments
we are debating today, one has to look back and understand that
there has been an increasingly protectionist move in the right wing
of the U.S. Congress.
We have to recognize that during the period in question when we
see these pieces of legislation which are contrary to the direction
forged over the last number of years, we must recognize that it is
the U.S. presidential election season. In the United States there
some on both the Republican and Democratic sides who will try to
curry favour with Cuban Americans who are very important
electors in some states such as Florida.
Because the president did not veto this piece of legislation, he
allowed this backward looking revisionist piece of legislation to be
put before the U.S. Congress and passed. It seeks to punish
Canadian and other foreign companies that are doing normal
business in Cuba. The Canadian government has followed a foreign
policy with respect to Cuba that is different from the foreign policy
followed by the United States for a number of years. We have done
so because we believe that it is only through a policy of
engagement, of increased trade in goods and services and also
investment that the current regime in Cuba will be replaced by one
that is more respectful of human rights and which would be more
democratic in its orientation.
We have not followed the policy of the United States of
isolationism, whereby it seeks to cripple not only the economy of
Cuba but also to bring undue hardship to its people because the
United States government has an aversion to the political regime
which is in place.
The Canadian government has voiced its concerns about human
rights abuses in Cuba. The Canadian government voiced a strong
objection when the Cuban government shot down a plane a few
months ago which in many respects precipitated this piece of
legislation, the Helms-Burton Bill, being passed by the U.S.
Congress.
5206
The Canadian government is strong in its resolve to continue its
policy of engagement economically with Cuba. We believe that
Canadian businesses and the Canadian government have a role to
play to ensure that the good people of Cuba are not further
disadvantaged by protectionist rhetoric from places like the United
States.
The Helms-Burton legislation seeks to punish Canadian and
foreign companies that are doing business in Cuba. The Canadian
government voiced very strong reaction to this type of legislation
immediately upon its passage. The Prime Minister and other
ministers of crown, the Minister for International Trade, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, have consulted widely with our friends
around the world and with our friends in the European Union and in
Mexico. We have launched a number of initiatives on a variety of
fronts to clearly indicate that we believe that this type of legislation
has no place in a modern trading system. We believe that this
Helms-Burton legislation is a blatant exercise in extraterritoriality
by the United States. Indeed, it is in violation of the responsibilities
and rules of both NAFTA and the world trading organizations.
The bill we have introduced is a measured response. The bill and
the amendments we are debating here today seek to ensure that any
judgments which are rendered in U.S. courts as a result of the
Helms-Burton legislation will not be enforceable in Canada. It
allows for blocking orders to be issued, which is extremely
important so that judgments which are rendered against Canadian
companies and against Canadian property, individuals and
businesses doing business in Cuba, the laws will not be enforceable
in Canada.
It also ensures that under the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures
Act the penalties which can be applied under the U.S. legislation
are equal in measure. This is very important. We do not want to
penalize Canadian companies that may be penalized under the act.
We want to make exactly sure that Canadian companies do not
make choices which may be contrary to their interests and indeed
contrary to international law because of a difference in potential
penalties in the United States jurisdiction and in Canada.
(1020)
Under this legislation we have made sure that we are not going to
play the same games as the Americans have with respect to other
measures such as trying to give ministers of the crown in Canada
the right to block individuals from coming into our country.
We believe that some of the measures that are inherent in the
Helms-Burton legislation go beyond the realm of reason in trying
to stop principals or families of Canadian companies that may be
named according to the U.S. in trafficking in confiscated property.
We believe that is contrary to the rules and regulations under the
NAFTA. We have made sure that in our response we have not
become, as the U.S. has been, contrary to the rules and regulations
under the NAFTA.
The amendments put forward today, the ones we are debating
now, are measures which strengthen the bill. They are measures
that have been discussed with all members of the committee under
the chairmanship of the member for Rosedale, who has done an
expert job in ensuring that this bill gets the type of quick passage
required to give the Canadian government the tools it needs to
defend against the intrusion into our jurisdiction and into our
sovereignty.
Members of the opposition have seen this as a very positive
piece of legislation, one required in order to ensure these incursions
outside of jurisdiction by the United States do not go unanswered
by our government.
I want to commend the members of the committee for not only
ensuring the speedy passage through the committee of this
legislation but also for their support of the amendments which have
been put forward today which vastly strengthen the bill.
It is my hope that at the end of the day, at the end of third reading
after we hear from the chairman of the committee and from
members of the opposition who support the bill, the bill will
received speedy passage at report stage and as well at third reading
so that the Government of Canada has the tools at its disposal that
are required under the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act to
counter the most negative consequences of this piece of legislation,
the Helms-Burton act in the U.S. Congress.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, later
on in my speech I will explain to the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for International Trade why I was so surprised when he
said that the government was producing a measured response. I
would like to elaborate on this aspect later on, because I think the
expression ``measured response'' means one thing to our party and
another thing to theirs.
The government has tabled five minor changes, five minor
amendments to Bill C-54, which was tabled in two stages, seven
months later. My they are quick, those Liberals! The American
government acted seven months ago by imposing extraterritorial
measures, and now, seven months later, we are discussing an
amendment before we adopt our own legislation.
The five amendments proposed by the Liberal Party are minor
amendments, and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Trade pointed out earlier, the Bloc Quebecois will
support those amendments as, I assume, will our Reform Party
colleagues.
5207
However, since these five amendments have been divided in two
blocks, the first two amendments made us wonder about this direct
reference to the Helms-Burton act, or should I say its formal name,
in Bill C-54.
Had the government given this more thought or taken a more
practical approach, had it said the following in amendments 1 and
2: ``bills extraterritorial in nature, pursuant to schedule 1'', as it
appears in the bill, there would have been no need to open Bill C-54
if in the future-and we should adopt legislation with the future in
mind-other countries implement extraterritorial measures.
(1025)
By introducing these first two amendments to Bill C-54, the
Liberal Party is, as it were, painting itself into a corner. In other
words, if there is more legislation of this kind, we will have to
come back to the House, reopen Bill C-54, which will be law by
that time, to add these extraterritorial bills to the schedule and
amend these two amendments.
We tried to influence the Liberal Party somewhat by making this
suggestion. We got these amendments, be it somewhat late. We in
the Bloc Quebecois understand that it is very important to protect
Quebec and Canadian businesses. That is why we will go along
with the case by case approach, as described, and we will
agree-let us hope it will not be necessary-to reopen the act if we
are faced with further extraterritorial bills.
I repeat, the amendments tabled by the government are really
technical amendments. That is why we cannot object, but we
cannot improve on them, because these amendments are intended
to make Bill C-54 refer specifically to the Helms-Burton act. They
said it was a mirror of the Helms-Burton bill.
The changes proposed in the amendments do not alter the
substance of the bill, but rather help clarify it. Anyway, as I said in
my first speech on Bill C-54, at second reading, we will vote for the
bill since its thrust is to protect Canadian and Quebec companies
doing business in Cuba.
However, as I said before, we are wondering why the Canadian
government has waited seven month to take action. We know that
first it trails behind the US foreign policy, second there is the
American presidential campaign, and third international foreign
policy.
Just when, to all intents and purposes, dangers have disappeared
from the political map, the Canadian government says: ``the
American president has decided to postpone the implementation of
title III of the Helms-Burton act, which could penalize Canadian
and Quebec companies; since it does not cause too much harm, we
might consider doing something about it''. This is the kind of
rigour, or vigour, the Minister of International Trade and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs are showing here.
However, even with the five amendments introduced this
morning by the government, title IV, under which relatives or
descendants of employees of Canadian or Quebec firms may be
banned from entering the United States-as is currently the case of
the Sherritt corporation-is still in force.
There is no mention of title IV in these amendments. Earlier, the
parliamentary secretary said that we did not want to do like the
Americans who, under the Helms-Burton act, are trying rather
clumsily to block Canadians doing business in Cuba from entering
their country. We do not want to do the same thing.
Then why did the government call Bill C-54 a mirror image of
the Helms-Burton act if it does not want to do the same thing? The
parliamentary secretary said: ``As much as possible, we
oppose-''. I will respectfully mention that, talking about what is
possible, his government and himself could have appealed to a
NAFTA panel since July.
Everybody agrees, the Helms-Burton act contravenes NAFTA.
Everyone is now in agreement with that. Since July, the Liberal
government could have appealed to a panel to have the
Helms-Burton act declared invalid. The Canadian government
knows that, since Bill C-54 cannot be amended to defeat title IV,
the only way to do that is to ask a panel to declare the Hems-Burton
law invalid.
(1030)
The Canadian government has had this bargaining chip in its
hands since July. It is clear it will not use it before the next
elections in the United States. Meanwhile, we see what is
happening to Canadian companies like Sherritt and others. Are we
going to wait for other business managers, and even their families,
to be denied entry in the United States before we contravene title
IV?
In conclusion, we will support these five amendments to Bill
C-54 because we want to protect Canadian companies and Quebec
companies doing business in Cuba. However, we also want to
reiterate, to restate our dissatisfaction with the federal government,
which acted first too late and then, too quickly.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party will be supporting these five amendments which are
of a technical nature to bolster Bill C-54, commonly known as the
blocking legislation for Helms-Burton.
It is clear that the United States has a dispute with Cuba that
needs to be resolved. However, it is a dispute that should not be
taken outside of the United States.
The question here is whether the United States has the ability or
the right to apply its law outside of its country. I submit it clearly
does not. It is in contravention of NAFTA and Canada should have
moved this dispute to a NAFTA panel long ago.
5208
My colleague from the Bloc has said that Canada has been
sitting on this problem since July, and I support that view. We have
fought long and hard to have a dispute mechanism set up to settle
these kinds of problems both at NAFTA and at GATT. We now
have the World Trade Organization, and Canada seems to be afraid
to take these matters to final resolution at these international
bodies.
What is the use of having negotiated agreements through a long
period of time to settle problems of this nature if we never use
them?
The parliamentary secretary pointed out that this was an election
year in the United States and sometimes during an election year
things get a little strange down there in terms of foreign of policy. I
support that view, but I do submit that the democratic president of
the United States did sign the Helms-Burton bill. This is not a bill
that just came out of the Republicans. The president did give a bit
of an exemption to Canada for a period of time, but the meter is
still ticking.
The Canadian companies involved still have liabilities accruing
and I believe that C-54 does not address a couple of issues. It does
not address the issue of liabilities that are continuing to accrue. It
does not address the issue of blocking Canadian executives and
their families of companies that are affected from entering the
United States. Therefore I see Bill C-54 as a half measure, one that
needs to be taken, but we should have taken this to a dispute panel
at NAFTA long ago.
I believe there is a disturbing trend coming out of this Liberal
government. We saw it back in 1994 when we had a dispute with
the United States over durum wheat where Canada accepted export
caps. Is that in the spirit of free trade? I submit it is not.
Clearly Canada and the United States agreed under the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement that there should be no
restriction on trade between the two countries, there should be a
phase down of tariffs and that the whole idea was to try to establish
a market economy based on the ability of producers to have some
regional advantage possibly.
However, what we have is a government that seems to be willing
to cave in to the United States every time we have a dispute. This is
just one more example of it. We saw it in the Canada-U.S. wheat
dispute in 1994. We saw it again in the softwood lumber dispute
where Canada has decided to impose restrictive quotas on
ourselves which is very cumbersome to put in place and to
administer. In fact, the whole process has been delayed another
month because they cannot agree on how provincial allocations
should be set out and we have not even arrived at the allocations
that go to individual companies yet.
(1035 )
Now we have a dispute over a situation in which the United
States is trying to apply its law outside of its own country which is
clearly in contravention of a NAFTA deal that we have signed, and
this government continues to use a process of stalling. If we had
taken this issue to a NAFTA panel it probably would have been
resolved by now. I believe the panel would have found in favour of
Canada.
We support the amendments which strengthen Bill C-54. They
are of a technical nature. The bill will be of some help to Canadian
companies but clearly this dispute should be resolved on the basis
of the international agreement between Canada, the United States
and Mexico.
We will be supporting this bill, but this government must start to
show some backbone in responding to the United States. With
regard to trade policy the United States tends to act like a bit of a
bully. If we do not respond with corresponding strength I do not
think the Americans will respect us. We must show them we have
some strength and are willing to stand up to them in this type of
dispute.
Therefore we will be supporting these amendments at report
stage, but we must move far beyond this, show some strength and
challenge countries like the United States when they try to apply
their laws outside their own countries.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the report stage
debate of Bill C-54. This gives members of the Canadian
Parliament who speak on behalf of the people of Canada a clear
opportunity to send a very strong message, a strong message to
American politicians, to the American people. It is also a message
of solidarity to the people of Cuba. I support the principle of this
bill and I support the amendments which strengthen the bill.
It is important to look at the context of this legislation. It is very
clear what is happening in the United States. A small group of
powerful and influential legislators led by Senator Jesse Helms and
Representative Dan Burton are pandering to what I have called the
Miami mafia, the Mas Canosas, the Cuban-American Foundation.
In doing so they are not only in breach of international law but they
are promoting policies which I believe are profoundly immoral and
repugnant in a civilized society.
This is an opportunity for the Parliament of Canada not only to
condemn the Helms-Burton law, a law which is clearly in breach of
international law with respect to the application of extraterritorial
measures to foreign countries, but I think this Parliament should go
further. This Parliament should also clearly and unequivocally
condemn the longstanding American blockade of Cuba.
I am a member of the Canada-Cuba Parliamentary Friendship
Association, an all-party grouping of members of this House and
the other place. We have attempted to promote dialogue and
5209
understanding between the people of Canada and the people of
Cuba. The member for Bourassa and the member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore are active members of that group as well.
We had the opportunity to visit Cuba to meet with
representatives of that government and to meet with President
Fidel Castro. We also met with ordinary Cuban citizens. Earlier this
year we hosted a visiting delegation from Cuba which was led by
the minister of education, Luis Gomes.
It was very clear to all members of the parliamentary friendship
group that the people of Cuba at this very difficult time are
struggling against terrible odds. This blockade, this illegal,
immoral blockade which has been condemned in ever increasing
numbers at the United Nations, must be strongly condemned by our
own government and by this Parliament.
(1040 )
The people of Cuba and the Government of Cuba are challenging
the wave of right wing orthodoxy, the neo-conservative wave that
has taken hold in too many parts of the world. What they are saying
is that an economy should serve human needs, an economy should
not just be there to serve the interests of the corporate elite to
maximize profits. The Government of Cuba and the people of Cuba
have had great success despite terrible odds when we look at the
socioeconomic indicators: one of the lowest rates of infant
mortality in Latin American, one of the highest rates of literacy.
The rate of child poverty is far lower than anywhere else. This is
despite the terrible difficulties faced by Cuba following the
collapse of the former Soviet Union.
I would note that when one looks at the conditions in eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union with the advent of unbridled
capitalism, when one looks at the corruption, at the growing gap
between rich and poor, at the poverty among young people and
seniors, I certainly understand why the people of Cuba and the
Government of Cuba have said they reject that model, they believe
in an economic model, a model of socialism based on Cuban needs
and the unique aspirations and conditions of the people of Cuba.
That is what really angers the American political establishment.
Yes, there are concerns about human rights in Cuba. The United
Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights has visited Cuba
and has reported. Those concerns are real and I know they must be
addressed. However, I suggest that the approach of the American
government in lecturing the people of Cuba, lecturing the
Government of Cuba on human rights violations is in fact steeped
in hypocrisy.
This same government that lectures the people of Cuba on
human rights violations of course was and is silent on massive
human rights violations in other parts of the world, the genocidal
policies of Indonesia in East Timor, massive human rights
violations elsewhere in Latin America. Not only were the
Americans silent on the death squads in El Salvador, the brutal
bloodshed in Guatemala and the blood thirsty junta in Chile, but the
CIA was actively involved in those countries. The Americans have
no business lecturing other countries on human rights.
What about basic economic, social and cultural rights? Look at
the growing gap between rich and poor, between powerful and
powerless in the United States itself. What about democracy and
free elections? Look what it costs to run as a candidate; millions
and millions of dollars in that great bastion of democracy in the
United States of America.
The tragic irony of the U.S. blockade is that it even hurts the
American people. I visited a biomedical technology centre, and
Cuba is one of the leading countries in the world on biomedical
technology. It was pointed out to me that one of the drugs produced
in Cuba for dealing with trauma, cardiac arrest and so on, which
can save lives by taking precious moments off the response time, a
drug called streptokinase, is not available to the people of the
United States because of this blockade. It is madness.
I want to take this opportunity during this debate as well to pay
tribute to the many Canadian individuals and organizations
working in solidarity with the people of Cuba at this very difficult
time, the groups helping to ship medical supplies, computers and
other badly needed supplies.
(1045 )
There are various solidarity groups in the labour movement.
Brigadista groups are travelling to Cuba and other groups are
working closely with the people of Cuba at this time.
I want to encourage Canadian businesses to invest in Cuba.
Congratulations to Sherritt Gordon which is standing up to this
legislative thuggery by the United States Congress. It has recently
convened a directors meeting in Havana.
I encourage Canadians to seriously consider spending their
winter holiday in Cuba rather than in Florida. That would be a
tangible expression of our support. It is a beautiful country.
I support this bill. I urge the people of Canada and the
Government of Canada to support the people of Cuba by speaking
out strongly against that repugnant piece of legislation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question!
5210
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried.
Consequently, Motion No. 2 is also carried by virtue of my ruling
this morning.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to speak on the second group of amendments to the
anti-Helms-Burton legislation which was introduced in the House
today.
Before turning to some of the technical purposes behind these
amendments I would like to add to some of the comments which
my colleagues in the House have made, particularly the hon.
member for Terrebonne, the hon. member for Peace River and the
hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway. All of them have indicated
that they are in agreement with the principles espoused in the bill
and with the purposes of the amendments.
The hon. member for Terrebonne expressed some reservations in
respect of the timing of the amendments. The hon. member for
Peace River felt that we should be more aggressively pursuing
action against the Americans. Perhaps he is getting the tanks in
Peace River ready to drive down the highway toward the U.S.
border. His grain trucks will be surrounded by mounted patrols. We
will see what we can do in that respect.
I would like to remind members of the House about the principle
reasons for which the bill was introduced and then turn to the
amendments.
The hon. member for Peace River put it well when he said that
we are entering into a period when we have to recognize that while
we live in a world of free trade rhetoric, in fact, there are constant
threats against the free trade regime of which the United States
government purports to be the greatest proponent. The United
States while talking free trade has long been an active user of other
non-free trade vehicles.
The U.S. uses unilateralism, as it does in section 301 of the
Trade and Tariff Act. It says to countries: ``If you do not do it our
way we are going to hit you with trade sanctions, even if it may be
contrary to our international legal obligations''. It does it
particularly offensively when it uses extraterritorial measures as a
way of trying to bring other countries to heel.
This is an old problem. We lived through this in the 1950s when
Ford Motor Company was told under the U.S. export control laws
that it could not export trucks to Red China from Canada, even
though it was a Canadian company doing business in China.
Canadian workers suffered and Canadian jobs were lost, but the
U.S. made Canada do that because it was part of its foreign policy.
Similarly, anti-trust laws were applied in an extraterritorial
manner to enforce American anti-trust laws which, however
laudable they might be in their own way, when they are enforced in
another country contrary to the espoused political purposes of that
country are unacceptable.
As a result, in the last Parliament the Foreign Extraterritorial
Measures Act was introduced and adopted by the House. It follows
the model of British legislation and French legislation which has
both blocking provisions in it and an opportunity to claw back
excessive damages which have been awarded by United States
courts. That is another unfortunate aspect of the American legal
system. That legal system is such that it allows what are called
treble damages claims.
(1050 )
This is the threat of Helms-Burton if we want to get into the legal
nicety of it. The problem that Helms-Burton and much of this
American legislation when it is applied extraterritorially represents
is that a Canadian, a non-United States citizen, is threatened with a
legal action in which $5 million in damages is claimed, multiplied
by three, which is $15 million.
These are used as interim measures to drag people into the U.S.
courts or ultimately to achieve what has been achieved to some
extent by this Helms-Burton legislation, a chilling effect. It says to
people that if they have assets in the United States, if they carry on
business in the United States, the Americans are going to make it so
expensive for them that it is not going to be worth their while to go
to Cuba. It is not going to be worth their while to go to Libya. It is
not going to be worth their while to go anywhere the Americans do
not approve of. That is where we have problems with the
Helms-Burton legislation.
We have problems with it because it has been applied in a way
that is totally contrary to public international law. It gives a cause
of action for expropriation not to people like the Americans who
had property in Cuba at the time it was taken. That might be
acceptable. But it gives it to people who were Cubans at the time.
These actions will not be started by people whose property was
expropriated. It will be started by their families, their
grandchildren.
We sympathize with people whose property was taken. We do
not believe that in public international law property should be
taken, but it is very clear there have to be rules in public
international law which set out the parameters under which actions
of this nature can be undertaken. That is where Helms-Burton goes
beyond and gives a cause of action for the political reasons the
member for Burnaby-Kingsway alluded to in his speech to people
who in normal situations would not have it. As such it is extremely
troubling to international trading arrangements.
5211
I have pointed out to my American colleagues what is going
to happen if Canada decides to do the same thing for example with
Ukraine. There are one million Ukrainians in this country. Why
not give a cause of action about all the property that was taken
in Ukraine? How would we ever be able to do business with
Ukraine if we adopted that type of approach?
What will happen to the United States of America when China
says to the United States of America that it is going to adopt
Helms-Burton type legislation in respect of Taiwan? What will be
the principled response of the United States of America when the
Chinese government with all its force says to the Americans: ``If
you carry on business in Taiwan, you will not be able to carry on
business here. We will do the same to you for the same legal
reasons that you say you are using for Helms-Burton''. What will
be the response?
The Americans will have no response and that is why
fundamentally the bill is not really in the interests of the United
States of America. It is not in the interests of anyone who believes
in an open trading system because if other countries choose to
adopt similar measures, we will soon have created a world in which
no business, no capital and no labour will be able to move around
the walls that have been created by these treble damages actions.
The response we have in Bill C-54 is a principled response to
that problem. It blocks American attempts to enforce the judgment
here. It gives a clawback which we are not talking about in
connection with these amendments. It also increases fines against
companies which carry on American policy decisions out of this
country instead of Canadian policy decisions.
We believe that an open trading system with Cuba is the best way
to advance the cause of liberty in that country, the cause of human
rights in that country, the cause of justice in that country. We have
pursued those goals consistently and we will continue to pursue
them. It is not something we are doing on behalf of Mr. Castro or
some regime in Cuba.
This bill ensures an open trading system. We believe if properly
applied it will ensure that we have open doors, that we will have
cultural exchanges to enable the Cuban people to see the benefits of
democracy, the benefits of an open system. That is the way in
which we will achieve change in that country. We have applied that
principle consistently in other countries, for example, Vietnam and
China. There is no logical reason why the same approach cannot be
applied in respect of Cuba.
The second group of amendments which I am presently
addressing are basically of a technical nature. They address
problems which relate to the fact that we have had to specifically
make Helms-Burton unenforceable in Canada. I appreciate the
acceptance of the amendments by the opposition parties. I
appreciate their comments that these came forward after the bill
had been introduced in our committee. The members were there
when we discussed it.
It was felt on mature reflection that we had to address a specific
problem. The problem is if we in Canada are threatened with a
treble damages lawsuit in the United States, it is all very well to
say: ``When that is over, we will get an order from the Minister of
Justice to block the application of that order in Canada and we will
be safe in Canada''. But our lawyers are going to ask us how we
know we will get that order from the Minister of Justice, how do we
know we will not be dragged into that American lawsuit.
(1055)
The lawyers will probably say that we will have to go to the
United States and defend ourselves. We will probably have to
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions of
dollars, in these large, complicated United States lawsuits to
defend against a claim which is unmeritorious and should be totally
unenforceable in this country.
For greater certainty, the government has introduced a provision
which says that right here and now, no judgment under
Helms-Burton will be enforced in this country. This is a clear
marker to enable Canadians doing business in this country to know
that they do not have to participate in a U.S. lawsuit.
In my view, this and the other amendments which we are
presently discussing on the same issue, are clearly a way in which
we enable our citizens and others carrying on business here to
know they will not have to participate in that expensive litigation
game the Americans like to play. They will not have to worry about
a treble damages lawsuit.
I will finish by making just one comment.
[Translation]
To conclude, I will make comment on the statements made by
my colleague from Terrebonne. He said we have been waiting for
seven months.
Mr. Speaker, you know, and members of this House know very
well that international negotiations with the Americans are tricky
and difficult. We acted very responsibly by waiting to see what the
President of the United States was going to do, since he had a veto
on this law.
As soon as it became apparent that the President would not
exercise his veto authority on this law, we took action. We took
action as soon as possible. We introduced this bill to the House at
the opening of this session. We could have acted more rapidly, but I
think we could not have acted reasonably to protect Quebecers and
Canadians on the international trade issue.
5212
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion No. 3 agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 carried.
Motion No. 4 agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motion No. 5 agreed to.
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Justice) moved that
the bill as amended be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
* * *
On the Order: Government Orders:
September 19, 1996:-The Minister of Transport-Second reading and reference
to the Standing Committee on Transport of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada
Shipping Act (maritime liability).
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability) be
referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin debate on the
bill, an act respecting ship owners liability for maritime claims in
general and for oil pollution damage in particular.
(1100 )
The purpose of this act is to modernize Canadian legislation
concerning the limitation of liability of maritime claims, which are
set out in part IX of the Canada Shipping Act and with liability and
compensation for oil pollution damage set out in part XVI of the
same act.
The revision of the existing limitation of liability for maritime
claims is a very important step toward modernizing this legislation.
[Translation]
This regime is unique to the marine mode. Its intent is to allow
shipowners to limit the amount of their financial responsibility for
certain types of damages occurring in connection with the
operation of a ship. The limitation is calculated on the basis of ship
size and applies to all claims arising from the same accident. This
feature enables the shipowners to assess their potential liability,
which is an essential condition for commercial insurability.
Over the years, the current limitation of liability as set out in the
Canada Shipping Act has become hopelessly outdated.
The regime is based on an international convention adopted in
1957 and, consequently, the limits of liability have lost much in
their value due to inflation.
[English]
This has led to constant efforts by claimants and the courts to
find ways to break the limitation order and to recover fully the
losses incurred.
Another area of concern is the limitation of liability to the
owners of vessels of below 300 tonnes, including pleasure craft.
Recreational boating has by far the largest number of accidents and
these involve, many times, serious injuries and loss of life.
Therefore we need to raise substantially the current limit of
liability which stands at approximately $140,000, which is
applicable to pleasure craft so that claimants have a better chance
of recovering their losses.
In short, the inadequacy of the limitation amounts, coupled with
consistent efforts by claimants to break the limitation to obtain full
compensation, is the principal reason for the revision of this
regime.
Maritime claims were adopted by the International Maritime
Organization to replace the 1957 convention. Because the limits of
the 1976 convention have been eroded also by inflation, the
International Maritime Organization revised the limits by a
protocol adopted in May of this year. Thus, our proposal provides
for the
5213
adoption of new limits which meet fully Canadian needs at this
time.
[Translation]
With regard to pleasure vessels, the proposed limit of liability of
$1 million for loss of life or personal injury will be more in line
with the liability levels long established in the automobile sector.
The new limit is not expected to have any dramatic impact on the
insurance cost of pleasure vessels. As with other types of
insurance, it will be the future claims experience of pleasure vessel
owners which will determine the cost of their insurance under the
new regime.
I will now turn to the second issue presented in this bill, the
revision of the existing legislation concerning shipowners liability
for oil pollution damage.
[English]
We have come a long way since the Nestucca and Exxon Valdez
incidents on the west coast of North America which first brought
home to us, particularly to those in my home province of British
Columbia, the dangers of marine oil spills.
In British Columbia we have benefited from the province's role
as an international maritime gateway, one whose dynamic ports
channel millions of tonnes of goods around the globe.
On the other hand, we must live with heavy maritime traffic
negotiating some of the narrowest passages in the world and
bearing cargo that if spilled would spell disaster for our fragile and
irreplaceable marine ecosystem.
(1105)
More than 20 years ago in this House I founded the House of
Commons Special Committee on Environmental Pollution.
From 1969 to 1973, along with various other groups including
the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defence
Fund, the Cordova District Fishermen's Union of Alaska and the
Friends of the Earth in the United States, we were before the U.S.
courts under the National Environmental Policy Act, 1969 to deal
with the issue of the then proposed Alaska pipeline.
Our court activities were successful. We did, through the courts,
require that an environmental assessment, including an
environmental assessment of the marine aspects of that proposal,
be done.
At the time there was an Arab oil embargo, an OPEC oil
embargo, and President Nixon was determined to change the
outcome of our legal case.
Therefore through a little used device in the American system
which required the executive and legislative arms of government
determining that their legislation should not go before the courts,
we ultimately were denied the fruits of our legal victory.
Even so, I should add the issue was hard fought and in the final
vote in the Senate of the United States there was a tie vote. Then
Vice-President Spiro Agnew cast the deciding ballot against our
case.
Nevertheless, the battle was worthwhile and success did come in
a somewhat unexpected way. To obtain the approval of the line,
many concessions were made.
With respect to the sea route, which is the major cause of
concern for Canadians, many concessions were made with respect
to the type of ships and marine safety. Yes, there was some eight
years ago the Exxon Valdez incident. Yes, it is possible there will be
another, but the risk to our coast was substantially reduced by that
battle some 20 years ago.
In 1989 I again studied this matter for the provincial
government. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to recommend
to the House my study at that time, which runs to 184
recommendations which I am sure members will find of interest.
It also gives me great pleasure at this time to bring forward the
legislation that will do a great deal to deal with the issue of
compensation. Bill C-58 will enable Canada to accede to the 1992
protocols on civil liability and the fund convention.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. minister's time has
expired. Is there unanimous consent to give him another minute or
two?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Anderson: I thank hon. members. I have only a couple of
sentences left.
The amendments to the Canada Shipping Act contained in Bill
C-58 will harmonize our Canadian maritime liability legislation
with that of other maritime nations. Equally if not more important,
the amendments will improve the amount of compensation
available to claimants for maritime claims in general and oil
pollution claims in particular.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak on the motion to refer to committee before second reading
Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
As the minister indicated, this bill is to bring the Canada
Shipping Act up to date and increase the shipowners' limits of
liability to public and private claimants for oil pollution damage in
particular.
The bill will also bring Canadian legislation in line with a
number of protocols and international conventions signed over the
5214
past 20 years. The Bloc Quebecois obviously agrees in principle
with the objective of the bill.
I can tell you up front that all these fine principles will be
carefully considered in committee to see if they are just as fine in
practice.
In his speech, the minister mentioned the Exxon Valdez disaster.
(1110)
We would have liked him to mention the Irving Whale disaster as
well. As you know, decades ago, this barge sank off the Magdalen
Islands. This summer, the barge was lifted. It was the property of a
large Canadian corporation well known not only for its commercial
activities, but also for certain characteristics that became known to
the public after the owner died.
It became obvious that the owner, the promoter, the founder of
the Company had made it clear to his heirs that, in business, what
mattered was interest, but not public interest. The fact that the
company benefitted from the support of the people and the
legislation of the various levels of government in the province and
the country where it was established did not count as much as the
bottom line, interest.
On the positive side, this reminds us that a business is a business
and, as such, it is ruled by its interests. The expression ``corporate
citizen'' should be banned from our vocabulary. There are citizens,
individuals who are dignified with the status of citizens, but, as
committed as a business may be to the community, it does not have
that dignity.
That is why I think we should ban the expression ``corporate
citizen''. Without any negative or bitter attitude toward business, it
is from this perspective that we will be examining the legislation.
We will ensure that this act goes beyond the current one and makes
shipowners more responsible, particularly when accidents result in
the leakage of hydrocarbons in the waters.
It is very important to implement a recognized principle in our
society, namely that the polluter must pay. This is indeed a popular
principle, but we have to be careful. These days, to justify certain
bills and given the new ideology, governments often say that
polluters must pay and so should users, which seems perfectly
normal.
However, implementing this principle is often much more
problematic, as we recently saw in the legislation imposing user
fees for Canadian Coast Guard services. As you know, the Bloc
opposed a number of measures. We fought hard and people said
time and again that, before imposing new fees, the government
ought to first clean up the coast guard.
We were told about truly shocking administrative practices. Still,
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans dismissed all these arguments
and did not follow up on any recommendation made by those who
came to submit briefs. Seventy-five per cent of all those who
submitted briefs and who made representations were opposed to
the new fees. Eastern Canada, and particularly the St. Lawrence
and Great Lakes region, is clearly penalized by this new fee
structure.
This is how a commonly recognized principle in our society,
namely that the user pays for the services provided to him, is
applied. This principle was applied to justify measures which are
harmful to a region of Canada, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the
Great Lakes, but which benefit the Atlantic coast-but we will not
get into this again.
(1115)
The Bloc will carefully examine the bill in committee and keep
in mind what happened with the Irving Whale.
To Canadians, it is totally unacceptable that a company could
renege on its responsibilities, let the government, in other words
the Canadian taxpayers, pay to refloat its barge and then have the
government, pursuant to the current legislation, obliged to give the
barge back to its owner. In a year or two, or maybe just in a few
months depending on how long it will take to repair the barge, we
might see the Irving Whale off the Magdalen Islands. It is
outrageous, since it cost $30 million to Canadian taxpayers.
The government might be looking for ways to get compensated,
but I do not think that current legislation gives it the power to do so.
We will examine the bill in committee in the light of recent events.
I think we will have some interesting amendments to bring
forward, based on the briefs we will receive and the evidence the
witnesses will give during the committee's hearings.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the
Reform Party's critic for transport, along with several other
members of the transport committee, was involved in a transport
problem. Their bus was hit by a flying wheel from another vehicle,
and so today you are getting the B team. It is most unfortunate. It
seems to be endemic in the province of Ontario. Maybe they should
start tying the wheels on to their equipment.
The Reform Party supports the hon. minister's motion that this
bill be sent to committee forthwith. It is good legislation. It
addresses a problem of great magnitude.
There is a longstanding and ongoing problem in the shipping
industry relative to this which is the indirect cause of an awful lot
of problems in the marine environment. Many ships are flying flags
of convenience and therefore it is very difficult to enforce
environmental regulations, safety regulations, labour regulations
and so on against them.
Canada has some means under existing law of exerting pressure
on its nationals to register. This mechanism is simply to deny
access to Canadian ports to foreign registered ships that do not
meet our safety, sanitation and environmental standards. However,
some ships that fly flags of convenience will slip through that net
even though they do meet those standards. They fly flags of
5215
convenience primarily to avoid labour laws and taxes. It is very
difficult to deal with these ships.
I have a very modest proposal. Since the Minister of Canadian
Heritage is giving away free Canadian flags, maybe she could give
some to the Minister of Finance to put on certain ships, of which
we are all well aware in this House, that are presently flying foreign
flags.
(1120 )
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Transport. I
would also like to put on the record that the official opposition
parties appear to be in favour of this legislation.
It is an historic day for the House of Commons. This legislation
will complete the job of environmental protection, as far as
substances such as PCBs are concerned, as it will regulate their use
and transport in Canada.
We have a law in Canada today which prohibits the use of
polychlorinated biphenyls. That law was brought in by a former
minister of the environment in a previous Liberal administration,
Madam Sauvé. It followed the adoption of other great bills by the
Liberal administration of the day: the Environmental Protection
Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Fisheries Act,
which govern the protection of the environment as far as the oceans
are concerned. This will complete that protection. It will not only
ensure that polychlorinated biphenyls are not present in our
environment, it will also increase the liability for those companies
which have to move the PCBs.
It is one thing to outlaw a substance such as polychlorinated
biphenyls, but it is another matter to move it to the location which
has been chosen to destroy it.
I would again like to congratulate the Minister of Transport. This
is a wonderful bill. I also congratulate the opposition parties for
agreeing with it.
[Translation]
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.
(Motion agreed to, bill referred to a committee.)
The House resumed from October 7, 1996, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-26, an Act respecting the oceans of Canada, be
read for the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I stand today to speak on Bill C-26, an act
respecting the oceans of Canada.
Many speakers have dealt with this bill since it was introduced in
Parliament, and everything would indicate that, true to the spirit of
his party and of the government, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans will refuse to entertain the amendments proposed by the
official opposition.
It must be said that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have a
tendency to draft legislation without taking into account the official
opposition's criticisms and analyses, which are all the more
significant since they often represent the concerns of those most
affected by the actions of the government, and that the government
responds only to the large corporations that give substantial
amounts to the Liberal coffers. The lobbyists that gravitate around
the government are so powerful that we have to ask ourselves who
really runs the country. Is it the Prime Minister, from his offices in
the Langevin Block, or the Yonge Street moguls?
(1125)
In any case, there are so many examples of this that it would take
all the time allocated to this debate to list them all. I propose to
examine Bill C-26, before the House today, and you be in a better
position to understand my point of view.
The rules proposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are
certainly commendable in many respects. Setting up a system of
standards to regulate the marine sector and allied industries
demonstrates a willingness to harmonize the government's vision
with the outlook of the major players in this field. However, if we
take a closer look at the main elements of this bill, we see,
surprisingly, that this is not the case.
Let us take, for example, the pleasure craft registration plan. If
the minister limited this scheme to the registration of merchant
vessels and tourist ships, it would provide for a better control of
shipping. In this perspective, the government could ensure a logical
and accurate classification of craft. But this is not the case. The
minister is proposing to have all types of craft registered, whatever
their intended use. Can you imagine the costs related to such an
initiative? I think the minister's idea is totally absurd and suggests
a certain lack of vision on the part of his advisers.
The minister's bill proposes a fee schedule based on the type of
craft, ranging from $5 to $35 annually. Would it really be
5216
necessary and appropriate to register one's pedal boat for $5 a
year? I ask the question, Mr. Speaker, and it has nothing to do with
the minimal costs involved.
Of course, the first year, Canadians will be told they must pay a
$5 annual fee to register their pedal boat. So it may be $5 the first
year, but since the government will have the self-financing of this
registration system as a short term objective, I can assure you that,
within five years, the cost of registering a pedal boat will no longer
be $5, but $20, $25 or $30 annually. But the government is not
telling us that now.
It is nice to know that ridicule never killed anyone because if it
did, while we are debating this absurd idea, all the flags in this
country would be lowered at half-mast and Canadians would be in
mourning for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
But let us get back to what interests us, rather than the minister's
state of mind. Setting aside the legislative excesses of the minister
himself, this bill is the result of public consultations. At least, that
is what the minister says. According to research done by the Bloc
Quebecois, three quarters of the witnesses that appeared before the
fisheries committee said they were against the introduction of this
legislative measure. The Canadian coast guard itself carried out a
series of consultations in which almost all those interviewed were
against the proposed fee structure.
If you are still with me, and I am sure you are, you should see the
connection with my introduction very easily. I continue.
(1130)
In no way has the coast guard taken into consideration the
representations and testimony heard during its consultations. From
this point of view, what makes the minister think he can draft even
the most elementary bill? I put the question again.
With a consultation process that was biased from the beginning,
it was inevitable that they would come up with a hodge podge of
vaguely logical standards that are so ridiculous as to defy
comprehension, which in the end is rather typical of the present
government and its leader.
Furthermore, one is entitled to wonder how appropriate it is for
the coast guard to register all pleasure craft for control purposes,
when this body, which reports through the department, only patrols
the St. Lawrence, the Saguenay, the Richelieu and the Ottawa
rivers.
Why should the coast guard take it upon itself to tax pedal boats
on the Lac de l'Est, when the coast guard will never in its life be
seen on that lake, its work in Quebec being limited at present to the
St. Lawrence, the Saguenay, the Richelieu and the Ottawa rivers.
They would have us believe that the user pay concept is
involved, but what about the thousands of lakes and the hundreds
and hundreds of navigable rivers in Quebec? In my region, for
example, there is Lac Aylmer, little Lac Saint-François, big Lac
Saint-François, Lac Bisby, Lac Rond, Lac à la Truite, Lac William,
Lac Bécancour, and Lac Bolduc by Saint-Méthode, where people
will eventually have to pay to register their rowboats, 6 h.p.
outboards, and pedal boats, but where no Canadian coast guard
officer will ever be seen.
The real reason, the reason the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
is trying so desperately to keep from us, is very simple.
Furthermore, the coast guard official from Quebec mentioned it.
He came right out and said it: ``We are $14 million short in our
operating budget''. I bet that getting the missing $14 million will
cost the coast guard some $16, $18, or $20 million in
administration costs, salaries and paper work. That is
administration as this government sees it, and clear proof of what
the federal government really has in mind, and particularly of its
roundabout way of getting what it wants.
Still, I never would have believed that the government would
stoop so low as to make people register pedal boats, rowboats or
kayaks. Why not those little rafts that we probably all built as
teenagers in May, then left to rot away on shore when fall came
around? And all for the purpose of cost recovery.
Of course, people might well support charging registration fees
for seadoos or high power launches. But imposing a fee for a
sailboard, when the coast guard provides no services to its owner,
might be overdoing it just a bit. And they dare bring up the concept
that is so popular right now: user pay.
The minister does not even stop there; he proposes a pleasure
craft handling course, and fines, somewhat along the line of the
firearms safety courses that are given everywhere in the country.
Could the department be intending to make the owners or operators
or rowboats and pedal boats take training? You can see just how
silly it could all get.
(1135)
I cannot help but be amused at the idea of my children having to
take a pedal boat handling course, or my son Martin having to pay a
fine for having done some fancy acrobatics on his sailboard. Of
course he would have to have been caught in such an act on the
St.Lawrence, Richelieu, Saguenay or Ottawa rivers, for the coast
guard does not, of course, patrol Lac Aylmer behind my house, nor
indeed other lakes such as big Lac Saint-François or Lac de l'Est.
I just mentioned the less subtle measures in this bill. I could have
taken an entirely different approach to demonstrate the absurdity of
the proposed legislation. The hon. member for Gaspé broached the
subject, without getting the slightest bit of attention from the
minister. At best, certain amendments may be discussed, but the
impact of that exercise is predictable.
5217
The federal government, through its Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, has once again shown its lack of concern for public
consultation. The public disagrees with the principle of this bill,
and the government insists on adopting it regardless. One wonders
about the real motives of this government, in the course of an
exercise that has been under way for nearly a year.
We can readily conclude that the federal government is once
again trying to invade the jurisdictions of the provinces, not only
by wanting to control vessels on the waterways of Quebec and
other provinces but also by setting certain environmental control
standards, which clearly gives more extensive powers to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans while diminishing the role of the
Department of the Environment.
The minister is intent on duplicating controls within the federal
government itself, at a time when we are all desperately trying to
limit and reduce this phenomenon as it occurs between the central
government and the provinces. No doubt about it, the minister is
going through a serious power crisis, which may explain the
leadership problems within cabinet and the Prime Minister's
failure to make him see reason.
Before I finish my speech, I would like to draw your attention to
a situation that is even more critical and revealing of the
government's intentions. Bill C-26 does not make it incumbent on
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reach agreement with other
members of cabinet, any more than with officials of the
Department of the Environment. This situation could lead to the
kind of overlap and duplication that has not existed so far but will
with the forthcoming passage of Bill C-26, since the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, on the basis of the mission he has given
himself, will be able to appropriate the role of the Minister of the
Environment as he sees fit.
The federal government would have the public believe it is intent
on putting its financial house in order. Why not call a spade a
spade? The people of Quebec are starting to understand what the
federal government is really driving at and it will soon be in a
position to establish its own rules, and I for one certainly hope so.
(1140)
Instead of chasing after people with pedal boats or rowboats
using them for recreation on provincial waterways such as Lac
Saint-François, Lac William, Lac du Huit, Lac à la Truite or Lac de
l'Est, in my riding, the Liberal government would be better off
ensuring that the 2,000 jobs in our asbestos mines can be kept.
Instead of going after young people, instead of asking that boats
such as pedal boats be registered, what is the government waiting
for to invest equivalent amounts of money in defending the
asbestos industry, to fight against the type of misrepresentations
that were aired on TV5 in the special report called ``Amiante: 50
ans de mensonges''-50 years of lying about asbestos?
To conclude, I again urge the government to listen to its
ambassador to France, who only two weeks ago suggested it launch
a major campaign to promote the safe use of asbestos.
[English]
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc who just spoke is doing
exactly the same thing as the other Bloc members are doing
concerning this bill.
He is concentrating, as the hon. member from the Gaspé did, on
just six or seven clauses in the bill. There are 109 clauses in the bill.
The Bloc has picked out six clauses, about that, from clause 47 to
52, regarding the wording that the minister ``may''. It is not the
minister ``shall''. It is not the minister ``will''. It is not the minister
``has to''. It says ``the minister may'' do this or that.
Then it has to be published in the Canada Gazette after 30 days
of its passing. Then it goes before a committee of the Statutory
Instruments Act and to be reviewed by a House of Commons
standing committee.
The hon. member has not even commented on the main thrust of
this bill, which is that the Canadian government on behalf of the
people of Canada is declaring an economic zone, that there will be
an exclusive economic zone that runs 200 nautical miles out from
the territorial sea which goes to the low water mark.
An historic bill in the House of Commons by the Government of
Canada to protect the marine resources and the seabed of Canada is
the main purpose of this bill.
All one has to do is read what the Department of Justice has put
in the summary of the bill, which is exactly what I said, to meet the
changing law at the United Nations under the United Nations law of
the sea convention.
They decide to not even comment on that. What they are talking
about are fees that were introduced under previous legislation that
enabled the minister to do this or that in the past. Under this act, the
six sections they are dealing with, it does not say the minister
``shall''. It says the minister ``may''. There is a whole procedure
under this act that the minister has to go through.
I am sure the hon. member will stand in the House and praise the
government for the general thrust of this bill that will protect the
fishing rights of the fishermen of the north shore of Quebec and the
Gaspé.
For once a government in Canada is turning around and doing
what a lot of other nations have done in this world. We should have
done this years and years ago. However, it is to the credit of this
administration that it is now being done.
5218
(1145)
I hope that the hon. member will rise in his place and
congratulate this Liberal Government of Canada for what it is
doing for the fishermen of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, if my colleague had
only listened to my whole speech, and not only to the parts he did
not like, he would know that I think some components of Bill C-26
are commendable.
However, for this strategy to be implemented successfully, we
had better define the relations between partners clearly. Why is the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans interfering in provincial
jurisdiction once again? There is Lac Aylmer, big Lac
Saint-François, and Lac Bisby, where the water is barely 18 inches
deep. You want to have licences for pedal boats? This is utterly
ridiculous. These taxpayers will never see a coast guard officer.
I can just imagine the Minister trying to get teenagers of 14, 15
or 16 years of age to take a training course on the basics of pedal
boating. Are you seriously trying to run the country, Canada, by
interfering in such a blatant and clumsy way in areas under
provincial jurisdiction?
Then there is Saint-François River, that I used to go down on a
makeshift raft when I was a kid. Will children at play have to get a
$5 to $20 licence from the department when everybody knows that,
according to the user pay principle, we should pay for services we
get, patrols for instance?
In this regard, I named the bodies of water where the coast guard
mighty be seen, but in my riding, in all of the Eastern Townships,
we never see a coast guard officer. What we will see is collectors.
To begin with, the fee for a pedal boat will be $5 but, again, in five,
six or seven years, $5 will escalate to $60 or $70. This is utterly
ridiculous.
This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are afraid of these new fee
setting powers, and why we did not hesitate a moment to
vigorously condemn Bill C-26; of course, all of us in the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against it. I sincerely hope that the Liberal
government will sit down and go over the consultations it held, as
well as those held by the coast guard, and change its mind. To err is
human, and going ahead with this piece of legislation will be one of
the worst mistakes the government has made over the past two
years.
In spite of a few good things in Bill C-26, when you look at the
whole thing, it is glaringly obvious that it must be defeated.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the
member for Frontenac, explained the position of the Bloc
Quebecois on Bill C-26 very forcefully in his comments to the
member for Gander-Grand Falls, and I admire him for it.
(1150)
The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the purpose, to the validity
of a national strategy on ocean management. However, we have
always said that the relationships between the partners involved
should be better defined, and this was supposed to be at the core of
the bill. That is what my colleague said; failing such a clear
definition, we are very concerned about the new powers the
minister is grabbing under this bill.
The minister did not have all those powers before, and look at
the horrendous things that went on last spring. It is certainly not for
the beauty or the grandeur of Canada they are proposing a national
strategy. There are other reasons behind these new powers of set
fees.
If Canada really wants its national strategy to succeed, it will
have to establish clear relationships with its partners. The member
for Gander-Grand Falls knows what I mean. He has been in this
House for 22 or 24 years in this House; he has seen Tory prime
ministers. He will recall that there once was a Liberal premier in
his province called Brian Peckford. Mr. Peckford was a fervent
defender of cod conservation but he never got a hearing in Ottawa
as long as the Tories were in office.
If we want to avoid repeating past mistakes-and the hon.
member for Gander-Grand Falls will surely agree that the good
standing of the prime minister or his success on the campaign trail,
both in Ottawa and Newfoundland, will not go on forever-so, if
we want to prevent bickering in the future, we must clearly define
the roles of all partners and the relationships between them. That is
what we must do. I am sure that my colleague shares my views on
this.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, under the Constitution
Act of 1867, there is a division of powers. There is little doubt that
navigable waters come under federal jurisdiction, since many
people in this huge country could use waters like the St. Lawrence
River, the Richelieu River or the Ottawa River, too name only a
few. We agree with that.
However, I mentioned a moment ago some lakes in Northern
Quebec. There are thousands and thousands of lakes and rivers
which, I am sure, are totally under Quebec jurisdiction. The
minister is trying to assume control of navigation on lakes by
requiring the registration of boats, and I am not prepared to accept
that. We must condemn such action.
I remember the former Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau,
who, little by little, assumed powers which were not federal to start
with. His philosophy was a weak Quebec and a strong Canada, the
goal was to bring the provinces down to the level of small
municipalities. These was your goal, was it not? You were in this
House at the time. We will not let you do it. We will not let this
government do it and I can guarantee that we will make sure that
Quebec jurisdiction is fully protected.
5219
Once again it is shameful that the Liberal Party, using its
majority in the House, should impose a fee structure so ridiculous
that it will require registration of all boats and penalize children
who are simply going to play on the rivers and the lakes. The
Liberal Party will be held responsible for penalizing young people,
in Quebec and elsewhere in this huge country.
Once again I urge the government to sit down with the provinces
and talk strategy with its partners. You are not the only government
in this country. There are other provinces, there are two territories.
Do you think that the other provinces are willing to give up their
jurisdiction? I do not think so. If you give an inch to the federal
government it will take a foot and if you give it a foot it will take
every last body of water.
(1155)
I hope the government will review its positions and will reread
the notes from consultations it held throughout the country, since
more than three quarters of those who were consulted are opposed
to Bill C-26.
This reminds me of the Prime Minister, who said last week that
General Boyle was the best and that there would not be a new
defence minister every 12 months, as under the Conservatives. He
insisted on defending his general and his defence minister, and
today, the whole house of cards is collapsing. I think you and I, Mr.
Speaker, could get a bet going on how long General Boyle will keep
his job. Will he hang on till the end of the week?
In conclusion, I urge the government to show some humility by
withdrawing large portions of Bill C-26, particularly with regard to
the registration of craft on small bodies of water under provincial
jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-26, the oceans act.
I am going to deal with very specific areas that the government
and previous governments have failed to deal with in an extremely
important aspect of Canadian society. The oceans surround our
country on three sides. Within those oceans exist enormous
opportunity and responsibility: commercially, socially, with
respect to protecting the environment and the species that live
within them. These waters can benefit not only Canadians but also
people around the world.
First I want to speak about the minister's plan dealing with the
commercial fishing strategy, which to me, living in British
Columbia, is a huge disappointment. The various sectors in the
commercial fishing groups have met with the minister and have
expressed concrete, specific and reasonable proposals that are fair
to everybody and would save our fisheries for today and into the
future.
Instead, the minister proposed the Mifflin plan which
unfortunately is going to decimate the commercial fishing strategy
on the west coast. It will produce an east coast disaster on the west
coast. This is an entirely preventable situation. What is the minister
going to do?
The minister is going to centre the commercial fishery into a
very small number of hands. He is decreasing the number of fishing
boats, which is a good thing, but instead of doing it in a fair way, he
is making sure that commercial fishing in British Columbia is in
the hands of a very small number of large players. The outcome
will be great unemployment among the commercial fishing sector.
The little communities up and down the coast of British Columbia
that have survived for decades on fishing for their livelihood will
be decimated. The social implications cannot be underestimated.
It is clear to everybody in the House what it means to a small
community to have its single industry ripped from it. This does not
need to happen. Because of the fees being implemented, the
commercial fisheries in British Columbia will be in the hands of
the large boats and producers. The little people will be out of a job,
out of work and up the creek.
An intelligent strategy needs to be put forward. Along with
scientists, the minister should define what the allowable catch
should be. That information should be given to the different groups
that will decide for themselves how they are going to divide it up.
In that way the government does not get involved in how this will
be done and it does not get the flack for it. The sole responsibility
lies within the different commercial fishing strategies themselves.
It would also include the sports fishing strategy which must not be
underestimated as it has been in the past.
In British Columbia there are 300,000 sports fishermen. These
individuals inject billions of dollars into the British Columbia
economy every year.
(1200)
This minister and previous governments have utterly ignored
this important sector. They tell them how much fish they can catch
every year far too late. For example, beginning in January are the
first trade shows for the sports fishing groups in British Columbia.
They need to know before these shows how much they are allowed
to catch, where they are allowed to fish, to be able to get visitors
and tourists from around the world to come to our waters to fish.
Last year those data came down in the spring. As a result visitors
who would normally come to the waters of British Columbia to fish
said they are not coming because they believe there will not be any
fish to fish and they do not know how much they can fish. A lot of
people from around the world felt there was simply no salmon to
catch in British Columbia. That is an avoidable tragedy.
5220
If this continues the sports fishing groups within British
Columbia will be decimated at a huge loss to British Columbia
and the Canadian economy.
These data are available in November. I am proposing that the
minister, with scientists, determine how many fish the sports
fishing groups can take and where they can take it from. The
minister will let them know what that catch is going to be by
December 1. That is a challenge I put to the minister of fisheries
and the people who work in the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans.
If he can do that one thing then our sports fishing groups will
have the opportunity and the ability to get fishermen from around
the world to come to Canada, to spend their money and inject
money into the Canadian economy. This can happen and I implore
him to do this now rather than waiting until the spring when it is too
late.
One of the things the minister is not doing is addressing the
commercial fishing strategy in an intelligent fashion. He is not
setting appropriate limits, he is setting them too late and he is not
enabling them to divide up the catch among themselves in a way
that is appropriate.
Many intelligent ideas have come from commercial fishing
groups such as catching at the mouths of rivers or outside of certain
areas and not setting up a wall of net so that the fish do not get
vacuumed out of the ocean. The minister must let the fish go up the
river in adequate numbers to lay their eggs and smaller fish to come
down later one. If he does not do this the stream will die.
The minister has been negligent in addressing the whole aspect
of enforcement. It is critically important when you are speaking
about enforcement that it take place fairly and equitably regardless
of nationality, the colour of skin or ethic origin. It is imperative that
the minister tell his Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers
who are currently hamstrung by the upper echelons in the
bureaucracy that they must enforce the law to the benefit of all.
I do not care who you are, everybody will benefit by the fair and
equitable enforcement of the law. Currently that is not happening.
A blind eye is given to certain segments of our society that fish and
poach. The officers of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and
the RCMP are told not to deal with them because the government is
afraid of having a confrontation with these people or being labelled
racist or anti-aboriginal, and that is not acceptable.
It does a huge disservice to the aboriginal people who, for
example, are fishing within their limits in a fair and equitable way,
as the vast majority are, and who are interested in having a long
term sustainable fishery. It does a huge disservice to the
non-aboriginal community members who feel left out of the loop
and who feel they are being treated as second class citizens. One
law for everybody and it has to be enforced. That way you get
respect for the laws of the land. Without that no respect exists.
(1205)
The minister must also bring together the people who actually
damaged the environment in which the fish are living. Habitat
rejuvenation is one of the key elements in rejuvenating our west
coast fishery. There are a large number of streams that have been
decimated by logging and mining.
It is important that these streams get back to where they were but
it is equally important that the taxpayer not pay for that. Those who
actually polluted are those who should pay. That is where the
minister's job comes in. That is where the minister has to take a
leadership role and say ``you damaged the stream, you are going to
fix it up but we are going to work in a co-ordinated way to provide
you with the ability to do this''. Perhaps some tax benefits for
doing this would be advisable.
In doing that we can rejuvenate our streams, increase the flows
of wild stocks of salmon and thereby increase the economic
viability of our west coast fishery. All of these things are
interwoven and all of them must be addressed: adequate dealings
with the commercial and sports fishing sectors, setting adequate
limits for all of those groups, habitat rejuvenation, law
enforcement.
If the minister could stop studying these issues and start acting
on them, perhaps we will be able to save our west coast fishery
instead of looking into the eyes of the east coast disaster.
Another aspect that is critically important on the west coast
which this bill could deal with but does not is the whole aspect or
lighthouses. It has been shown quite unequivocally that the
destaffing of lighthouses on the west coast is going to have a
negative effect on the safety of the people who ply our waters in
that area. It has been shown not only from a safety aspect but, more
important, from an economic aspect. If we are going to deal with
cold, hard facts, let us deal with them.
If we destaff a lighthouse it is going to cost the taxpayer more
money to service that lighthouse than if there were somebody there
right now. The amount of money that person actually puts into
maintaining that lighthouse far exceeds that person's wages, far
exceeds the cost to the taxpayer. It is senseless and utterly idiotic to
destaff lighthouses on the west coast.
I implore the minister before it is too late to look at this again,
look at it intelligently, look at the facts. I am sure he will come to
the conclusion that it is better not to deman our lighthouses on the
west coast.
There are also other local initiatives that can be supported. The
western marine community in British Columbia has put a proposal
for the funding of our coast guard. It is a sensible proposal. It is a
proposal that would not cost the taxpayer more money. It is a
proposal that would provide for effective coast guard search and
5221
rescue responses in British Columbia. I ask the minister again to
look at this very good proposal by the western marine community.
As well, there are a lot of local initiatives where the people have
come together to put forth search and rescue capabilities in the
smaller communities which are not easily serviced by the coast
guard. These are inexpensive ways of providing safety on the west
coast. The minister can take a leadership role not by putting more
money into the system but by encouraging these initiatives with the
local groups and again have a user pay situation.
I am sure the boaters who ply the waters on the west coast will
not mind paying for this service that they will desperately need at
some time in their lives.
Another large area that this bill does not deal with and one that is
very close to my heart and I am sure the hearts of many Canadians,
in particular the youth of Canada, is the environment. As we speak,
there are huge problems with respect to pollution within our
oceans. That is manifested, for example, in the elevation of toxic
carcinogenic, teratogenic materials such as PCBs and many other
substances that are going through our food chain and are
magnifying themselves as they go up the food chain. The outcome
of that is these animals are dying but in the larger area we can see
that if we are at the top of the food chain, these toxins and
carcinogens are also accumulating within us.
(1210 )
We may think this is not a problem, but I would draw the
attention of the House to the Arctic. The people who live in the
Arctic are suffering from greater teratogenic effects, genetic
abnormalities and cancer rates than would normally occur. The
reason this is occurring is that toxins and carcinogens are
accumulating in the food chain. When people eat, the toxins and
carcinogens accumulate in them and the outcome is a medical
disaster.
I plead with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister
of Health and the Minister of the Environment to bring forth
intelligent and effective solutions to this problem. It cannot be done
in isolation. The pollutants in our Arctic also come from other
Arctic countries.
I was in Yellowknife earlier this year where the countries of the
Arctic got together to discuss this issue. I had hoped to see some
action. Unfortunately they chose to study the problem and create an
Arctic council to look at the problem. The time for studying and
examining has run out. The time has long past for another royal
commission or for a House of Commons committee to study the
problem. We need action now. The people of the Arctic need action
now. If anyone doubts me, let them go to the Arctic and let them
look at the horrible diseases which are affecting those people. It is
going to get worse.
We are a leader in a number of areas. One of the areas in which
we are a leader is research. On the west coast, in Victoria, there is a
superb research facility which provides research that is
commercially applicable and scientifically applicable. Scientists
from all over the world look to us and derive information from our
research for their own uses.
Cuts must be made, but we should not cut important research.
The research done in these areas will have a dramatic effect on our
society which will benefit all of us. It would be penny wise and
pound foolish for us to cut research in these areas.
A few years ago we had an excellent opportunity to be a world
leader in fish farming. The Chileans took it away from us because
we let them. Icelanders came to us a few years ago and said:
``Canada, we are very good at fish farming. We are very good at
managing our fisheries. Let us work with you in developing
co-operative strategies to improve commercial and sports fishing
within Canada''. They went home disgusted. They went home
despondent. They could not believe that Canada did absolutely
nothing to save its fisheries. They saw the potential which existed
within our great country. Why could we not?
Our fisheries and our oceans provide an enormous opportunity.
With that opportunity comes a great responsibility. We have done a
huge disservice to the oceans. Instead of taking a proactive,
intelligent and effective role in managing our fisheries and oceans
we have abrogated that responsibility to the detriment of this
sector. We will pay for it in the future. It is not too late to do
something about it. I know the minister would like to work with my
colleagues in the Reform Party and with members of the Bloc
Quebecois. Together we can work with members of the public and
interested sectors to provide good, effective strategies to save our
commercial and sports fishing and our oceans and their
environment.
(1215)
I put that challenge to the minister. I welcome his response
forthwith.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the
general thrust of the bill which is of course aimed at conservation,
aimed at better fisheries management and the fact that Canada is
now declaring its own 200-mile exclusive economic zone outside
the territorial sea for management and conservation purposes.
Perhaps the member would praise the federal government, praise
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the parliamentary
secretary for finally taking this magnificent move for the people of
Canada.
The hon. member mentioned the fact that toxins and pollutants
are getting into the streams and waterways in the province of
British Columbia and in other parts of Canada. Does he agree with
a recent move by the Canadian government, this administration,
instead of using toxic chemicals such as Matacil and fenitrothion
and other chemicals over wide areas of forest land in our provinces,
5222
to the biological use of bacillus thuringiensis, commonly referred
to as BT? This was developed in Canada by Canadian scientists. In
fact, the scientist who developed it was Professor Smirnoss in the
Quebec region.
Does the member agree with the shift away from the use of
chemicals in forest protection and in other areas, which chemicals
inevitably find their way into the streams and thereby into the
oceans?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, the
fact is that we cannot manage a 20-mile zone, let alone a 200-mile
zone. That is the reality we face on the west coast.
For example, right now fishing boats are vacuuming our oceans,
going offshore taking fish and putting them on commercial packing
and freezing vessels from other countries on the Pacific rim. This is
all done under the table. Enforcement officers and the coast guard
know this and absolutely nothing is done.
I know the member is very sympathetic and is involved and has
done a lot of good work for the people in his area. He knows this is
happening.
We can extend the zone out to 500 miles if we want to, but it will
not make any difference because there is no political will to do
anything about it. That is the problem: political will. The rest is
merely a sham.
I implore the hon. member who has worked so hard for his
people to put pressure on the minister, as we are trying to do, to
provide effective solutions within the 20-mile zone, the 200-mile
zone, or whatever zone he wants to extend it to, because it is not
happening now.
(1220 )
To answer the member's other question, the DFO bureaucracy is
extremely top heavy. It is working against the very good people in
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the ground who feel
extraordinarily frustrated. The best DFO officers are moved away
from their areas of most effectiveness to areas where they are least
effective. This is happening to them right now purely because of
political reasons. They are doing this because the DFO bureaucracy
at the top do not want to see these people carrying out their jobs
because part of their job is politically incorrect.
The DFO bureaucracy are afraid of actually living up to the rules
and regulations upon which they are supposed to operate but do
not. The DFO officers on the ground who are committed, hard
working individuals want very much to save our fishery for
everybody. It breaks their hearts and demoralizes them to see their
own bureaucracy hampering them. Those are the facts.
To answer the hon. member's last question, I agree with him that
the movement away from chemicals that are teratogenic and
carcinogenic and damaging to the environment is excellent. He
raised the example of BT, a Canadian discovery. I would also
remind the hon. member that we are probably not going to have any
more BT discoveries in Canada because research has been gutted
by his own bureaucracy and ministry.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened with a
great deal of interest to the member's speech. The facts are quite
different from the arguments he made here.
The member is trying to do two things at the same time. His
party makes an argument as to why there should be further cuts in
every department of government. Then he gets up in his own local
interest, decries the government for the cuts it has made in trying to
balance the budget and have a streamlined administration of
departments, such as fisheries and oceans.
Quite clearly he cannot have it both ways. He cannot have the
leader of his party or his finance critic get up day after day in this
place and say: ``Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut'', and then get up during
debates in the House of Commons and criticize the government and
say: ``Do not cut; put more resources in''.
I am quite familiar with this diverse view that is shared by
members of the Reform Party. As chairman of the committee that
examined this bill, I had to live with it almost daily. Members of
the Reform Party would sit down and agree with the individuals
who came and made submissions. They indicated quite clearly that
this bill was long overdue, that it was a courageous act by the
minister of fisheries of the day, who is now the premier of
Newfoundland, and the Prime Minister of Canada to come forward
with such a consolidation.
Each time they would agree with the witness but when it came
time to debate the principles and to support what the evidence had
told us during the committee hearings, they ran away and scattered.
And then they get other members who were not on the committee
to stand up in this place and try to have it both ways. That is not
going to be the case today.
The member just said that this government and the current
minister and the previous minister basically did not have the
intestinal fortitude to deal with the issues of the day. I would ask
him whether or not his party supported, when we were at
committee, the consolidation of programs and legislation inherent
in the oceans act.
Did Reform support the efforts of this government to go in and
reduce a bloated bureaucracy in many departments, including
fisheries and oceans which was reduced by 40 per cent, most of
which was at head office? Did Reform support the efforts of the
former minister of fisheries and this government in going before
5223
the court of world opinion and saying no to overfishing when it
came to Spain and the raiding of our turbot stock on the nose and
tail of the Grand Banks?
The member cannot have it both ways. Is he prepared to get up
and tell us that yes, in those areas we have been courageous and
yes, that what we have done is right, not always what was easy but
that we have taken our responsibilities as we should have as a
government? If he is, then it is fairly clear to me he is more
concerned about playing to a diminishing local audience of
supporters in his riding instead of getting up here and engaging in
the type of vigorous and knowledgeable debate that is normally the
case when bills come before this place.
(1225 )
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, I
am glad the hon. member agrees with me that the former minister
did not have the intestinal fortitude to make the changes that are
required to save our country's fisheries.
Let us examine the kinds of cuts this government is prepared to
make. In my riding, in Sooke which is about 35 or 40 kilometres
from Victoria, the government closed the local DFO office. Why
did it take two active enforcement fisheries officers away from
Sooke, one of the most active fishing areas on the west coast? Why
did it close that office? Because it wanted a half day secretarial
position in Victoria. These are the types of cuts this government is
prepared to make, what it calls effective cuts. It gets rid of two
enforcement officers and puts forth one half time equivalent in a
secretarial position.
I would like to go on but I know I do not have the time. If those
are the kinds of cuts this government is prepared to make and is
making, we do not support that at all. We support effective cuts that
will get rid of the bloated bureaucracy here in Ottawa in an
effective way. Bring the power to the local people. Support local
initiatives and give the DFO officers the backing they require.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of
Canada.
The purpose of this bill is to allow the coast guard to charge for
its services, including navigational aids and ice breaking, by giving
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the power to impose such
fees.
This bill also deals with the environment, as well as the
registration of pleasure craft by the coast guard and related fees,
aspects I will address later.
The imposition of fees for coast guard services is another fine
example of a measure taken without really consulting or
co-operating with the main stakeholders, and without knowing the
real impact this will have on the affected regions.
Bill C-26 is a fine example of the current Liberal government's
real consideration for the respective roles of the federal
government and the provinces. In fact, it is impossible to
understand or to accept that this bill places the provinces on the
same level as any other player like lobby groups, municipalities
and industries. This shows a blatant lack of respect and common
sense, and we are entitled to think this bill may provoke several
other conflicts between Ottawa, the provinces and the various
stakeholders.
As for consultations, the Liberal government behaved in its
usual fashion. It pretended to consult and listen, but it always ends
up doing what it wants without considering the comments made by
other parties. All the witnesses who appeared at the hearings held
by the fisheries and oceans committee deplored the coast guard's
decision making and consultation process, especially the fact that
the minister went ahead with the new fee structure without first
assessing the economic impact on shipping and related industries.
Furthermore, 75 per cent of witnesses asked the minister to call a
moratorium on the new fees while waiting for the impact studies
commissioned for this fall. The witnesses also suggested that the
minister co-operate with the shipping industry in carrying out
economic impact studies. Finally, there was a clear consensus
among the stakeholders from the St. Lawrence River and the Great
Lakes, in particular the Governments of Quebec and Ontario,
against the minister's proposal, which was deemed totally
unacceptable.
Everyone agreed that, to avoid causing irreparable harm, we
should wait for the results of ongoing studies. But, not surprisingly,
the minister completely disregarded all these recommendations
and objections, and decided to go ahead with his fee structure, with
no regard for its potentially devastating effects on jobs in the
shipping industry, a very developed economic sector, especially in
Quebec.
How else can we explain that, after weeks of consultations where
stakeholders from all regions and all sectors told the government
not to go ahead with its proposal, the original version of the bill
was not amended in any way? Once again, the costs will trickle
down to the public through the user pay principle. This is nothing
but a smoke screen.
(1230)
What is really ridiculous is that there is no indication that the
coast guard even tried to downsize its operations before passing on
these costs. According to the testimony, the government simply did
not do its homework and ensure that such an effort was made.
We therefore find ourselves in the situation where, instead of
downsizing its staff, the government is imposing fees on the
industry and thus jeopardizing not only the industry but the jobs
that depend on it. There is no indication that the coast guard made
any effort at all. If the coast guard, which is costing us over $860
5224
million a year, had managed to streamline its operations, that
would have meant less money to collect from those who use its
services.
Moreover, it is difficult to know what services are actually
provided by the coast guard. There was no real effort to make in the
most logical and convincing way possible a rational demonstration
of the services actually provided to those users and that from now
on will have to be paid by the population.
The federal government, for the purpose at hand, is dividing
Canada into three regions in order to regionalize its fee policy.
Even though the problem is completely the same from east to west,
the government is dividing Canada into three big regions: west,
central, that is the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, and
finally the maritimes. As if by chance, Quebec is the one being
taken for a ride since, along with the Great Lakes region, it will
assume some 48 per cent of the $20 million that will be collected
this year.
Thus Bill C-26 is dividing up the fee structure very badly
between different regions and different Canadian harbours.
Consider for example the ship crossing the Atlantic to unload its
cargo at Sept-Îles. It will have to pay a much higher fee for services
whereas the ship going to Thunder Bay will have nothing to pay.
Yet the latter navigated 3,700 kilometres more on the river, a
waterway maintained by Canada.
Another example: the Canadian owner of a ship registered in a
foreign country will pay seven times less than the owner of a ship
registered in Canada. The finance minister is certainly aware of this
fact. These two examples show that the fee structure presented in
Bill C-26 is causing problems. Many things are unfair in this piece
of legislation. Whether it is plan B or mere chance, this bill is sure
to greatly impair the competitiveness of Quebec ports compared
with ports in the maritime provinces.
Another major problem is the drop in competitiveness of ports in
the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes compared with American
ports. On the one hand, ships passing through the St. Lawrence and
the seaway to reach the United States will not pay for coast guard
services if they do not stop at Canadian ports. That is a serious
threat to the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes
ports.
How competitive will our ports be, as compared to those in the
northern U.S. states? Take for instance a ship coming from Europe.
It goes in the St. Lawrence River estuary, makes its way up the
river, goes by Saint-Lambert, ends up in the Great Lakes and heads
straight for Pittsburgh. It pays nothing, even though it used the
channel, the water and the St. Lawrence. It pays for the locks in
Saint-Lambert, but it is getting the rest free. On the other hand, the
small coastal trade carrier on the North Shore, or on both shores of
the St. Lawrence will be hit hard.
Moreover, the user pay principle advocated by the minister is not
consistently applied. In several instances, in Sept-Îles and
Port-Cartier for example, users will pay up to $5 million a year for
only one buoy.
Finally, the fees the minister intends to apply are only the tip of
the iceberg since they cover only navigational aids. Harbour and
seaway dredging and icebreaking in the seaway are other targeted
services for the imposition of fees.
These other fees might be much higher than those for
navigational aids and we have every right to be concerned about the
survival and competitiveness of the St. Lawrence harbours,
especially the port of Montreal and several ports in the regions.
(1235)
However, several amendments to these clauses were brought
forward by the Bloc Quebecois, especially by my colleague, the
hon. member for Gaspé, who went to great pains to find a way to
work with the government. The proposed amendments tried, for
instance, to make the fees principle more fair and to force the
minister to co-operate with the industry and the provinces before
applying or increasing the fees.
The amendments would have prevented the minister from acting
unilaterally, without taking into consideration public consultations,
as he did when the fees were first introduced back in June 1996. Of
course, the minister continued to turn a deaf ear, as his government
likes to do.
Now let us turn to the environment aspect of the bill. The bill
also deals with environmental issues in a way that will affect the
Department of the Environment. This new bill will transfer to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans powers currently belonging to the
Minister of the Environment. This is a further example of overlap
between these two departments. Again, it is like yin and yang, as
the former Minister of Fisheries Brian Tobin told a parliamentary
committee last year, when he commented on the relationship
between him and Sheila Copps, the Minister of the Environment at
the time, by saying that it was like yin and yang.
By creating more overlap, Bill C-26 seems to establish a sectoral
environment department, something like a department of coastal
environment.
If each department did that, we would end up with an
environment transport department in the Department of Transport,
or with an environment industry department, and all the
government's ministers would have powers regarding
environmental protection and preservation. We can easily imagine
how dangerous it could get if environmental issues were to be
addressed by various
5225
departments. If this is the way this government wants to go, then it
only has to abolish the environment department.
The government's approach to the environment is to centralize
powers in Ottawa because of the national interest and of the
globalization of environmental problems. Of course, Bill C-26
matches this approach.
Some clauses give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the
powers to develop and implement a national strategy for the
management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. This
strategy calls for the development of activity management plans, of
managing or advisory agencies, of numerous programs and of
environmental standards, as well as the collecting and analysis of
scientific data on the ecosystems concerned.
We must realize that several of these activities were already
being carried out by the Department of the Environment. This is
another case of duplication, as if we could afford such overlap
among federal departments.
Nothing in the legislation compels the minister to reach
agreements with other federal departments or the provinces. In
most cases, he can ask for the co-operation of other authorities, but
only if he wishes to do so.
Such duplication, in the long run, will jeopardize the
effectiveness of environmental action. It is incomprehensible and
unacceptable for the minister not to have to work in co-operation
with the officials of other federal departments, in particular the
Department of the Environment. There should have been more
reflection and more consultations on these points before such
changes were made, since in environmental matters, partial
responsibility is tantamount to responsibility for the whole
ecosystem. When one tries to do too much, one ends up doing
nothing right.
Finally, Bill C-26 is another step towards centralization in
environmental matters. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a
four to three decision, dispossessed the provinces of the
management of the marine environment and territory in favour of
the federal government. Today, with Bill C-26, the federal
government is trying to get the most out of that ruling. This trend
toward centralization may lead the federal government in the
medium or long term to try to claim overall management of waters
and their use.
Let us talk now of pleasure boating. A real user pay principle
implies that we go and ask the people who use these services which
one they really want to have. Furthermore, the people who are
going to have to pay for this service have the right to be heard.
They are asking the government if the service will be offered to
them at the lowest cost, taking into account what the
socioeconomic and human impacts will be for them.
(1240)
The principle of user fees is not respected at all in Bill C-26
since the coast guard has announced it intends to make major
changes to pleasure boating in all the country's waters.
Consultations have been announced, but knowing the importance
the federal government attributes to the results of consultations, we
have no reason to believe that it will be any different with the coast
guard.
In its partnership plan, the government neglected to say that,
behind this initiative, there is the recovery of $14 million, whatever
what the people will say during the consultations. This is basically
a hidden tax hike badly disguised as an effort to promote user
safety.
Among other measures, the coast guard wishes to register all
types of craft, from the 30 foot sail boat to the row boat. Moreover,
fees for all types of craft will be collected by requiring all users to
get a registration permit at cost of $20 to $35 annually. The
governement also wants to require minimum skills for everyone
who handles a boat and to introduce a system of fines similar to
those that apply to drivers.
According to the coast guard, these measures are essentially
aimed at increasing safety on the water by improving the skills of
small pleasure craft users. But one has to be blind not to see that
safety is only an excuse to impose a fee structure. It is hard to see
how paying a $20 to $35 fee to put a boat in the water will make
people more cautious. It is a well known fact that information and
awareness are the best ways to change behaviour.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say a few words on
the impact of this bill in a riding like Drummond. In Drummond,
there are great numbers of pleasure craft, and water sports are very
popular. In those conditions, you can imagine the impact of a fee
system on pleasure craft in an area like mine. Even the possibility
of fees on pedal boats and sailboards has been raised.
Just think of the impact on all the small and medium size
businesses which rent this kind of equipment during summer
months and which will have to pay registration fees in addition to
all their other expenses. All these companies, which do not make a
lot of money, will have to pay additional costs to register their
boats. Will people who rent this kind of equipment be more
cautious because of the fees?
People who own boats, for their pleasure or for renting, are being
designated as users of coast guard services. But in a riding like
Drummond, there is no coast guard. The main waterway used for
pleasure boating is the Saint-François River, a small river running
between Lake Champlain and Lake St-Pierre. It is not a river like
the Ottawa, the Richelieu or the Saguenay, which are patrolled by
the coast guard.
5226
But the thousands of recreational boaters who use the small
navigable portion of that river will have to pay for coast guard
services in the same way as those who sail on the St. Lawrence.
And yet the least we can say is that we do not often see icebreakers
on that river during the winter.
In conclusion, why should we adopt this type of fee structure
today? Have we done all we can to try and find another solution?
Absolutely not. Through Bill C-26, the federal government is
launching an attack against Quebec by imposing service fees, and
we must not forget that this comes with the divestment of ports.
On the one hand, the government is opening the door to an
interesting future by decentralizing the management of ports but,
on the other, it is increasing service fees on the St. Lawrence, which
will make ports in the maritimes a lot more competitive. So what
the government is giving in terms of autonomy, it is taking away by
changing the rules and by imposing service fees that are unfair to
Quebec ports.
In Bill C-26, the government takes the liberty of transferring the
coast guard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans without
knowing exactly if there will be a reform and if services provided
by the coast guard meet users' needs, all that without allowing
users to have their say in the matter.
(1245)
We cannot predict the economic consequences Bill C-26 will
have on users. No serious study has been made. Yet the government
is going ahead with this legislation, saying that we will see how it
goes. When we look at the various pieces of legislation the Liberals
have introduced, very often it has not gone well because of
constitutional or economic problems.
The government does a lot but achieves nothing. This bill is very
typical of the way this government has been acting. Again it is
interfering unilaterally in all areas without any real consultation,
which does not solve anything. On the contrary, it creates
problems.
As a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I will vote against this bill.
[English]
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is doing. Like other
members of the Bloc, she is concentrating on fees which will be
charged by the coast guard. She is suggesting that the fees will be
charged on bathtubs as well as on pedal boats.
I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the main
purpose of the bill before the House today. I wonder if she could
comment on the main thrust of the bill. It is an incredible piece of
legislation. It is an historic piece of legislation.
There is no agreement with another nation. It is taking a
convention of the United Nations and it is saying that Canada will
manage conservation systems on behalf of the people of Canada.
The zone will be extended 200 nautical miles outside the territorial
sea, which is 12 miles, which goes from the low water mark all
around the coasts of Canada.
This is an incredible piece of legislation. We have not seen the
likes of it since Canada was created. It is what is commonly called
the EEZ, the exclusive economic zone. The Liberal administration
promised to bring in this bill during the last election campaign. The
United Nations has held meetings on this subject for years,
advocating that this was the way to go for conservation purposes.
I wonder if the hon. member can stand in her place to praise the
Liberal government for taking such an historic step as declaring the
exclusive economic zone, which is the main purpose of the
legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Madam Speaker, I believe these are the same as
the comments and question directed at my colleague, the member
for Frontenac, so my discourse will be almost the same as his as
well.
The Bloc Quebecois is not against a national oceans strategy.
What the Bloc Quebecois is critical of in Bill C-26 is that the
minister had announced that he would take the various partners in
the shipping industry and the provinces into account. Right now,
what we are seeing in Bill C-26 is that he did not do this. Instead,
he turned a deaf ear, as usual.
I congratulate my colleague, the opposition critic for fisheries
and oceans. He did an excellent job, and tabled amendments, which
once again the government has ignored.
(1250)
I think that one person who truly saw the need for changes in this
bill, because he comes from a region that depends on the fishery, is
my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspé. He was completely
ignored, as were the various stakeholders in the shipping industries
and the provincial governments.
What we are criticizing is the lack of a clear policy to define the
relations between the various partners. We are also criticizing the
fact that, under the Constitution, it was established that navigable
waters come under federal jurisdiction. Along comes Bill C-26 and
in they charge once again, as my colleague, the member for
Frontenac was saying, duplicating services and meddling in
provincial affairs.
I was referring earlier to my riding. In my riding of Drummond,
there are people who use the small Saint-François river, people who
belong to organizations such as Chasse et Pêche, recreational
5227
boaters, owners of small sailboats and so on. My mandate is to
represent these people, who came to me and said that they hoped I
would speak out against this completely ridiculous fee structure.
That is why I have taken part in the debate on Bill C-26 today, to
make known the needs of my riding and the wishes of those who
elected me.
It would seem that government members have no problem. They
have no representatives, no small lakes, no small rivers, and no
constituents opposed to this bill.
It is revolting that they should ask my daughters, who have a
pedal boat, to register it, telling them they must do so because the
coast guard is supposed to be looking out for their safety. The
public is not stupid. That is my comment in response to the
question from my Liberal colleague.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened with a
great deal of interest to the hon. member's speech. I understand that
the member opposite is doing what she thinks is best with respect
to protecting the interests of her constituents.
I want to say two things. She devoted most of her speech to the
proposed fee structure for recreational vessels. I guess that is fine.
It is her nickel, she can do what she sees fit.
I believe it would have been wise for the member to check the
degree of consultation that went into the formulation of the bill and
the almost unprecedented level of acceptance by the government of
recommendations from committee members to change the bill after
it came to committee.
The member said something which is not true, which is not
based in fact. Members of the Bloc Quebecois would like to stand
in their place on every single issue that comes to the House and
paint it black and white, that everything is somehow against the
rights of Quebecers. This government governs as a national
government. For the member to stand in her place and indicate that
the province of Quebec was not consulted on this legislation is
simply untrue.
In the lead-up to this legislation the department and the minister
consulted extensively with the bureaucracy of the government of
the province of Quebec. Indeed, in a previous life as chair of the
committee that studied the bill, I can tell the House we asked the
minister responsible in the province of Quebec to come and testify
before the standing committee so we could find out the concerns of
the Government of Quebec. However, the minister declined. What
were we supposed to do? Were we supposed to play footsie with the
separatists in Quebec City and drag them kicking and screaming to
a House of Commons public hearing on this legislation to find out
what was their position?
Members of the Bloc Quebecois sat on the committee and had
full access through me as the chair to talk about the interests of
Quebec and since they are supposed to be a national opposition, to
talk about the interests of Canada with respect to this bill.
I am quite frankly getting a little tired of accepting these
statements by the Bloc Quebecois which are not based in fact. The
people of Quebec, like the people of Ontario, Nova Scotia, British
Columbia and the Northwest Territories, had access to the
committee throughout the process. They still have access through
members of Parliament. For anybody from the Bloc Quebecois to
get up and say that access was denied to the people of Quebec is
simply false and cannot be tolerated in this place.
(1255)
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: Madam Speaker, the Liberal member can go ahead
and make a fine long speech, but I would like to point out to him
that the problem at present is that the relationships between the
various partners are not clear.
What I would like to have him think about is this: how can it be
that, last June, the B.C. representatives slammed the door because
they felt they were not being paid attention to? Just as I feel that my
Liberal colleague is not paying attention to me, the same principle.
How is it that the B.C. representatives slammed the door?
Let him spare us the reply that they are just the Bloc Quebecois'
demands, that it is just Quebec, and that it would be done just for
Quebec. We too are in agreement with a national strategy, but one
discussed among the various partners, not unilateral.
What is being asked for and what all the partners are asking for is
very clear: a six month time frame in order to study the situation
and reach an agreement between the partners. That is what is being
asked for.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it seems to be
quite a long time ago since we first had an opportunity as a
Parliament to debate this legislation. It was introduced in a
previous session of Parliament, but the government, and I think all
members of the House, in their wisdom thought that this was the
type of bill that should be reintroduced and not be allowed to die.
This legislation is very important. As my colleague from Gander
said earlier, it is historic legislation. Many times in opposition and
in government I have been critical of the slow processes of
government when it comes to rectifying wrongs by way of process
or when it comes to trying to consolidate various arms and
regulatory bodies of government so that the public good is
executed and dispatched in a fairly hasty manner.
5228
One of the areas I have always been concerned with is that when
we start dealing with ocean management as distinct from fishery
management there are far too many cooks at the pot. Far too many
departments and programs have some vague cross jurisdiction that
really stops the imperative of coming up with a comprehensive
policy for the management of Canada's oceans and the resources
that are inherent in it.
As the member from Gander indicated, even to modernize the
territorial boundaries, the water boundaries, the economic zone, the
12-mile limit, all those regulations and legislation had to be
modernized. Because over 14 different departments all could claim
some degree of responsibility in jurisdiction for the various and
complex issues relating to ocean management, many times the
problems would be identified but leadership was clearly lacking in
the past to try to pull all of those various departments, programs
and ministers together and to have someone who instinctively,
inherently and by law had the responsibility to lead on this issue.
This bill sought to rectify that. It is for the first time a
comprehensive approach to ocean management based on the
precautionary principle of sustainable development and integrated
resource management.
This bill was first introduced by the former minister of fisheries,
who is now the premier of Newfoundland. It staked out his territory
very firmly after he was appointed minister of fisheries. It
indicated that he was prepared not just to talk tough but to take
tough action in order to preserve our fish stocks.
If anybody doubts the resolve of that former minister of
fisheries, currently the premier of the province of Newfoundland,
he need only look back and see that for the first time in our history
he stood up against international bullying in the rape of some of our
transborder and highly migratory stocks off the east coast of
Canada.
(1300)
He was the minister who stood up and said: ``I am prepared to
say that there will not be another species lost in our ocean on my
watch''. He was prepared to take on the Spanish and the European
Union. He was prepared to stand tall. He was prepared to lead to
ensure that the wrongs of the past, the scattered responsibility with
management of our ocean resources with regard to the fisheries,
were going to come to a close.
That former minister of fisheries did not just gain the support of
his colleagues on the government side, he gained the support of his
colleagues in the Reform Party, in the New Democratic Party, in
the Conservative Party and indeed in the Bloc Quebecois.
As I recall, looking back at the issue of the great turbot dispute,
the current premier of the province of Quebec, who was the then
leader of the opposition, supported the measures which we put into
legislation in this place to ensure that we had the legal tools at our
disposal to stop that type of overfishing which had decimated
stocks on the east coast of Canada and was a contributing factor to
thousands of Canadians on the Atlantic coast of Canada being
thrown out of work.
It should not be any surprise to the Bloc Quebecois, to the
Reform Party or to any Canadian that it was that same minister at
the time who said there is another piece of unfinished business, to
come up with a comprehensive consolidated approach not just to
fisheries management but to ocean management.
I do not think it is easy at any time to go to cabinet and say to
other ministers: ``There are certain pieces of legislation and certain
jurisdictions which we have in our departments and are part of our
responsibilities as ministers. But I think they should be removed
from your areas of responsibility because it is in the greater public
good that it be a consolidated approach to ocean management''.
That minister did that and the current minister continues in his
footsteps. He saw fit to make sure that this bill, the bill that we are
debating today, was reintroduced in this Parliament.
This bill consolidated activities in 14 different departments. It
made it extremely clear that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
was the one in the government, in the cabinet who had primary
responsibilities to ensure that Canada had a comprehensive oceans
policy. It made sure that some areas of jurisdiction which dealt with
Canada's oceans and how we manage them were consolidated into
one department. It put the Canadian Hydrographic Service, the
coast guard services and many other programs and agencies of
government under one roof and put them under the sole jurisdiction
of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The opposition has talked at great length about the fee structure.
I can understand its concerns. This government has ensured that
when it came to the striking of new fees with respect to coast guard
services that there has been broad consultation.
For the member opposite to indicate there has not been some
type of a public process by which the proposals could be debated,
adjudicated and if necessary changed is simply not the case. I
remember quite clearly, because I am concerned about the impact
of coast guard fees on the commercial shipping and also as they are
applied to recreational boaters, that there was a process in place
which was led by the commissioner, Mr. Thomas of the coast
guard, now the associated deputy minister of fisheries and oceans.
He led a very open and transparent approach. He went into the
lion's den in places like Quebec City, Halifax, Saint John and St.
John's. He was also on the west coast of Canada. He said: ``These
are the fees that we are proposing for coast guard cost recovery. I
am prepared to listen and to find out what the impact is of these
fees and what is a fairer approach''.
5229
As much as I may be concerned about the impact I know that
I and the people I represent have been allowed to have a say
through a very transparent process. For the opposition to hone in
on this one area where it has concerns and to neglect to speak
about the rest of the bill tells me what an effective opposition it
has not become after three or four years in this place.
The other thing this bill does, and it is very important, is for the
first time it recognizes the importance and sets up a structure to
implement a thing called marine protected areas. Many lobbyists in
the past said that because we were first and foremost a maritime
nation with literally tens of thousands of miles of nooks and
crannies along our three coasts, the Arctic, the Pacific and the
Atlantic oceans, there was a requirement in the management
structure and in the line of responsibility for the establishment of
marine protected areas.
(1305)
Indeed this government has received accolades not just from
those in Canada who have an interest in this field but from people
around the world.
This piece of legislation sets in place a process for the
establishment of marine protected areas. Once again Canada has
shown that it is prepared to put its money where its mouth is when
it talks about conservation not just within Canadian national waters
but also in the international waters for species which are
endangered for whatever reason, whether toxic pollution,
overfishing or any other reason.
We had unprecedented consultations. If opposition members
wish to give a true reflection of how this bill came about they will
have to acknowledge from the documents that were provided to
them as opposition members of the committee that there was an
almost unprecedented level of consultation with those affected in
the industry prior to this bill.
The Canadian Arctic Resources Committee did a tremendous
amount of invaluable work to ensure that those in its sphere of
influence who had a reason to be concerned about the new Canada
oceans act were fully consulted. At the end of the day, the Canadian
Arctic Resources Committee gave full marks to the federal
government and to the ministers involved for being bold enough
and for having the foresight to come through with such a
comprehensive piece of legislation.
In the committee which I was very pleased to chair at the time
we heard from individuals from around the country. In the interest
of trying to save money, the committee did not travel since its takes
a lot of the members' time which they need for other
responsibilities in this place and in their constituencies. Instead we
used teleconferencing which other committees have done in the
past.
We used teleconferencing in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the
west coast. We listened intently. Positions were put forward by
many of the presenters to indicate there could be improvements in
this bill. The committee examined those improvements. I believe
many of those individuals who participated in that very broad
consultative process would agree with me that if there were ever a
committee that did its work and that truly had an impact on a final
piece of legislation it was this committee.
The minister responsible at the time had given me his
undertaking that if we dealt with the bill in a fair and reasonable
manner, he would be prepared to accept any amendments that
bettered the bill. As a result, what we heard in these very broad
consultations at the committee stage resulted in a substantial
number of amendments which were moved and agreed to and
which have now found their way into this piece of legislation. In
my view they have made this piece of legislation a much stronger,
more enforceable and supportable piece of legislation.
The member for Gaspé, who is not only a good friend of mine
but also has a deep and abiding interest in the fisheries and oceans
portfolio, might remember this, as we would all remember. During
one of our teleconferences we heard from some fishermen in Nova
Scotia. The member for St. John's West will remember this clearly.
The fishermen were wailing away at the government and the
committee for coming in with these changes which were going to
do all these terrible things with respect to access fees in the
fisheries.
We all scratched our heads and out of respect for our witnesses I
asked: ``Has anybody there read this bill?'' They answered that
they had not read it all but that Mr. Chisholm had. As it turned out
he was the person who would soon become the leader of the New
Democratic Party in the province of Nova Scotia.
He had done something which I think was very unfortunate. I
want to put it on record today that he was irresponsible in his
approach to this bill. He obviously did not read it. If he did read it,
he did not comprehend what was in it, which would not be a
surprise.
(1310)
What he did was misrepresent, in a major way, the provisions of
the bill. He tried to tell the fishermen in Nova Scotia whom he
purports to want to represent as the premier of the province of Nova
Scotia, since he is now the leader of the New Democratic Party, that
this bill had to be opposed because it was going to impact on access
fees for the fisheries. This bill does absolutely nothing of the sort.
Anyway, I digress. I just wanted to make sure that the record
showed unfortunately that the time we spent with some of our very
good witnesses who gave up their time in Nova Scotia was spent
5230
trying to correct a misapprehension that was either intentionally or
unintentionally put forward about the impact of this bill by the
current leader of the New Democratic Party in the province of
Nova Scotia.
This is a good piece of legislation. I would have hoped that the
Bloc Quebec would have recognized it. I understand it has have a
particular bend. Every time something comes up in the House of
Commons it feels compelled to get up and see it as somehow
something that infringes on the legal rights and obligations of the
people of Quebec.
I also understand, because I can be highly partisan at times, that
this can take on a partisan tone. I would have thought that in
dealing with a bill that had such broad support across Canada and
internationally, the Bloc for once would have laid down the
increasingly discredited arguments for sovereignty and dealt with
the substance of the bill on behalf of those Quebecers, just like the
rest of those in Canada, who have an interest in Canada's oceans
and conservation who would have been well served by this bill.
I still appeal to them-there are still probably a few more
speakers left-to drop this silly approach to legislation. After all,
in the greatest of democratic traditions, although it is somewhat
repulsive to some Canadians, the Bloc Quebecois is the official
opposition, properly and duly elected by its constituents. It holds
the second highest number of seats in this place.
As such, in dealing with bills such as this, which have broad
implications and very positive implications for Canadians in all our
provinces, it should deal not as a separatist opposition but as the
official opposition and work with the government, not just in
committee but also on the floor of the House.
I guess, again, it is not in its interests to show that the House of
Commons and the committee structure work well for all
Canadians, no matter what their language, no matter what their
colour, no matter what their creed or their province of origin.
To Reform Party members I would like to say that we heard
during the committee hearings and since then that they have some
concerns with respect to the fee structures as proposed by the
Canadian coast guard on cost recovery. They have a right and a
responsibility to debate those things on behalf of their constituents
and indeed all Canadians. I look forward to the continuing debate
on that issue.
Let Reform members also look beyond this narrow yet important
aspect of the subject matter at hand today and deal with the overall
bill, whether or not this government and its ministers should be
applauded for being so bold, so innovative and so forthright that
they opened up a process and asked Canadians to give their input in
a consultative process. It has taken many of their suggestions and
come forward with what most in the world who have an interest in
this area would agree is a milestone piece of legislation, a piece of
legislation that will become a model for many other states.
In conclusion, there is still some unfinished business with
respect to the consolidation of various pieces of legislation and
responsibilities. At the end of our hearings we had indicated that
we wanted to see a few more things done with respect to the oceans
act.
We thought there should be a further committee study done,
perhaps a joint committee, between the Standing Committee on the
Environment and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans, to look at a further consolidation of part VI of the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act relating to ocean dumping,
pollution and waste as well as certain provisions of the Arctic
Waters Pollution Prevention Act within the Canada oceans act.
In recognizing that we have gone quite a long way, we must also
recognize there may be a ways to go yet.
(1315 )
Let us not condemn the government for being bold and taking an
initiative that was difficult to put together but has such positive
results for Canadians. I hope that this bill would be able to garner
the high level and degree of support in this place that it has
garnered with the Canadian public and the international
community.
Because it is probably the last time I can do this with regard to a
bill that I might have had something to do with by way of process, I
want to thank all the members of the committee, my colleagues in
the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, and in particular my
vice-chair at the time, the member for St. John's West, for their
incredible dedication and hard work. At the end of the day they
proved that this place does work when you get good people who are
committed to public service. I want to thank them for that type of
commitment and for the example they have shown.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, to begin with
I would like to say hello to my colleague for Dartmouth. I had not
seen him for a while. It is true that we no longer sit on the same
committees.
I would like to go over some of the points he made in his speech,
and above all mention that indeed the Bloc Quebecois did help
improve this particular point in the bill. We did not oppose the
main thrust of this legislation, namely the national oceans
management strategy.
Nobody can oppose virtue, but to make sure that we go beyond
wishful thinking and that this becomes more than a pile of papers
on a shelf, we must ensure that the partners in charge of developing
and implementing this management strategy feel comfortable with
the lines of communication that are established with them. I can
tell you right away that if we cannot define clearly, with
everybody's agreement, the kind of partnership it will be, the
national oceans management strategy will not be worth the paper it
will be written on. This is the gist of what we have been saying in
the House, and this is also what we opposed in committee.
5231
The member for Dartmouth is quite aware of this. The then
fisheries minister, Mr. Brian Tobin, even assured us that the spirit
of partnership would be respected. But when people are told that
they will be respected, when an individual provides a definition and
is told that there is no problem with it, how is it that it does not
appear as the preamble to the definition of what the national oceans
management strategy will be? How can this be?
If the member for Dartmouth had carefully looked at the subject
of today's debate, he would know that we are dealing with an
amendment to postpone third reading for six months. Why? In fact,
to give the government a chance to remedy these flaws, define
partnership, and clarify the grey areas in the bill. With regard to the
environment and open spaces, we are told by the federal
government that it does not want to intrude on matters of provincial
jurisdiction.
Fine. You do not want to intrude? Fine. We will make sure this is
very clear when we enter into partnerships. Since the government
needs the provinces to act as partners with respect to this strategy it
should say so. Why all the secrecy? They accuse us of partisanship.
Let me remind you, and the member must remember, that the Bloc
was the first to extend a helping hand when Brian Tobin wanted
legislation against overfishing on the nose of the Grand Banks. We
reached out and offered our co-operation.
I remember, and I think the parliamentary secretary was present
at the time, that we passed a bill through all three stages in one
single day. That is real co-operation, not stubbornness. Today we
ask that the same good faith be applied in the case of a strategy we
feel is necessary. If we want it to pass and be efficient afterwards,
we must respect that.
(1320)
To conclude my comments, I would like to ask the parliamentary
secretary a question: if relationships are so clearly established, why
is it that a premier, namely Mr. Glen Clark, a man I greatly respect,
slammed the door during the premiers' conference in June because
he felt Ottawa was not listening to what he had to say on fisheries
management and all related problems he was faced with at home?
Mr. Clark has now reached an agreement with the present
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whereby they will see what
powers they can share. That is the type of relationship we must
develop and should find in this bill. So if what the Bloc member
said is false, if we are blinded by sovereignty, how is it that
someone at the other end of the country, someone definitely in a
different party, is reporting the same problems as we are? How can
that be? That is my question.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it is good to get into a bit of a
debate with my good friend and colleague from Gaspé. However,
members of the Bloc Quebecois have to learn at some point that
each piece of legislation which comes before this place is not an
opportunity to rewrite the Constitution of Canada. That is exactly
what they do. Every time something comes up they either see it as
an affront to the powers of the province of Quebec or they think the
bill should be rewritten to give more powers to the province of
Quebec.
It is obvious that the previous government sought, within the
Canadian context, to rebalance the powers between the federal and
provincial governments. There is a process to do that. It should not
be done, with the greatest of respect to my colleagues, on every
piece of legislation that comes before this place.
I want to make this abundantly clear to anybody who cares to
listen. This bill does not shift powers away from or to any
government in Canada. The powers of the province of Quebec are
respected in this legislation. The powers of the federal government
are not enhanced by this legislation. The responsibilities of 14
different departments have been consolidated and transferred to the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, under the jurisdiction of the
minister.
Perhaps Bloc members could speak to the principles of the bill
instead of wasting their time in the House by getting up and talking
about constitutional matters.
I say to the member, as I said to the previous speaker, it is
absolute nonsense for any member of the Bloc Quebecois to
indicate that, under the Canada oceans act, the government of
Quebec was not asked for input and did not have an avenue to be
heard. The member's voice was loud. It was strong. He participated
in the committee process, as did some of his colleagues. It was a
very transparent and open process which showed what can happen
when we have transparent and open processes and people who are
prepared to work within the committee structure of this place. It
was a model, in my view, of what can be done when good people sit
down and use the rules which they are given through the
parliamentary committee structure.
I say once again that there was plenty of opportunity. We heard
from Quebecers during our committee deliberations. We did not
hear from the minister responsible in Quebec. That was not because
we did not ask, it was because the minister did not want to appear.
Perhaps the vision of Bloc members is clouded. Perhaps their
minds are clouded by visions of grandeur and a separate state of
Quebec. Surely to goodness, when we are elected by democratic
principles in every province in this great nation, we have a
fundamental responsibility to participate in the processes on behalf
5232
of the people. The minister responsible from the province of
Quebec chose to be negligent in that regard and did not participate
when asked.
(1325)
With respect to my colleagues on the other side, and I have a
great deal of respect for many of them, they would serve their
constituents and all Canadians better if instead of constantly going
off on their jurisdictional rants, they leave it for other forums and
venues. They should use the grey power that some have to try to
ensure that the processes we are privileged to avail ourselves of as
members of the House of Commons, the highest court in the land,
are used appropriately on behalf of their constituents to ensure that
the legislation that comes before this place is the best it can be for
all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Question
period has now expired. The period of 20-minute speeches
followed by 10 minutes of questions or comments has also expired
for this bill. We will now start the period of 10-minute speeches.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I had
prepared a 20-minute speech, but still. Stimulated as I was by the
hon. member for Dartmouth, I could have gone even longer. At the
outset, I would like to say it is annoying to be called to order when,
on the introduction of a Canadian bill, we, of the official
opposition, claim the issue of power sharing is not relevant.
It is exactly because we are the official opposition that we have
to point out that, in a bill like this one, the confusion is such that it
can only cause major problems, or else, and this is another
possibility, this bill does not mean anything.
Before continuing, I would like to remind the House that when
provincial premiers met recently on the unity train, they were
confronted with a new document on social union proposed by
Ontario. A document by Mr. Tom Courchene proposing what
exactly? The co-ordinated management of Canadian federalism by
the provinces, without taking into account the province of Quebec
and the willingness of a great number of Quebecers to achieve
sovereignty and to negotiate a partnership.
There is a problem of distribution of powers within Canada. Our
reform colleagues talk about it in their own way by saying there
must be decentralization. Others, such as Ontario and British
Columbia, talk about it differently, saying the provinces must
manage Canada. And there is Quebec, which jealously wants to
maintain its historic prerogatives for its people. I do not accept the
lesson given by the hon. member for Dartmouth. And I think I can
say on behalf of the Bloc that we do not accept it.
Let us talk now about this great bill, worthy of a Captain Canada,
who has invaded territorial waters that were not his, to seize a ship
he had no right to. The motive was noble, but the means amounted
to taking justice into one's own hands. In international institutions,
this is not particularly appreciated.
I would like to talk about the ``whereases'' that precede the bill
and that seem to make it a proposal from a convention rather than a
bill, even though Parliament is mentioned.
Since I do not have much time, I will go right away to the first
and third amendment. We could talk about the others, but I think
these are the most important.
(1330)
It reads:
Whereas Parliament wishes to reaffirm Canada's role as a world leader in oceans
and marine resource management;
Of course, no one will object to that. To wish to be a world leader
is one thing, but to claim to be the world leader in oceans
management is pushing it. What kind of actions back this statement
remains to be seen. It is understandable to want to be, but to
proclaim oneself is another story.
The third element reads, and I quote:
Whereas Parliament wishes to affirm-
in Canadian domestic law-
-Canada's sovereign rights, jurisdiction and responsibilities in the exclusive
economic zone of Canada;
Does this means that Parliament is giving itself new sovereign
rights on Canadian territory? Because it is not saying reaffirm but
affirm. This could raise concerns about oceans, rivers and all
waterways.
I raise this whereas clause because it seems to me that, like the
rest of this bill, it is vague and opens the door to, at best,
interdepartmental quarrelling. What does this bill say about the
provinces? I just said that, at the social and economic levels, they
have started to look at managing things together. I did not mention
Quebec, however.
Historically, even before the days of sovereignist governments,
Quebec has made it clear that it wanted to look after the economy
and social affairs of the province, considered by many to be an
``état'', a future country. I am talking about the provinces on the
ocean, because they are in this situation I am describing. How
much attention is paid to the provinces in this bill?
Consultation has been promised. But consulting the provinces
will not be a requirement, even in the cases where regulations are
put in place that affect them. Suffice it to mention the regulations
with respect to the fee structure, which would appear to come under
provincial control. Even in this case, consulting the provinces will
not actually be a requirement. Looking at the role of the provinces
5233
in this bill reminds us that Canada, and I am excluding Quebec
here, is far from having settled its problem of ``governance'' as it is
called today in intellectual circles.
I wonder if the member who sponsored it at the time would still
agree now that he is premier of a province that must deal with this
issue on a continuing basis, but this bill leaves only crumbs to the
provinces and shows that the will of the first Prime Minister, John
A. Macdonald-who wanted to create an undivided country but
was unable to do so because eastern Canada, which is now Quebec,
objected-is still alive and well in today's Canada.
There is a problem in the division of powers and responsibilities.
There is an effectiveness problem, which eventually becomes a
money problem. Being a world leader in the management of oceans
and their resources requires money. Where is the money to
implement this bill?
(1335)
I saw no money anywhere. The only money I can see will come
from fees that are unfair to Quebec and to the ports along the St.
Lawrence. I hope these fees are not the only way to finance
Canada's intended role as a world leader in the management of
fisheries and oceans.
This project is disturbing in several respects, including the
environmental aspects. As we know, Environment Canada's budget
will be cut by 32 per cent over three years. This bill allows the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to form his own department in
this area. There is a serious co-ordination problem within cabinet,
not to mention the co-ordination problem with the provinces.
Perhaps cabinet did not really review this bill, because we
wonder how it can be managed jointly by the Minister of the
Environment and the minister of fisheries. We will vote for the
amendment, because I think we demonstrated convincingly that
this bill is not worthy of its stated objective of making Canada a
world leader in the management of oceans and their resources.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate, at third reading, on Bill C-26. As
you know, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill, which, like
several others introduced in this House since the beginning of the
second session of the 35th Parliament, does not at all take into
account the interests of the provinces.
More specifically, this bill makes no attempt whatsoever to get
the provinces involved in the management of fishery resources.
During the debate at report stage, in June, the Bloc Quebecois
tabled numerous amendments proposed by the hon. member for
Gaspé, who sits on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans, precisely to ensure that the provisions contained in the bill
would force the federal government to take into account the
provinces' interests regarding the management of marine
resources.
The bill does refer to the provinces, but merely to put them in the
same category as any other organization such as a municipality, a
public or private law entity, an aboriginal organization, or a coastal
community.
In spite of the nice rhetoric used by the Prime Minister and his
lieutenants on progressive and co-operative federalism, the fact is
that this government, like its predecessors, is unable to renew
federalism because federalism is not renewable.
So, in June, the Bloc proposed amendments to the bill that would
have allowed the provinces to get involved in the management of
marine resources even though, according to the Constitution of
1867, oceans comes under federal jurisdiction. A true
federal-provincial partnership could have been established to
ensure the sound management of our marine resources.
Instead of promoting such partnership, the government preferred
to turn a deaf ear and flatly rejected all the requests made by the
Bloc Quebecois. Clearly, the government is adamant about holding
on to these areas of jurisdiction and has no intention of sharing
them with the provinces.
What are the arguments used by this government to continue to
refuse to share this responsibility with the provinces? One is the
requirement to comply with the UN convention on the law of the
sea, which came into effect on November 14, 1994. According to
the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans during the June 10 debate, our proposed
amendments went against this international convention.
(1340)
In fact, on June 10, 1996, the parliamentary secretary said, as we
can see on page 3606 of Hansard, and I quote:
Bloc Motions Nos. 15 and 16 regarding the continental shelf make the same
erroneous implications, namely that the continental shelf could be within the
boundary of a province. The continental shelf is well beyond provincial boundaries.
To amend this bill as proposed by the Bloc would make Canada's new ocean statute
contravene international law. This is neither proper nor legally correct.
It is important to note, by the way, that it is always easy for
government members to accuse us of making erroneous
implications rather than debate the real issues.
However, in the United States, the federation closest to Canada,
at least physically, the central government shares with the States its
responsibilities over part of its coastal territory. That does not mean
that the United States are contravening international law. It does
not prevent the United States from exercising unfettered
jurisdiction over their coasts and territorial waters. It is rather a
new vision of federation.
Another argument used to refuse to clearly state the role
provinces could play in the management of marine resources is that
it would go against the Constitution of Canada and it is not up to
this House to make constitutional amendments. But that is nothing
new. For the federal government, everything that is in Quebec's
5234
interest goes against the Constitution. Again, I find such an
argument rather astonishing.
Since the throne speech last February, the Prime Minister keeps
on saying that Canadian federalism is constantly evolving, that we
do not need constitutional amendments for the provinces to become
more involved in various areas, that administrative arrangements
are the way to go in the future.
In fact, when the time comes to adopt clear legislative
provisions, when the time comes to share jurisdictions with the
provinces or even to respect the provinces's jurisdictions, the
federal government rejects Quebec's demands and falls back on a
Constitution that is cast in stone.
Indeed the federal government shows little respect for the
Constitution when it wants to interfere in areas under provincial
jurisdiction. That was the main point I wanted to make concerning
this bill which, like many others, does not show any willingness to
co-operate with Quebec and the other provinces on the part of the
federal government.
This government is showing us once again that it does not want
things to change, and Quebecers will clearly express their feeling
about that the next time they are consulted about Quebec's future.
Of course, I am concerned about other aspects of this bill,
particularly about the impact they will have on Quebec ridings that
have a port.
First of all, concerning the whole issue of fees for services
provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, we feel the government is
acting much too fast. The maritime industry is not totally opposed
to some charging of fees, but it does want studies in order to find
out the effects this would have. This is the reason the great majority
of witnesses heard by the fisheries and oceans committee have
called for a moratorium on coast guard fees. The impression we get
from the government's attitude is that it wants to get its hands on
considerable amounts of money without any regard for the
consequences.
Another aspect of this bill which affects all ridings is the fees for
pleasure craft. If such fees were charged, organizations in all
ridings would be affected.
Non-profit organizations concerned with preserving the flora
and fauna of our rivers and educating the public about these issues
would be affected.
(1345)
Funding of these organizations is partially public and partially
private, and they will have to face the consequences. A group can
own 10 war-canoes, 120 canoes or 20 kayaks, while another has 10
rowboats, 26 pedal boats, and so on. They will be affected by the
fees provided for in the bill. The survival of these groups, which
have always played an important role in the economic and social
activities of the communities in which they are located, will be
compromised.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): I apologize, Madam Speaker,
but I rushed in when I saw there were fewer speakers from the other
parties than scheduled in this important debate. I welcome this
opportunity to rise in the House to object to the adoption of Bill
C-26. Among other things, the government wanted to put pressure
not only on the opposition but also on the stakeholders in this area.
For that reason alone, the bill is totally unacceptable.
We heard Liberal members say earlier that this was an historic
bill, and we heard them brag about the broad impact of this bill on
the lives of Canadians and Quebecers.
Before going any further, since I believe I will be one of the last
speakers in this debate, I would like to congratulate the hon.
member for Gaspé on a job well done. Thanks to his persuasive
arguments and the groundswell they provoked-I am referring
particularly to what I called the rowboat debate-he managed to
make the minister backtrack temporarily. I say temporarily,
because this should not be a reason for the hon. member for Gaspé
to relax his vigilance concerning the registration of rowboats,
pedalboats and light craft.
All Bloc members talked to their constituents, and as people
heard about the government's plans, they said it was ridiculous and
incredible. Since when is the coast guard interested in the light
craft that navigate on our lakes? The presence of DFO makes sense
if you are on the Pacific, the Arctic or the Atlantic ocean, and even
on the St. Lawrence River. We are used to seeing them there. But
on the tributaries of the St. Lawrence? People could not believe
their ears.
The work done by the hon. member for Gaspé raised the interest
of the media, so that the minister delayed the coming into force of
the registration of light craft. I admit I am still apprehensive,
because after all, this is a pre-election year. We do not know when
the Prime Minister will call an election, and it is clear that the
government is playing for time.
With this bill the minister wants to make it easier to issue such
regulations. In a previous attempt, he used legislation on financial
administration. In this case, he wants to make it much easier. This
is exactly what people do not want.
The worst thing is certainly the lack of consultation, of listening,
of understanding on the part of the minister as to what the
participants said. He listened to them, but he did not take their
suggestions into account, except for postponing registration of
small craft. As for the rest, the minister wants to reaffirm Canada's
5235
sovereignty on its inland waters but also extend and confirm the
200 mile zone. We have no objection to his speaking of
sovereignty.
(1350)
We Quebec sovereignists are well aware of the true meaning of
the word sovereignty. However, when speaking of co-operation, the
government says it is possible, but we know its habits. We did not
have that many examples of co-operation between the federal
government and the provinces up to now, over the past three years,
and we have been following all the debates closely. There was
some talk of co-operation, but rarely, and I daresay almost never,
did it translate into action.
This bill is a further example of this bad habit. The minister
wants to decide with his officials in Ottawa. Whatever the
provinces may say, the minister will do as he pleases. He did not
even listen to the Premier of British Columbia. In his last speech,
the hon. member for Gaspé reminded us of the time when, during a
first ministers' conference, the Premier of British Columbia-not
Quebec-walked out, saying that he felt he was wasting his time,
that it did not serve any purpose, they did not listen, they did not
want to know.
So a bill was introduced. I see some members, for example the
hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls who, with elections in the
offing, wants to make a name for himself-he has a reputation as a
dissident, even a critic, one of the rare ones within the government
party to voice his opinions-and suddenly he has found a mission
for himself: Bloc bashing.
That is a well known trick. It has been used many times. I am a
fairly new MP. I have been here only three years. But the hon.
members for Richelieu and Rosemont, who have more experience,
have often told me that it has always been that way. What do MPs
or government members do to make a name for themselves outside
Quebec? They attack Quebec, they attack MPs, they sometimes try
to insult them. This was not the case here. The hon. member did not
stoop so low, even though his comments were not particularly
appropriate.
Having sat on the opposition side for a long time, he should
understand that members of the Bloc Quebecois are trying to do an
important job in this place, to be the official opposition and as such
to represent those who feel the government has not listened to
them, or at least has not understood them.
But no, the government is forging ahead, passing this bill the
member for Gander-Grand Falls called the most important piece
of legislation since Confederation. I believe in his view it is,
especially in his area bordering the Atlantic ocean. I can
understand his point of view. But then, if it is that important, why
not proceed more carefully and clarify many areas which are still
grey.
I worked a long time for the former Quebec agriculture and
fisheries minister and I remember that, up to 1984, the federal
government was delegating part of its responsibilities regarding
fisheries management to the provinces. And it worked. We were
doing fine in those days. We know what happened to the fisheries
after this was taken away from Quebec; we are actually looking for
fish now. The stocks of just about every species are dwindling.
Things have been going wrong since that time.
Instead of broadening its horizon in order to protect the fisheries
through its strategy, the government is saying that it will be done in
Ottawa, by Ottawa.
I remember a historic remark a politician made in Quebec to the
effect that it was harder to have a bureaucrat leave Ottawa to go and
see what was actually going on in the fisheries that to have a fish
swim from the Gaspé to Ottawa.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Madam Speaker, after
those impressive speeches on the part of the member facing me and
of the member for Lévis, I am surprised that our Liberal colleagues
are not rising to approve these very sensible arguments.
(1355)
The member for Quebec explained quite well the unfair situation
this bill would create for Quebec. When a government is so
irresponsible as to table a bill taxing pedal boats and rowboats,
there is definitely something wrong, something out of whack in the
operation.
By tabling this bill and not realizing that it will adversely affect
all small touristic parks and outdoor recreational parks in regions
like Quebec and other provinces, the government is showing to
what extent it is oblivious of the day-to-day life of ordinary
citizens.
We have seen that this fee for pedal boats and small rowboats
will have an incredible financial impact on small outdoor
recreational businesses which can barely make ends meet
sometimes, particularly when we get rainy summers like we did
this year.
Fortunately, the Bloc proposed some amendments and brought
witnesses to be heard by the committee to make the government
understand to some extent, maybe temporarily, that it was taking a
wrong path.
In the documents the government used to explain its position, we
can see that, once again, its actions are diametrically opposed to its
red book commitments, where the government said it would reduce
the public service, really streamline it, and it would legislate less in
order to give businesses-
The Speaker: My dear colleague, as it is nearly two o'clock,
you will have to resume after question period.
The House will now proceed to statements by members.
5236
5236
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October 5 has been designated by the United Nations Educational
Scientific and Cultural Organization as World Teachers' Day. I am
sure that all members will join me in saluting the efforts of the men
and women who devote their lives to teaching.
Educating our children is a vital task that often receives far too
little recognition. Not only is education fundamental to our future
economic success, it also lays the foundation for our successful
democracy and the development of a more tolerant and caring
society.
All too often we focus on the negative when discussing our
education system and ignore the wonderful contribution of all the
dedicated teachers who, despite all the challenges of a rapidly
changing society, manage to instil a love of learning.
I am sure all members will join me in saying thank you to all
Canadian teachers for their dedication and hard work educating our
children.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to salute the management and employees of the Centre
d'interprétation de la canneberge, or cranberry interpretation
centre, which opened its doors last week in
Saint-Louis-de-Blandford. This event, unique to Quebec, will fill
with wonder those who visit the centre.
Since the centre is built in the middle of a cranberry production
facility, visitors will be able to see how this fruit is harvested.
Under a huge tent, many charts and pictures will help them get to
know everything about this fruit.
The cranberry in a small wild fruit from North America. Natives
had called it atoca.
At present, in Quebec, some 1,000 acres have been set aside to
grow cranberries.
In fact, 95 per cent of Quebec's cranberries are grown within a
radius of 20 km around the municipality of
Saint-Louis-de-Blandford. Furthermore, the neighbouring
municipality of Villeroy hosts an annual cranberry festival.
Consequently, the riding of Lotbinière is the best location for the
production of cranberries in Quebec.
[English]
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian farmers are noted as masters of understatement.
Therefore suffice it to say that 1996 will not go down in history as a
banner year for agriculture in western Canada.
Farmers in Prince George-Peace River are accustomed to tough
years and hard conditions. As someone who has been directly
involved in agriculture for most of my life, I am well aware of what
a year like this means to a farm family.
(1400)
After suffering years of low returns the future was finally
beginning to look a bit brighter with the improvement of grain
prices, but then crop year 1996 came along. A long cold winter and
a late wet spring, followed by almost continuous rain over the
growing season, have resulted in a dangerously late harvest.
Hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast depend
on the successful grain harvest for their livelihood. Farmers not
only in my riding but across Canada are struggling to bring in the
crop. I ask all colleagues to join with me in wishing them the very
best in their endeavours.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
other day I asked a question of the Minister of the Environment
with respect to rail line abandonment. I asked him if he was willing
to bring forward an environmental assessment of the various
abandonments which are affecting my home province of Manitoba,
for instance the possible abandonment of rail lines in the north and
the Lyleton subdivision in the south.
I got a cute answer. The minister got up and said: ``Not yet''. It
seems that the Trudeau shrug is back in style.
The fact of the matter is there is a good case to be made for doing
an environmental assessment of these various rail line
abandonments and what effect they have on the environment by
increasing truck traffic and a variety of other things which need to
be considered.
I would urge the government, pursuant to its commitment to the
Bruntland commission, to do these kinds of environmental
assessments. That is what governments around the world
committed themselves to do when they endorsed the work of the
Bruntland commission to environmentally assess all major policy
initiatives; not just the environmental ones, but transportation and
all kinds of
5237
other policy initiatives. That has not been done by this government
and it should be done.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, one
week ago today Morley Sangwais was convicted of murder in the
first degree of his common law spouse Kelly Howe in Calgary.
I could stand here and reflect on the bitterness and the frustration
that the victim's family has experienced through this whole
traumatic episode, but rather I am standing here to urge women
across the country who find themselves in situations of domestic
abuse, who find themselves brutalized, terrorized, demoralized and
compromised daily, to find a secure, safe haven for themselves and
their children.
We can also talk about restraining orders and all the paperwork
that abounds in supporting our legal structure, but for Kelly Howe
that restraining order had about as much value as this paper
airplane.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
students at Parkdale collegiate in my riding of Parkdale-High
Park deserve to be congratulated. The collegiate itself is found in a
less affluent area of Toronto; however, this has not dissuaded the
students from believing and living the Canadian dream.
According to Jim Craig, the high school English teacher, 99 per
cent of his students go on to university despite the fact that most
came as immigrants from non-English speaking communities.
Sadly, many came as refugees from war zones.
Recently these students have compiled a collection of prose and
poetry describing their views of life, Images of Parkdale.
Images of Parkdale is truly unique in that it allows us to see life
through the eyes of young people who have endured very difficult
times and have yet gone beyond this by putting together a truly
remarkable and inspirational book.
I fully commend the staff and the students of Parkdale Collegiate
Institute for their excellent work.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over 400 people gathered at Norman Rogers Airport in
Kingston Township on October 6 for the official opening of Len
Birchall Way. The new street name, officially unveiled by Kingston
Mayor Gary Bennett and Kingston Township Reeve Isabel Turner,
recognized Air Commodore Leonard Birchall, a former
commandant of the Royal Military College.
On April 4, 1942 Leonard Birchall was on air patrol off the coast
of Ceylon, where the British navy was stationed. He was turning
around when he spotted the whole Japanese fleet heading toward
Ceylon. It is said the Japanese were planning an attack similar to
the one at Pearl Harbour. Leonard Birchall managed to signal the
British fleet before the Japanese shot him down. He was captured
and survived four years of beatings and torture in a Japanese
prisoner of war camp.
Sir Winston Churchill hailed Leonard Birchall as the saviour of
Ceylon. Had the Japanese attacked, they could have wiped out the
British navy, with unknown consequences for the outcome of the
war. Air Commodore Birchall is truly a great Canadian war hero.
He was well saluted last Sunday.
* * *
(1405)
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week families all across Canada will be rediscovering family
strengths, this year's theme for National Family Week.
In my riding of Saint-Denis I have organized a drawing contest
for the second year in a row to encourage elementary school
children to rediscover their family strengths. Last year's contest
was a success and this year's will have even greater participation.
[Translation]
As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to teach and
show young people, tomorrow's decision makers, how important
family is in our society.
Family values are our greatest resource. Without the love and
support of our families, it would be difficult if not almost
impossible to realize our full potential and achieve our own goals
and those of our society.
[English]
Indeed, without the love, support and strength of my parents, my
husband and my two daughters, I could not do my job as well as
other colleagues in the House.
Let us rediscover our family strengths and rejoice in our families
not only this week but all year long.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, better
known as UNESCO, has designated October 5 as World Teachers
5238
Day in honour of the men and women who dedicate their lives to
teaching.
For teachers, the vision of a world where people will live in a
climate of harmony, tolerance and mutual understanding is more
than a dream; it is a goal.
The president of the international educational association, Mary
Hatwood Futrell, said this: ``When a student's developed potential
meets a teacher's liberating art, a miracle occurs''. This miracle
happens every day.
On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to thank the men and
women who make this miracle possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Elisabeth Roux, assisted by her mother, Senator Therese
Lavoie-Roux, defrauded the Canadian government of thousands of
dollars through unemployment insurance fraud.
The RCMP recommended that Elisabeth Roux be charged
because she, by trickery, lies, or other misleading methods,
defrauded the Government of Canada of more than $5,000. The
justice department has refused to lay charges against the senator or
her daughter even though federal employees point to the numerous
examples where other Canadians have been prosecuted for UI
fraud.
Consequently, by refusing to lay charges, this Liberal regime is
sending a message to Canadians that the law applies to everyone
unless you are a political friend of the government. In the senator's
case she was a former provincial Liberal cabinet minister.
Shame on the justice minister for allowing two tier justice to
reign in Canada. Shame on the justice department lawyers who
quashed the RCMP charges. Shame on this Liberal government for
demonstrating its contempt for the principle that all Canadians are
equal before the law. Charge the senator and her daughter.
* * *
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in this House today as the member for Edmonton North to
recognize and provide my support to the city of Calgary in
organizing its bid for Expo 2005.
This international event will be an economic and cultural boon to
Calgary, Edmonton and Canada, drawing tourists from around the
world, and will serve as a showcase of our great country and
people.
Traditional western hospitality will certainly transform all
visitors into Stetson wearing, roving ambassadors of Canada who
will proclaim to all who listen what a special country we are
privileged to live in.
So widespread is the support for this bid that even the city of
Edmonton, Calgary's traditional rival, is strongly supporting our
southern neighbour's bid. Combine this support with that of the
province of Alberta, the campaign for Canada sponsored by the
Calgary Sun, and the future looks very bright for Calgary.
Once again, I applaud Calgary's bid for Expo 2005 and
encourage my fellow members to take up this challenge for our
country's benefit.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, worldwide there are more than 110 million active land
mines waiting to explode. These deadly devices claim 10,000 lives
every year and more than 16,000 people are injured annually.
(1410)
Five hundred land mines explode weekly. The vast majority of
victims are innocent civilians, often women and children. At the
IPU Canada worked to pass a strong resolution to have a total ban
on anti-personnel land mines.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has
taken a leadership role in convening a conference here and
following it up in December.
I wish him the best of success to have a total global ban on
anti-personnel land mines.
* * *
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday,
October 5, saw the largest political convention in the history of
Prince Edward Island. For the first time, every member of the
Liberal Party had the right to vote directly for the new leader.
Almost 5,000 Liberals turned out to exercise their franchise.
This great demonstration of democracy in action resulted in the
election of transportation minister Keith Milligan as the new leader
of the Liberal Party and premier of the province of Prince Edward
Island.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate premier-elect
Keith and his organization on a superb effort which produced his
weekend victory.
I want to congratulate Wayne Cheverie, Tex MacDonald and
Daniel Mullins for running great campaigns and making a major
contributions to the revitalization of the Liberal Party on the island.
As the convention concluded it was heart warming to hear that
all factions were united behind the new leader and anxious to
contribute to a Liberal victory in the upcoming election.
5239
I want to wish Keith and his family well and to give my heartfelt
thanks to Premier Callbeck for a job well done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, like UNESCO, a number of provincial, territorial and
municipal governments have proclaimed October 5 as World
Teachers Day.
Having retired from teaching after 46 years, I wish to mark this
day in a special way. Many members of Parliament, including some
20 members of the official opposition, a few ministers and
yourself, Mr. Speaker, have worked in that sector. The vast
majority of politicians used to come from professional
environments. We now see how teachers can also influence the
future of a country.
Teaching is the greatest profession in the world, since our social
values and assets depend on its quality. On the eve of the third
millennium, teachers assume a major responsibility.
On behalf of all my Bloc colleagues, I wish to thank them for
their commitment and professionalism.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government's fiscal restraint is a sham.
Fact one: the entire deficit reduction of $25 billion is matched by
$25 billion extra collected from the taxpayer. Fact two: the cuts in
program spending needed to pay extra interest on the debt were
achieved mainly by downloading on the provinces. Soon cuts in
transfers for health and education will account for 84.3 per cent of
all the federal government's cuts.
Ontario's minister of intergovernmental affairs put it this way:
``Well, Mr. Minister, it is time to come clean. You will reduce
transfers to the provinces by 42.2 per cent while you have only
reduced other federal program spending by 1.3 per cent''.
Downsizing of government is largely a Liberal myth. Revenue
grabs and deficit shifting are despicable facts.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Quebec minister responsible for international
relations, Sylvain Simard, recently illustrated how true the old
saying about travel broadening the mind is.
Upon returning from a journey in Asia, Simard observed that, in
Asia, the business culture relies heavily on governments and that
government assistance is necessary to support the economic
stakeholders. ``Agreements must first be entered into by the
various countries for the foreign business community to have
access to this market. It is a matter of trust. That is the only way to
do business in Asia'', he said.
We are happy to see that the Quebec minister responsible for
international relations recognizes how important the presence of
and role played by Canadian first ministers was in Team Canada's
first mission to Asia.
Hopefully, next time, they will be able to convince Lucien
Bouchard to come along, in the best interest of all Quebecers.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the PQ
premier of Quebec made an important speech in Laval at lunchtime
today.
In essence, Lucien Bouchard reiterated the main economic
principles that have guided our government since we came to
office. Fighting the deficit must be our top priority in order to
protect our social benefits, create jobs and improve the
competitiveness of our economy.
However the separatist leader should not look too far for the
reasons explaining his province's financial distress. Since his party
took office in 1994, there has been one referendum after another
and it is threatening to hold a referendum when the circumstances
are favourable.
Lucien Bouchard must eliminate the climate of economic
insecurity created by his plan to achieve sovereignty. That is the
price to pay to ensure Quebec's future and prosperity. Two
referendums is already two too many.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, before we begin question period
today, I noticed that in the statements over the last few days we
have been using the term ``you'' as if speaking directly to another
person or a minister. I have been loath to intervene, but we do not
use that particular word when we are having questions or answers. I
wonder if you would consider putting it in a more roundabout way
rather than attacking directly.
5240
5240
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we have just learned a few minutes ago that General
Boyle, the chief of defence staff, has handed in his resignation.
We have known since yesterday that the discussions between the
Office of the Prime Minister and his own department, the Privy
Council, and General Boyle have been very lengthy and probably
very difficult. However that may be, members will recall that, for
over a month now, in response to our questions, the Prime Minister
has been rising in this House and telling us time and again that he
has confidence in his minister, in his former Minister of National
Defence, and that he has confidence, every confidence, he said, in
General Boyle.
How can the Prime Minister explain his sudden about-face today
regarding the individual in whom he had such confidence a few
days ago? What has changed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, General Boyle, who met with the defence minister, sent
me his letter of resignation this morning. I accepted it with regret. I
did not ask him to resign, but he felt it was in the interest of the
Canadian armed forces and of the defence minister that he hand in
his resignation.
It was his personal decision. He made it in the interest of the
troops. We were of the opinion that he could have waited until the
end of the inquiry to see whether he had committed an error or not.
But he thought, because of the controversy in which he found
himself, that it was in the interest of the new defence minister to be
able to choose his staff. I think his consideration is very admirable
and very courageous.
I thanked him for his service to the country. Now that he has
gone, the defence minister will recommend, in the near future I
hope, a successor. In the meantime, General Boyle's assistant will
perform his duties on an acting basis.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Prime Minister tried to convince us that the
former defence minister had resigned over an action that had
absolutely nothing to do with the Somalia inquiry. The minister
was saved by an unfortunate letter.
Now, he is trying to convince us that the chief of defence staff
has resigned, but that nobody had anything to do with it, when we
know that officials from his own department were talking with the
general for several hours yesterday afternoon. The Prime Minister
can always take another run at it.
I would simply like to say this: Will the Prime Minister not
admit that the fact is that he was too protective of his friend, the
former defence minister, who in turn protected his friend the chief
of defence staff, all in order to avoid admitting that he made a
mistake in choosing the former defence minister, who made a
mistake in choosing General Boyle?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the defence minister's letter of resignation Friday was
very clear, and that was his only reason for resigning. He sent me a
letter of resignation, which I accepted, because he had been
informed that he had committed an error, in contravention of the
guidelines issued to all ministers. He assumed his responsibilities
with great honesty. I know that all members in this House will want
to acknowledge that over the last three years the Minister of
National Defence who resigned Friday did an exceptional job,
efficiently carrying out the necessary cuts, closing bases, and
reducing the number of employees and generals. I am very proud of
him.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps we should take a leaf from the army's book and
record the exploits of the former defence minister on video?
Can the Prime Minister assure us, first of all, that the lengthy
discussions in his own department yesterday, between his officials
and General Boyle, were not for the purpose of making General
Boyle's exit an easy one, and second, will he promise that no offer
will be made to General Boyle before we know the conclusions of
an interim report that will shed light on the falsification of
documents in the Canadian armed forces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, General Boyle has handed in his resignation. He has not
asked the government for any favours. He even clearly said that he
did not wish to receive an appointment, even if we had wanted to
offer him one. And he will leave under conditions suitable for a
retiring chief of defence staff.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Defence.
Yesterday, the new Minister of National Defence stated that the
problem would not be solved by assigning responsibility to a single
individual, but by tackling the whole system.
Yesterday, the new Minister of National Defence said that the
idea of an interim report to cast light on operation document
tampering, as demanded by the official opposition, was an
interesting one.
Does the minister realize now that this is not merely an
interesting idea; the government has no choice but to require an
5241
interim report, and promptly, if it wishes to get to the bottom of this
scandal and find out all those involved.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very
important to keep tabs on what one says in this House and
elsewhere. What I said to the hon. member and others is that I was
going to look at the suggestions made by Mps and others.
What is important for me at this time is to acknowledge that the
chief of staff has submitted his resignation and that it has been
accepted. Now we will proceed to investigate the Somalia situation
thoroughly.
Perhaps this is the time to indicate that those calling for an
interim report on what has been found out to date in the Somalia
inquiry ought to keep in mind as well that it is also important to
find out exactly what went on in Somalia.
We ought not to lose sight of the fact that what is important here
for Canadians is to know what happened there, who was
responsible, how such a thing could happen, and how it can be
prevented from happening again. That is what we will be trying to
find out.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, having
an interim report does nothing to prevent a complete investigation
of what else went on in Somalia.
Does the explanation of the minister's reticence to call for an
interim report not lie in the fact that his government does not want
a report on document tampering to come out before the next
elections. This could smear not only General Boyle but also, of
course, the former Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister
himself?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in recent days,
two people have taken some very difficult steps. First my
colleague, the former Minister of National Defence, resigned, and
now today, General Boyle has done so as well.
(1425)
I will take advantage of this opportunity to ask my honourable
colleague whether he is serious about wanting to find out just what
happened in this entire incident, as he was calling for yesterday in
terms of an interim report on the entire Somalia situation. I am
prepared to commit the government, provided we have the support
of the opposition and the other members of this House, to making a
request to the Parliament of Canada from the House of Commons,
asking those who are investigating the Somalia events not only to
provide us with an interim report, but also to give us a report on
what went on in Somalia so that action may be taken as soon as we
have it in hand, by the end of March, as set out in the instructions
given to the inquiry.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as all members know, on Friday the Minister of National
Defence resigned and today the chief of defence staff has resigned.
These resignations have been accepted by the government. We
want to congratulate the Prime Minister on belatedly and finally
acknowledging that there has been a leadership problem at the top.
As recently as last week the Prime Minister was telling this
House that General Boyle and the former Minister of National
Defence enjoyed the government's complete confidence. Will the
Prime Minister explain to the House what happened between last
Thursday and today to destroy that confidence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday the Minister of National Defence gave me a
letter of resignation. I accepted it. The letter of resignation was
very clear. The letter of acceptance of the resignation was very
clear. They are public documentation.
The former Minister of National Defence showed a high degree
of public service when he said: ``Unfortunately, I broke the
guidelines that you have established, Prime Minister. I resign''. I
said that I hope some day I will have the opportunity to welcome
him back in the cabinet. He is a very honourable man, a good
parliamentarian and a dedicated Canadian.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's explanation is incomplete and
contradictory.
The former defence minister was allegedly forced to resign for
interfering with a quasi-judicial tribunal. This apparently violated
an ethical guideline of cabinet. Yet over the last two years, seven
other ministers of the government have interfered with the CRTC, a
quasi-judicial tribunal, and have gotten off scot free.
Will the Prime Minister release to this House these ethical
guidelines which permit seven cabinet ministers to interfere with
the tribunal without penalty, but which required the minister of
defence to resign for doing so?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I formed the government three years ago, there were
no guidelines of conduct for ministers in relation to their
communications with quasi-judicial bodies.
When we had a controversy in the House, I said that they were to
be clarified. I have clarified them. The ministers received new
instructions after that. Unfortunately, in the case of the former
Minister of National Defence, he broke the guidelines.
5242
These guidelines existed in writing in previous governments.
They were never made public. They are instructions from the
Prime Minister to his ministers. It is for the ministers to deal with
the Prime Minister.
In the case on Friday, I received a letter of resignation and I
accepted the letter.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question was simply, would the Prime Minister
release to this House these guidelines that permit this contradictory
behaviour.
Some of us come from jurisdictions, for example a jurisdiction
in Alberta, where the most rookie minister of the government
knows there are only three ways to communicate to a quasi-judicial
tribunal: through the statutes, through an order in council, or
through public testimony before the tribunal.
Why is it so difficult for that rule to get established in practice
here? I ask the Prime Minister, will he submit to the House these
ethical guidelines which permit such contradictory behaviour from
his ministers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a reality that we debated in this House. A minister
of the crown at the same time is a member of Parliament. He has
some obligation to the people who vote for him to try to help them
solve their problems. The minister as a member of Parliament
indicated in his letter what he had done. He broke the guidelines
but he will always have the responsibility of being a member of
Parliament.
(1430)
It is very difficult to combine the two responsibilities. I advise
the ministers to be very prudent. In this case the minister felt that
he had been imprudent. I checked and the guidelines were broken
and I have accepted his resignation. It is a very honourable thing.
If the hon. member thinks that this is not severe enough, tell me,
should there not be any members of Parliament made cabinet
ministers? It is that way in other jurisdictions. In France a member
of Parliament has to resign his seat as a member of Parliament to
become a member of the cabinet, but I am a defender of the British
tradition and I am following the British rules.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
According to today's issue of the Globe and Mail, the
government has devised a parallel system enabling the Prime
Minister's Office to organize as it pleases the management of
information requested under the Access to Information Act.
Will the Prime Minister confirm the existence of such a system?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is the government. The Privy Council
must ensure that what goes on in all the departments is
co-ordinated and that, if there is any problem in the public
administration, the Prime Minister is informed.
Putting in place the necessary mechanisms to know what goes on
in the public service is the first rule of good management for a
Prime Minister. This is precisely the way I run the government.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the access to information request concerning the former
defence minister goes back to August.
How does the Prime Minister explain that he stood up for his
former minister throughout this period, when he was fully aware
that his minister might have violated the code of ethics for cabinet
members?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every day, hundreds and even thousands of information
requests are made by journalists, academics and members of
Parliament. It costs millions of dollars for the public service to find
the related documents.
My office was informed on Tuesday evening. I was personally
informed on Wednesday morning, and the minister handed me his
resignation on Friday morning. I think the government did what it
had to do. Once we were informed, we took action within hours.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
For months now the Prime Minister has said that the former
defence minister and General Boyle were operating the armed
forces to the satisfaction of the government, no major crisis. Since
then the minister and the chief of defence staff have resigned under
a cloud and on the heels of many scandals. Yesterday the new
defence minister admitted that the armed forces face a major crisis.
How can the Prime Minister explain the flip flop? Does the
Prime Minister believe there is a major crisis in the armed forces or
not?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first place
the hon. member alleges something the Prime Minister had said,
that there is no crisis in the armed forces.
5243
I know that the hon. member and every member of the House
is aware of the Somalia inquiry, not just the situation with respect
to the inquiry surrounding the activities of General Boyle. General
Boyle was not in Somalia. General Boyle was not in the videos
that the hon. member and others have seen. General Boyle was
not a commanding officer in Somalia.
The hon. member I think does the House a service in raising the
question as to whether or not there is a crisis in the armed forces. I
said yesterday and I repeat today, the replacement of a defence
minister and the resignation of the chief of defence staff will not
correct serious problems in the Canadian Armed Forces that were
reflected in the activities in Somalia.
(1435 )
I am sure the hon. member will join with me in ensuring that we
encourage the commission to report as quickly as possible on what
happened, why it happened and who was responsible for what
happened in Somalia.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, again Canadians are getting used to no answers in the
House of Commons.
We have to remember that nothing honourable happened today.
The person who resigned admitted to lying to the military police.
They have admitted to lying and to breaking the spirit of the Access
to Information Act. The government is responsible for those
actions.
The Canadian public have listened month after month, day in
and day out to this Prime Minister saying there was no problem at
the Department of National Defence. Does the Prime Minister
accept full responsibility for the mishandling of the appointment of
the former chief of defence staff, General Jean Boyle?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the
House and Canadians have listened to questions being put with
respect to the situation which surrounded General Boyle.
The hon. member refers to honour and that there was no honour
in what was done today. I believe that anyone who has as much
respect as the hon. member does for the armed forces would
recognize what kind of a heart wrenching situation it had to be for
an officer of the calibre and the age of General Boyle to have to
come to the conclusion that it was in the best interests of the men
and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and in the best interests
of Canada for him to offer his resignation to the government.
The hon. member and I may agree on some things, but I have to
disagree, and I believe that most fair thinking Canadians would
disagree, when he suggests in any way that what General Boyle did
today was not the honourable thing to do.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General. While on probation, inmate
Marcel Blanchette was involved in the horrendous murder of
Isabelle Bolduc, committed near Sherbrooke, last July. However,
the probation officers in charge of his case had refused to punish
him, even if they very well knew that he had broken the conditions
of his parole.
Can the Solicitor General tell this House why this offender, who
was not abiding by any of his parole conditions, could remain free
instead of being sent back to prison?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows
full well that the National Parole Board is a quasi-judicial body. We
should get its recommendations any time now.
I cannot comment on the decision made by the National Parole
Board, because it is a quasi-judicial body. However, I can tell the
hon. member that the board is investigating and that we should
receive its report in a few weeks.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
specific guarantees can the minister give the House that there will
never be another case like the Marcel Blanchette incident ever
again in the Canadian prison system?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one such incident is one
too many, I agree. However, our system is working very well. I
cannot believe that the hon. member is suggesting that we get rid of
the review process and the National Parole Board.
The system is working very well and has been fully tried and
tested. In this case, we will check with our sources and, as I said
earlier, wait for the upcoming report before taking all appropriate
measures.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, last Friday could have been a glorious day for the
minister of agriculture. His news conference could have been his
opportunity to be king for a day but sadly he remains the king of
delay based on his press conference on the Canadian Wheat Board.
5244
The minister promised Reformers in the House: ``I will give a
detailed response to the panel's recommendations''. In fact, his
message was so unclear it took his officials four more days to write
up a press release.
After three years of preparing for this big day, why was the
minister's statement so vague and underwhelming? When will the
minister specifically tell prairie farmers what he plans to do?
(1440 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon.
gentleman's frustration. Of course he is perfectly at liberty to call
his own news conferences, but he prefers to come to mine in order
to guarantee some attention.
On Friday I had the opportunity to outline to the news media in
Regina and across western Canada the general directions being
pursued by the government with respect to grain marketing and
changes in the Canadian grain marketing system. Yesterday a very
detailed statement was issued outlining the focus of those changes.
Legislation is presently being prepared. It will be presented to
the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I certainly had a lesson on how not to hold a press
conference. It is a good thing the minister is not the chief electoral
officer because our democratic process would be in shambles.
How can the minister call a plebiscite of producers when he does
not know what the question will be, he does not know who can
vote, he does not know what constitutes a majority and he does not
know if the vote will be binding?
Will the minister commit today in the House to giving all
western Canadian barley producers a clear, honest question on
whether they want the choice of how they market their barley?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated very clearly on Friday
and very clearly again yesterday what the nature of the question
would be.
Let me quote: ``They'', that is farmers, ``will be asked a clear cut
question about whether they wish to put all barley, both feed and
malting, on to the completely open market for all sales or would
they prefer to retain the current marketing system through which
the Canadian Wheat Board, as modernized by the other changes
announced by the government, remains the single desk seller for all
barley sales for export and domestic barley sales for human
consumption''. It is very clear and very specific.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada
Post Corporation.
Today, the minister finally tabled the report on the review of
Canada Post Corporation's mandate. She has stated the she will not
privatize Canada Post Corporation so long as it has a public policy
role to fulfil.
Can the minister tell us how she defines the public policy role
that Canada Post Corporation has to fulfil?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we live in a vast
country that includes a number of remote areas, and I imagine
Quebec also has remote areas. It is obvious that all Canadians
across the country want to receive their mail; it is a necessity for
them.
As long as this necessity exists, Canada Post Corporation will
have to keep on serving Canadians.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has announced today her choice to stop the
delivery of unaddressed advertising mailings, while rejecting the
recommendation contained in the report regarding an increase in
postal rates.
Will the minister wait after the next election to authorize a five
cent increase in postal rates as recommended in the report?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if that is the
Bloc's position. Does it want us to increase postal rates? We think
that small and medium size business and people living in remote
areas would have to bear the cost of such an increase, and we are
not willing to do that at this time.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of Human Resources
Development.
On July 1 the first phase of Bill C-12 came into effect. Could the
minister tell the House exactly how the new employment insurance
legislation provides income protection for low income earners
everywhere in Canada?
(1445 )
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada needed a new and
modern system of employment insurance. We have actually ef-
5245
fected a very dramatic shift from a passive role to an active role in
assisting people to go back to work, which was absolutely
necessary. The changes are about getting people back to work,
allowing people to help themselves and responding to the way
people work today in the new economy. It was important for us to
address the issue with the new economy.
The goal is to help people to go back to work when there is work
available and for employers to accept a larger responsibility to
create more employment for these people.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is proposing to partially de-index Canada
pension plan payments to Canadian seniors. This will mean less
income for seniors and breaks a promise that the Prime Minister
made during the last Quebec referendum.
Why is the government reducing Canada pension plan benefits
when it promised it would not?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has not made a proposal along those lines. When
the federal and provincial governments came together, both
examined a series of options. This happens to be one of the options.
It was set out in the consultation book that was signed on by all of
the provinces unanimously.
That option was discussed. A number of individuals throughout
the consultation process, in fact some in the hon. member's own
province, subscribed to this as a thesis. However, no decision has
been taken. What was agreed to by the finance ministers was that
we would examine the situation, look at the total package and
eventually come to a consensus.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for his response because there are a
good number of seniors who are very nervous about what is likely
going to happen to their pensions and other income. The last budget
cost seniors up to $1,200 each through the elimination of the age
limitation tax credits.
We know that the provinces are very upset about allowing the
federal government to use unemployment insurance premiums to
offset the cost of the CPP premiums. They think the two should be
linked in that the unemployment insurance premium should be
reduced while the others go up.
Why would the government break faith with Canadian seniors,
especially the most needy seniors, when we look at all of these
threats to them, particularly the 50 per cent tax on income? Why
are the Liberals breaking their promise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think I can answer the question, but first I have to figure out what
the question is.
The government made it possible for Canadian seniors and for a
whole generation of young Canadians to know that the Canada
pension plan, the OAS and the guaranteed income supplement
would be there for them. We did not want to make the same mistake
the previous generations of politicians did, which was simply to
defer this problem until such time as the Canada pension plan got
into such difficulty that there would be no other solution except the
terrible one that is advocated by the members of the Reform Party.
In our budget we brought down a seniors benefit that will be as
good if not better for 75 per cent of Canadians, better for nine out
of ten women in the country, that will allow Canadians to hold their
heads high as they recognize the-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Since 1986, the Canadian government has required Portuguese
citizens visiting Canada to have a visa. However, Portugal does not
require Canadians to have a visa to visit that country. In fact, it is
the only country in the European Union on which Canada imposes
this requirement. When it was in the opposition, the Liberal Party
was against this requirement.
(1450)
When will the minister decide to remove the visa requirement
for Portuguese visitors as it has in the case of other countries?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, we regularly
review our visa policy in this country.
A number of factors are taken into consideration. As you know,
many visitors come to Canada, and at the same time we must also
control our borders. As for the situation concerning Portugal, this
week I will have the pleasure of discussing the matter with the
Secretary of State of Portugal who will be visiting us.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I may
remind the minister that this measure is utterly discriminatory
against a friendly and allied country.
Could the minister explain why she has maintained this visa
requirement, although Portugal is the only country in the European
Union to which it applies?
5246
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, situations vary
from country to country. We decided some time ago to remove
the visa requirement for Chile. As you know, we have to reinstate
this visa due to a very particular problem we have with illegal
immigrants to this country coming from Chile.
When we make a decision of this kind, we have to look at several
factors, which means finding out whether the country where these
people come from properly controls the passports and visas it
issues and whether or not a large percentage of visa applications are
turned down.
That is the context we are looking at. And that is why I am quite
prepared to the reopen discussions with the Portuguese authorities
on this question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is national family week and it is a good time to focus on the safety
and security of Canadian families.
This morning I presented a petition from more than 25,000
people from across Canada asking the minister to toughen up the
justice system for criminals who have committed sexual acts and
crimes against children.
Does the solicitor general agree with these petitioners? Does he
agree with their specific demand that local RCMP officers be given
permission to notify Canadians whenever sexual offenders are
about to be released back into their communities?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was just those concerns that lead
the government to consult and then produce Bill C-55 which was
tabled in the House some two weeks ago.
Through Bill C-55 changes were proposed to the criminal justice
system that will enable us to take that burden from the shoulders of
police. This will be done by enabling sentencing judges, in the
cases of repeat sexual offenders, to impose not only a prison term
but to ensure that at the end of that prison term there is an
appropriate period of supervision in the community to safeguard
the interests of Canadians and their families.
After the sex offender is out of prison at the end of the sentence,
there will be a period during which the offender will have to report,
if appropriate, to police, let authorities know of the whereabouts of
the offender, continue treatment if that is required and even in the
appropriate cases wear an electronic monitor. That is the most
effective way to deal with this threat to our security.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should know that in Bill C-55 the only communities that
must be notified of a release of a sexual predator are aboriginal
communities. There is no such provision in his bill for the rest of
the communities. It is a weakness in that bill.
Since April of this year there has been a delegation order sitting
on the solicitor general's desk. The solicitor general merely has to
sign that order and local police officers will be given the authority
and the permission, the delegation, to release that information to
communities when those sexual predators are released back into
the community.
Will the solicitor general sign that delegation order and will he
do it today?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that
order but I will bring it to the attention of the solicitor general at the
earliest convenience.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services. I would like to give credit where credit is due and thank
the minister for continuing the moratorium on the closing of rural
post offices. Rural Canadians thank her for that.
(1455)
In one of her recommendations the minister directs Canada Post
to improve rather than reduce the quality of service in rural areas
and to include the establishment of a reasonable delivery standard
for rural areas.
Will the minister guarantee to the House today that she will
establish these standards, ensure that rural service will meet the
needs of rural Canadians and not just Canada Post and include all
rural Canadians in setting up these standards?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we
responded immediately to certain areas of recommendation in Mr.
Radwanski's report is exactly because of our concern for all of the
regions of the country, and in particular the rural areas.
In order to ensure that service standards are increased I have
directed Canada Post to move forthwith in this area. As well, I am
preparing to meet with stakeholders myself. I am waiting anxiously
to hear their suggestions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
5247
In an article published last weekend, the minister wrote that the
number of francophones outside Quebec has increased by 50,000
since 1971. What she failed to mention is that 90,000
francophones stopped using French during the same period. In
other words, their assimilation continues.
Why is the minister trying the hide the fact that a total of
340,000 out of the 1 million francophones outside Quebec have
become anglicized and that the assimilation rate is growing?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we should keep in mind
that the question comes from a member who compared
francophones outside Quebec to paraplegics in wheelchairs.
We should also emphasize that this member, who speaks French
rather well, is a Franco-Ontarian who learned to speak French in
the great Province of Ontario. So when the member claims that
francophones outside Quebec are not very good in French, he
should first look in his own mirror.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the last election campaign, on page 84 of its red
book, the government made a promise ``to take strong measures
against violent and degrading pornography''. This was part of a
larger strategy to attack the factors that led to domestic violence
and sexual deviancy.
The government has done nothing to curb the production, sale or
possession of violent, degrading pornography.
Why has the Minister of Justice gone back on his commitment to
take strong measures against this sort of filth?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two concrete measures come
immediately to mind. We have taken these measures to do exactly
what we said we would do.
First, working with my colleague, the Minister of Industry and
his blue ribbon panel on the information highway, we are looking at
specific measures we can take with the international community to
deal with violence and pornography on the Internet.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: Second, the justice committee has produced a paper
which identifies a variety of strategies to deal with violence and
pornography in television and movies and the entertainment
industry.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: They are measures we are sure will strengthen our
ability to halt the kind of unacceptable material to which I know the
member and I do not want to see our society exposed.
Those are only two of the many measures we have taken to fulfil
our commitment in the red book.
The Speaker: Colleagues, whenever a question is being asked or
an answer is being given, may I ask you please to listen to both the
question and the answer. I do allow a certain amount of time and
that time will be allowed.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
He knows there is strong support across the country and in the
Association and Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian
Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Federation of
Students and the National Consortium of Scientific and
Educational Societies for renewal of a federal infrastructure
program that would earmark 20 per cent to upgrade labs, libraries,
technology and other research and development infrastructures.
Will the minister agree to support this very important proposal
that would both create jobs and meet the very serious need for
academic infrastructure upgrading?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are at present looking at an infrastructure program. As the hon.
member mentioned, there has been a submission by the universities
of very high quality based on research and development. This in
itself would be one very good reason for going ahead with an
infrastructure program.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tourism is estimated to be a $26 billion industry in
Canada. To help it expand, the Canadian Tourism Commission was
launched over a year ago to stem Canada's international tourism
deficit.
Would the minister tell us, has the Canadian Tourism
Commission been effective? Is it generating new tourism business
in this country?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member represents one of the finest tourism
destinations in Ontario.
5248
The member will know what a fine example the Canadian
Tourism Commission is of partnership between the federal and
provincial governments, the private sector and the tourism
industry. It has led year over year to a $1 billion reduction in the
tourism account deficit; a 13 per cent increase in international
tourism receipts; and an almost 2 per cent increase in employment
in the tourism sector.
Tourism is big business and this government is seeing it grow
even further.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of His Excellency Taib Fassi Fihri,
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of the
Kingdom of Morocco.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
5248
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will just
take a moment to conclude by reminding this house that the
amendment we have brought forward is in keeping not only with
Quebec's claims but also with the claims of other provinces.
We will recall that the federal and British Columbia government
have agreed, for instance, to a bilateral review of salmon fishing.
After British Columbia withdrew from a provincial table where all
the provinces were represented, a bilateral relationship was
eventually established. The review of the responsibilities should be
completed by February 1997, that means in five or six months from
now. In the release issued in July, the federal and British Columbia
governments announced this as good news.
(1505)
Our amendment goes along the same lines, more or less. Let us
take the time, with regard to part II of the act, to clearly define the
role of each partner, their responsibilities, and so on. Let us give
ourselves a few more months, to ensure that the bill will have the
desired effect, as stated at the beginning, and that it goes along the
same lines as the claims made by British Columbia and other
provinces asking for the same thing, including Quebec, as far as
this bill is concerned.
Asking for a six month period as we do in this amendment,
which we hope all the hon. members will support when it is put to a
vote later today, seems perfectly justified to me. In terms of time
frame, of timing, it seems quite reasonable to table this amendment
today, since bilateral agreements like this one have already been
entered into in relation to a fee structure in similar areas or other
areas. Discussions could take place between the provinces to
determine what the needs are. Then, as I said earlier, the role of
each partner could be established, so that we could achieve a better
result and make this bill more useful.
I will close on this, hoping that the government will listen to
these legitimate demands of the opposition for a six month
extension through this amendment.
[English]
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Speaker: At the request of the government whip, the vote
will be deferred until tomorrow at the end of Government Orders.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from September 27, 1996, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in
and the importation for commercial purposes of certain
manganese-based substances, be read the third time and passed,
and the amendment.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today, like my colleagues did earlier, to oppose Bill C-29, an act to
regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.
5249
This bill, as its title indicates, seeks to prohibit the importation
of certain manganese-based substances, specifically MMT, in
Canada, and their interprovincial trade.
(1510)
The debate on this bill is very interesting, because this is a rather
unusual piece of legislation.
It is unusual in that this government attempts to prohibit the use
of MMT, not through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,
as one would expect, but through a roundabout means, at the
commercial level, by using a false pretence, namely the harmful
effects of this product on health and on the environment.
Instead of prohibiting the sale of MMT in Canada, or simply
saying that this is a toxic or dangerous product, the government is
trying to legislate to prohibit the importation of this product and its
trade between the provinces. This is a blatant violation of NAFTA
and interference in a field of provincial jurisdiction. It is strange
however that a company could produce and sell MMT in a province
without violating in any way the provisions of Bill C-29.
If the government is so afraid of the alleged toxic effects of
MMT, why did it not completely prohibit its use, instead of
restricting its importation and its interprovincial trade?
If the Minister of the Environment had any proof of MMT's
harmful effects on health or on the environment, he would have
drafted his bill differently but, unfortunately for him, the minister
does not have any such proof. Incidentally, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the EPA, also tried to prove that MMT is
harmful to one's health, but it failed in its attempt to do so.
Until last year, the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline was
prohibited in certain American states. However, in April 1995,
Ethyl Corporation, won a legal battle against the EPA. The U.S.
court of appeal for the district of Columbia ruled that the EPA had
not proved its allegations to the effect that MMT is harmful to
one's health.
As for the auto industry, it was not able to prove that MMT is
harmful to cars' anti-pollution systems. The EPA did not appeal the
decision. Therefore MMT is now allowed in some American states.
In the circumstances, I wonder why the Minister of the
Environment assumes he could prove this product is harmful.
Furthermore, on December 6, 1994, Health Canada published
the results of an independent study on the so-called risks connected
with the use of MMT. The study concluded that the use of MMT in
gas did not constitute a health risk for any section of the Canadian
public.
Finally, a number of international and Canadian scientific
organizations have all concluded that low levels of manganese, as
in the case of MMT in unleaded gas, do not represent a health risk.
Therefore, contrary to what the Minister of the Environment
seems to think, for the time being there is no hard evidence for
banning MMT. Consequently, Bill C-29 is redundant until such
time as respected and serious studies provide evidence of a
negative impact of MMT on health and the environment.
To prohibit MMT and replace it with another product such as
ethanol, for instance, which does cause environmental problems, is
merely deferring the problem. It would be better to do a number of
serious studies before passing a bill than to do so after the fact.
The Bloc Quebecois is, of course, very concerned about the
health of Quebecers and Canadians, as it is about environmental
issues, and that is why we want these studies to be done before
prohibiting MMT.
I might as well say right now that the bill in its present form will
always be unacceptable, since the Minister of the Environment
wants to regulate the market, not the environment.
And in that case we have some serious questions about the real
motives of the Minister of the Environment for going ahead with
Bill C-29, although he knows perfectly well that the bill will
generate considerable costs for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers,
including a likely increase in the price of gas, loss of jobs in the oil
industry and the cost of a possible request for compensation under
NAFTA.
(1515)
It may be that privately, and I am sure unconsciously, the present
Minister of the Environment, like his predecessor, has realized that
the product that would replace MMT-by the way MMT is
manufactured exclusively by Ethyl, an American company-is
ethanol, which, coincidentally, is manufactured using corn, which
is grown mainly in Ontario. We note that ethanol creates
environmental problems.
However, there is one aspect the minister has not yet understood,
although his colleague for international trade may have tried to
explain it to him. Bill C-29 goes counter to a trade agreement we
signed with the United States and Mexico: NAFTA. Under this
agreement, the Canadian government does not have the right to
restrict trade and allow goods to be produced only within its
borders, as it intends to do with this bill.
By banning interprovincial trade in and the importation of MMT,
the bill before us today requires that all MMT sold in Canada be
produced in this country. Furthermore, the minister wants to stop
5250
the importation of a product that is not necessarily harmful to the
environment by hindering the free flow of goods. By violating
NAFTA, the federal government lays itself open to a compensation
claim as provided for in NAFTA.
In a letter dated February 23, the Minister for International Trade
warned the Minister of the Environment that Bill C-29 violates
some of NAFTA's basic principles and that, if this bill is adopted,
Canada might receive a compensation claim under NAFTA. But the
Minister of the Environment dug in his heels, preferring to expose
the Canadian people to possible, even probable prosecution
involving millions of dollars. I feel like quoting an excerpt from
this very eloquent letter. The Minister for International Trade feels
that, and I quote:
[English]
``An import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with
Canada's obligations under the WTO and the NAFTA: (1) it would
constitute an impermissible prohibition on imports, particularly if
domestic production, sale or use is not similarly prohibited; and (2)
it could not be justified on health or environmental grounds given
current scientific evidence''.
[Translation]
The Minister for International Trade concludes by asking his
colleague to drop Bill C-29. The possibility of a lawsuit looms
closer every day since a notice of intent to submit a claim was
formally filed September 10 by Ethyl Corporation from the U.S.
Ethyl is asking for US$201 million in compensation. A claim may
be submitted within 90 days of the notice of intent.
This claim process under article 1116 of NAFTA has already
been used in the past in two other areas. In fact, two other notices of
intent to submit a claim under article 1116 of NAFTA have already
been filed against Canada this year and are still pending. One is
from a Mexican pharmaceutical company called Signa for $50
million, and the other is from Waste Management Inc. for a secret
amount.
The U.S. company feels that its Canadian subsidiary will be hurt
by Bill C-29 and that is why it is asking for compensation under
article 1116 of NAFTA. This article provides that an investor of a
party may submit to arbitration a claim that another party has
breached an obligation under NAFTA and that the investor has
incurred loss or damage by reason of, or arising out of, that breach.
Some say that NAFTA allows the Canadian government to pass
legislation aimed at protecting human, animal or plant life and
health. The exception procedure under NAFTA is complex and the
Canadian government must at least be able to demonstrate that the
substance in question has an adverse effect and that there is indeed
a need to restrict this substance. The Canadian government could
not do that in the case of MMT.
The tragedy is that, if Ethyl wins and the Canadian government
has to pay the company several millions of dollars in
compensation, this money will come out of the pockets of
taxpayers in Quebec and Canada.
(1520)
Ethyl Corporation, the sole manufacturer of MMT and sole
exporter of this substance to Canada, claims that the Canadian
government was in breach of its obligations under NAFTA on three
counts: article 1110 on expropriation and compensation; article
1106 on performance requirements; and article 1102 on national
treatment.
Under the expropriation provisions, Ethyl complained first about
a loss of goodwill because Canada tarnished its reputation both
nationally and internationally by saying without proving it that
MMT is harmful. The American company also complained about
the expropriation of its Canadian investments since Bill C-29
would preclude the commercial use of MMT by Ethyl Canada.
Moreover, Ethyl claims that the bill would create a preference
for national content by authorizing the production of MMT in
Canada, which violates article 1106 of NAFTA. International law
requires governments to pay compensation each time they
expropriate.
Finally, Ethyl claims that article 1102 dealing with national
treatment was violated because it is discriminatory for the
Canadian government to prohibit the import of MMT knowing full
well that Ethyl is the sole manufacturer of this product.
In closing, how much is the government prepared to pay in
compensation? As the Minister of the Environment so eloquently
said, in response to a question I asked him on September 25, a U.S.
multinational corporation should not dictate what the Government
of Canada should do in the best interests of Canadians, both
environmentally and healthwise. However, such a corporation has
every right to remind the Government of Canada of the trade
agreements it has signed.
Considering the enormous cost for Quebec and Canada
taxpayers due to the absence of any advantage in prohibiting MMT
in the bill proposed by the Minister of the Environment, I can only
ask members to vote against Bill C-29, thus avoiding a financial
disaster in Canada.
In closing, I would ask unanimous consent of the House to table
a letter written by the Minister of International Trade to the
Minister of the Environment.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne is asking for
permission to table the letter.
[English]
Is there unanimous consent to table this letter here in the House
of Commons?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
5251
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: I hear a no so we will proceed from there.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, am I to take it from the member's remarks that his party
supports the continuing use of MMT as a gasoline additive? We
now understand that this additive contributes to the build up of
ozone levels and smog in urban areas. It is suspected but not proven
to be a health hazard. It very clearly harms the diagnostic systems
of currently built motor vehicles in North America and indirectly
contributes to increasing smog if those diagnostic systems are not
maintained properly.
Second, he suggested that the replacement additive ethanol was a
health hazard. I believe he said that. If he means it I hope he will be
in a position to explain why his party believes that ethanol, which is
proposed here in Canada to be a replacement additive for MMT, is
a health hazard or not a good replacement for MMT.
(1525)
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to try to answer
the two questions put by the hon. member.
First, I am somewhat surprised that he would ask me to prove
that ethanol is a good product, given that he says, without any proof
to support his claim, that MMT is not a good product. I should ask
you to prove to me that MMT is a good product.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that MMT is harmful to
one's health, that it contributes to smog, that it is harmful to the
ozone layer and that it creates problems when diagnosing
automotive systems. Where does he get his information, regardless
of how accurate it may be? Let him prove his claims in this House.
If the EPA came to the conclusion that MMT is not harmful to
one's health and to the environment, and if major automakers
cannot come up with a sound study confirming that MMT is
harmful to the exhaust system of cars, how can the hon. member
say that MMT is harmful?
The Bloc Quebecois is only asking the member to prove that he
is right. And we are not the only ones. Sometimes, when we form
the opposition we may wonder whether we oppose a measure just
for the sake of it.
But this time I am not the only one opposing this measure. Even
the Minister for International Trade, whose letter I was not allowed
to table in the House, wrote to the Minister of the Environment to
tell him this: what you are doing is dangerous; first, because it is
not a proven fact; second, because this bill is not the appropriate
measure, since it deals with trade, not health; and third, because it
violates at least four or five articles under NAFTA.
I will reply to the member's question by asking him a question of
my own, as the Minister of Finance often does. First: does this bill
violate three or four articles under NAFTA, yes or no? Second: can
you, or your government, prove to me that MMT is harmful? Third:
if you do this, I will answer your question about ethanol.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to commend my colleague on his speech. Obviously, we are
not here to oppose everything systematically.
However, if you read the amendment I put forward in this House
a few weeks ago carefully, we were simply asking the government
to wait six more months so that we could have conclusive studies,
and I stress conclusive, that would prove something to us. The fact
is that we have nothing of the sort for the moment; when we asked
the automakers to provide us with specific and clear studies, they
told us that their studies were confidential. It is rather strange for
Parliament to be told that something is confidential.
We asked the health department to confirm whether this
substance was dangerous to health. The most recent study confirms
that it is not. That is why we are asking the government to wait, to
make sure that the right decision is made. As for a North American
market, the United States have just reintroduced this product on the
market, but we are going contrary to a North American policy.
Ethanol too is an additive. Nothing shows that ethanol will do a
better job than MMT. It is a new product on the market. The real
solution would be that one day we no longer have to use any
additives at all. That is the dream solution. But we are not there yet.
I will tell you something that happened in my riding. The electric
car has been launched there. That is the solution of the future.
However the technology has not yet been sufficiently developed to
commercialize it.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the idea of
developing in the near future a different but truly environmentally
friendly technology, instead of replacing one additive by another.
We are talking about two lobbies.
(1530)
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I agree with my
colleague for Laurentides that we have to choose the lesser of two
evils, but we would still be better off trying to find a better
alternative.
Obviously, I support all research and development on an electric
car or another more environmentally friendly vehicle, but I would
also like to comment on the remarks of my hon. friend.
If in fact he is right when he says that MMT is bad for human
health, for the environment, for cars and all the rest, why was it not
declared a toxic and dangerous substance? What the Liberals are
trying to do is simply to prevent the importation of MMT in
5252
Canada, period. We will be able to go on producing it, selling it,
using it and what not, but not importing it.
If what the hon. member says is true, he should advocate a total
ban on the use and sale of MMT.
As my colleague said, we are suggesting a six month moratorium
so they can bring some coherence into what they think and say.
After that, we will take concrete and coherent measures.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments
about the bill. As he said, this is not the first time we have debated
the potential banning of the substance MMT in this Chamber. I am
quite appalled, as I am sure he is, that this piece of legislation is
back before us in an unamended form.
I would like to quickly point out that it is very unusual for the
Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party of Canada to agree on
anything. In this case, we are in agreement that this is a bad piece
of legislation. Any time it was to happen that both opposition
parties were united in their opposition to a piece of legislation, I
would hope the federal government would take note. Maybe some
alarm bells would go off and the government would say that maybe
there really is something wrong with the legislation. I put that
forward for the hon. member's comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, my answer will probably take less
than one minute. I am really happy to hear that my Reform
colleague is proud we can agree on something. One more step and
we can agree on sovereignty and partnership.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are two fundamental questions we should ask
ourselves during this debate on Bill C-29 to ban the use of MMT in
Canada.
The first one is: Do the Canadian government and the Minister of
the Environment have the authority and the right to pass an
environmental act concerning the composition of the gasoline sold
in Canada and, by the same token, to promote the use of alternative
fuels, or should we give up this right for the sake of an American
multinational corporation, that is threatening to take us to court for
hundreds of millions of dollars?
I see that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois have entered
in a very interesting alliance. The Ethyl Corporation does not even
need lobbyists with all the friends it already has on the other side of
the House.
The second question is: Is MMT the safest fuel additive we can
have or are there other alternatives that present no health hazards to
Canadians? These are the two main questions that need to be asked.
In answer to the first one, I want to say that I do not support the
Ethyl Corporation, a company that spends all of its time in court in
the United States, that has spent years in court in the States to fight
the EPA and that is now threatening to take the Minister of the
Environment to court for $201 million, hoping that the Canadian
government would soon retreat.
(1535)
We are talking about a very powerful American multinational
that, up until recently, only sold its product in Canada. Japan was
not buying, Germany was not buying, Denmark was not buying,
Sweden was not buying, no other country besides Canada uses
MMT.
Everybody is wrong, except for us. But we now have come to
realize that there are safer, more secure alternatives. In this battle,
Canadians do not want to be used as guinea pigs by the Ethyl
Corporation.
[English]
We do not want to be the guinea pigs of the Ethyl Corporation. In
fact, EPA in the United States lost the battle in the courts but it
certainly is still very much of the opinion today that MMT is
unfavourable to Americans.
To quote from the head of the EPA, Carol Browner: ``The
Environmental Protection Agency believes that the American
public should not be used as a laboratory to test the safety of
MMT''. Nor do we Canadians want to be the laboratory for the
Ethyl Corporation in regard to MMT.
In the United States today, despite the court challenges on MMT
and the fact that MMT got a reprieve, it is not allowed as an
additive in reformulated gas in California, in New York, in
Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin. Almost one-third of the United States
want nothing to do with MMT. These states use reformulated gas
which includes additives which they believe are much safer for the
health of Americans.
I hear there has been no conclusive proof that it is harmful to the
health of Canadians, yet I have quoted several studies that raise the
precaution that MMT can be potentially very dangerous to human
health. I will quote again from a study I received before the last
debate in November 1995. It was completed by three scientists:
Kimberley Treinen of the Sanofi Research Division of
Collegeville, Pennsylvania; Tim Gray of the Alnwick Research
Centre in Alnwick, Northumberland, England; and William Blazak
of Nycomed, Collegeville, Pennsylvania:
5253
In summary, the data presented here indicate that a specific syndrome of skeletal
malformation in rats was induced by MnDPDP, which occurred in the absence of
maternal toxicity at four times the intended clinical dose. The same specific
malformations were also seen with intravenous administration of equivalent or lower
doses of manganese. Since manganese has been shown to cross the placenta
(Jarvinen and Ahlstrom, '75; Koshida et al, '63; Rojas et al, '67) it appears that
manganese is the active teratogenic moeity in MnDPDP.
If we wait to find out if manganese is bad for human beings, if it
affects people's brains after it affected the brains of rats and other
lab animals, is that the precautionary principle Canadians should
use?
This is what we used to say about DDT when Rachel Carson
wrote her famous book. This is what we used to say about PCBs;
they were also safe. This is what we used to say about CFC gases.
They were the intended gases that were the purest of gases until we
found out they perforated the ozone layer. It is what we used to say
about lead. We used lead in gasoline every day of our lives. Many
people in the world used lead in gasoline until we found out that it
causes cancer.
So do we wait until we have this final and conclusive proof that
will satisfy my friends from the Reform Party and my friends from
the Bloc Quebecois? When we find out, what happens if it is too
late and the effects are irreversible? If there were no alternatives,
they would have a case, but we have alternatives.
(1540)
Before going to Montreal from Ottawa I stop at McEwen's
gasoline station on Bank Street. It serves an ethanol blend of
gasoline. My car runs just as well on that as it does on ordinary
gasoline with MMT. In fact, as my colleague says, it runs better.
My friend from the Bloc Quebecois said this was a plug by the
Liberals to sell corn in Ontario. I could introduce him to a big firm
in Quebec that produces ethanol from wood. Ethanol can be
produced from sugar cane remnants, from wood and from all kinds
of things. It is not a plug by the Liberals to sell corn.
The time has come to say that manganese is not good for us. In
the latest surveys in Canada, surveys about health and the
environment, at least 75 per cent of Canadians consistently said
that until we are sure, we should not use manganese. They said it
should be banned.
The people who are for the banning of MMT are not just those
involved with General Motors and Honda. They are those involved
in the Asthma Information Association, the Canadian Institute of
Child Health, the City of North York Public Health Department, the
City of Toronto Public Health Department, the Environmental
Defence Fund, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, the
Ontario Public Health Association, Pollution Probe and Sierra Club
of Canada. They are not automobile manufacturers. They are all
terribly worried about manganese.
I do not care about Ethyl Corporation. I do not care if it loses
money, so long as the health of Canadians will be better off.
The challenge is: Do we let Ethyl Corporation threaten us? Do
we let Ethyl Corporation dictate the policy of Canada? Why does it
not sell its product in Japan, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and
Holland? Those countries believe in the environment. They do not
use it. Why should we be the only guinea pigs in the world? Why
should we accede to the threat of an American multinational which
uses the courts to browbeat us into a policy that is supposed to be so
wonderful? If it is so wonderful, why do so many countries in the
world not want it?
The case is: the environment, the health of Canadians, the
precautionary principle and the autonomy of the Government of
Canada and of the Minister of the Environment to decide that yes,
we will ban MMT and use better alternatives. That is the case and I
make it today.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
make a few comments and ask a question to my colleage across the
way.
I took some notes during his speech. The member started his
speech by saying: ``Does Canada have the power to legislate in this
matter?'' His answer was yes. ``Would it be the good solution to
ban MMT?'' Yes, he said. He ended his speech by talking about the
pressures exerted by American multinationals. However, he said
nothing about the pressures exerted by the auto makers lobby,
which do want to get rid of MMT.
Is the member across the way saying: ``No, we will not give in to
pressures by American multinationals; however, we are ready to
give in to pressures exerted by multinationals that build cars here''.
The real point at issue here, and I think the Bloc and the Reform
Party made it quite clear, is the amendment of the member for
Laurentides to postpone third reading of this bill for six months.
Why? And this is where we, of the Bloc, are not giving in to any
pressure. We are not giving in to any pressure.
(1545)
We expect impact studies on MMT to be made. We want to know
the impacts of this product and we want to know if there are
substitute additives that could be used. Those studies are needed.
Why does the government want to have its bill adopted so quickly
since we could get clear answers to our questions six months from
now?
We have to ask ourselves this kind of question. We must ask why
the government is so anxious to pass its bill when the Bloc and the
Reform Party are making a constructive proposal and asking that
passage of the bill be postponed for six months. If the hon. member
across the way is truly sincere when he says that health and a clean
environment must be considered, that his main concern is the
health of Canadians and Quebecers, I think that a six month delay,
which would allow us to find out what the alternatives and the
5254
impacts of MMT are, would be an wise, fair and reasonable
decision.
I would ask the following question of the hon. member:
Considering his concern for the well-being of Quebecers, does he
not think that it would be advisable to wait six months and have all
the necessary information to make the right decision?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not think that the
member listened carefully to what I said. I was not speaking only
about automobile manufacturers. That is their business. They have
their lobby, and that is their business. I mentioned companies,
health institutions and environmental institutions. I said that a poll
showed that 75 per cent of Canadians felt that if MMT and
manganese cannot be shown to be 100 per cent safe, they should be
banned.
Furthermore, the fundamental issue is this: we are going to wait
another six months to please the official opposition. But that is not
what we are talking about today. I think that the predecessor of my
colleague, the member for Lambton-Middlesex, Ralph Ferguson,
had been talking about it since 1988.
If the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party are
interested in this issue, let them look over the proceedings of the
House committees, which have discussed this issue ad infinitum.
Mr. Ferguson himself made it a personal crusade here in the House
of Commons. The time has come for action.
Manganese is potentially dangerous to the health. Even Mrs.
Browner of the EPA says so. We do not want to be guinea pigs for
Ethyl corporation. That is not what Canadians want. They can go
sell their manganese somewhere else if it is so good. Nobody wants
to buy it. Why would we be the only ones in the world to do so?
That is why MMT must be banned now. Enough stalling around.
This is a cause that the great majority of Canadians support.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the hon. member. I noted
that early in his remarks he said that we must not capitulate to Ethyl
Corporation. It is threatening to take us to court. He accused the
Reform Party and the Bloc of somehow being in cahoots, being
lobbyists for this huge multinational.
The member from the Bloc raised a good point. It is not only the
lobbyists on one side of the argument who are making points here.
If we want to get into throwing accusations across the floor, some
Liberal members of Parliament could be accused of being lobbyists
for automobile manufacturers. I do not think that would do us any
good in the debate today.
I have a couple of questions for the hon. member. I noted that he
used the words ``potentially harmful health effects of MMT''. He
was very careful to use the word ``potentially''.
Why did the Department of Health not support the findings of
this raft of studies he has put forward. If it can be substantiated why
did the Department of Health not recommend an outright ban on
MMT?
(1550)
The second question is if that is the case, that he truly believes
and his government believes that MMT is harmful and has been
proven to be harmful, which I do not believe it has been proven to
be so, why is his government not moving to completely ban MMT
instead of bringing forward this half measure of banning the
transportation of MMT across borders?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health confirmed in
July 1996 that he is totally supportive of the ban on MMT. That is
the first fact.
The second fact is that the responsibility happens to be that of
the Minister of the Environment. It was the minister of the
environment in 1988 who proposed the banning of lead from
gasoline, not the Minister of Health. That is his prerogative and the
Minister of Health is fully supportive as is the total Government of
Canada. That is the position. Even the Minister for International
Trade, after having issued a caution, has now reversed himself and
said: ``Yes, after studying it, I agree there is no problem with
NAFTA''.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Lincoln: Would you let me speak, please.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me just see if I can help
the hon. member and ask for the House's co-operation that we
might be able to resume this debate and facilitate even more
questions and consequently more answers.
Mr. Lincoln: My point is I am not a lobbyist for the automobile
industry. I do not care about the automobile industry. It is big
enough to fend for itself.
I resent the threat of a multinational corporation which sold its
product exclusively in Canada, until it won a court case in the
United States, to brow beat us into saying: ``If you don't keep
MMT, and remain the only territory in the world, the only suckers
that sell MMT all over the world, if you don't do it, then I'm going
to take you to court for $200 million''. As far as I know the
automobile industry is not taking Canada to court or any of the
members here for $200 million.
5255
Why do we ban MMT? For my sake, as one member, it is
because I think the potential risks-
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Lincoln: Will you please allow me to speak. The potential
risks to health and the environment are not worth taking the chance.
If the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform are so keen about MMT that
they want to take a chance, we do not want to take a chance. We
think there are severe potential dangers and we want to ban MMT.
That is what we are going to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to start by pointing out to my hon. colleague for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis that I understand, since he is a former
environment minister, that he would get carried away about a bill
affecting the environment.
Quite simply, my question is a kind of follow-up to the question
asked by our colleague from the Reform Party. Mr. Speaker, I
would ask the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis,
through you, to point out where in my speech I formally support the
sale or production of MMT. That is not what I am saying.
If this product is as toxic or dangerous as he suggests, why is the
bill aimed at banning its importation, thus opening the door to
actions under NAFTA? The Minister of International Trade has
also said this. Why is its importation banned, and why is its
production, use and consumption in Canada not banned as well,
through another department and another bill?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Minister of the
Environment, I am not in the Canadian cabinet. The government
chooses the alternatives it deems most appropriate in a given
circumstance. In this case, it has chosen this bill. What is important
is the facts.
What we are aiming at is results, one way or another, and we
have chosen this bill as the most expeditious means to an end. We
want to ban MMT, no matter what. We do not want it in Canada.
Quite simply, that is what we want.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think we are all at the point of exhaustion with this piece
of legislation. For a year and a half we have debated the issue of the
gasoline additive MMT. To say the least, we have debated the issue
enough that by now the Liberals I think should be embarrassed, but
we drag along while more pressing issues remain.
(1555 )
Since the bill was first introduced in May 1995 by the former
minister of the environment, arguments have been made on both
sides of the House, round and round. The government states that
MMT should be banned from being used in gasoline in order to
protect the environment as well as the health of Canadians. Yet this
bill does not directly ban MMT. It merely bans the importation and
the interprovincial trade of MMT.
When one bans something from being allowed to enter the
country does it necessarily mean that it is harmful? What about
prohibiting something from being moved across the country
freely? If it is harmful should not banning it once be enough?
When a particular substance is harmful to our health or to the
environment there is a regulatory authority in place to take care of
such a problem. It is called the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act, better known as CEPA. Within CEPA there is a schedule of
substances that have been deemed to be hazardous either to our
health or to the environment. CEPA is in place to protect
Canadians. In fact, this government is responsible for making
amendments to CEPA in order to place added protection on our
already fragile environment.
However, if we take CEPA and look at the back of the act in the
schedule section, MMT is not to be found nor will it ever be found
in that section. Why? It is not harmful to our health nor is it
harmful to the environment.
For a substance to be placed on the schedule under CEPA it must
first be declared hazardous by Health Canada. I believe the public
has a right to know how Health Canada views MMT. Anyone who
has listened to any of the debate on this bill over the last year and
half is well aware of the December 6, 1994 Health Canada report
entitled ``Risk Assessment for the Combustion Products of MMT''.
Even though the following statement is on the record, I feel it is
such an integral part of the issue that it should be read again. The
study states:
All analyses indicate that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not
represent an added health risk to the Canadian population.
I suppose it appears that MMT is no more harmful than benign
dust on the ground.
On October 18, 1995 a Health Canada official appeared before
the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development and concurred that the 1994 report remained the
position of the department.
Therefore I want to urge all members of the House not to include
in their speeches during this third reading stage any reference that
the removal of MMT will improve health quality. I heard several
government members make mention of this during second reading.
It is false and inaccurate information. A member may make an
unprecedented or unpredicted mistake; however, in this case the
evidence gives very clear direction.
I want to bring up one more revelation from Health Canada. It
has to do with MTBE, of which Environment Canada officials say
could be a replacement for MMT.
5256
On October 18, 1995 Mr. Rod Raphael, the chief of the
monitoring and criteria division of Health Canada, appeared
before the environment committee with the following revelation
about MTBE:
We have concerns with respect to MTBE. MTBE was on the CEPA priority
substances list, an evaluation was done under a particular scenario, and that is the
present use and containment situation for MTBE. Should MTBE be added to
Canadian fuel as a replacement for MMT? That exposure scenario changes for us
and we are in the process of evaluating it at the request of the Canadian General
Standards Board which is considering MTBE as part of gasoline formulation. We are
also concerned about MTBE because of new data that is now available but was not
available at the time of the original CEPA evaluation. There is a long term cancer
study now available and it needs to be evaluated and brought into the assessment.
From the very beginning, Reformers have unequivocally stated
that they would support the banning of MMT if the government
could prove through independent scientific tests that MMT was
harmful to automakers onboard diagnostic systems in cars or to the
health of Canadians and the environment.
Let us talk a bit about these OBDs. Onboard diagnostic systems
simply monitor the emission control systems on most late model
automobiles. It needs to be reiterated that they do not reduce
emissions directly. In fact, if the OBD system were removed from
the automobile completely it would make absolutely no difference
to the exhaust coming out of the tail pipe.
The OBDs were set to be installed in the 1996 line-up of
automobiles. The former environment minister had assured the
automakers that this bill we are talking about today would be
quickly passed in 1995 in time for manuals to be printed up and the
OBDs to be hooked up. Well, such was not the case.
(1600 )
Within the auto industry it is no secret that the technology
surrounding the OBD systems is new and full of bugs. In the United
States where MMT is not currently being used widely in
gasoline-although I might add that a recent court decision has
allowed MMT to be sold-OBDs have been found to malfunction.
This poses the question: Is it MMT that is causing the problem or
is it simply the fault of the new technology malfunctions? If I
happened to be a betting man I would go with the latter.
In response to these malfunctions in the U.S., automakers have a
bevy of scapegoats that they are using to justify the problems:
altitude, temperature, sulphur, poor fuel quality, road conditions,
customer driving habits and extreme weather conditions. However,
in Canada according to the automakers, there is only one reason for
the OBD malfunctions, namely, MMT.
What is wrong with this picture? The government and our two
environment ministers have been hoodwinked into believing that
keeping MMT will cause catastrophic events to occur. Sadly they
have convinced many of their colleagues into thinking the same.
However, what is interesting is to see how the Liberal cabinet is
split on this whole issue.
The Minister of Industry stated that he hoped for a uniform
standard in fuels between the U.S. and Canada only to see this all
crushed with a U.S. court decision permitting the sale of MMT. The
Minister of Natural Resources has been particularly quiet on this
whole issue because she knows what the costs will be to refineries
in her Edmonton riding should the bill pass.
Then there is the Minister for International Trade who on
February 23 of this year wrote a strong letter to the Minister of the
Environment urging him to put the bill on the shelf for good. The
trade minister stated ``the claims of the automotive and petroleum
industries conflict markedly with common ground between them''.
The minister went on to say that the bill ``could have many adverse
implications for Canadian trade, without compensating
environmental benefits''.
These are only three ministers that have declared their
frustrations publicly. It would not surprise me if many more
ministers are expressing doubts about the validity of this
legislation behind closed cabinet doors.
The Reform Party's position is very solid. We want protection
for Canadians with respect to their health. We also want to keep our
environment clean and free from harmful pollutants. The Reform
Party will support this legislation if the government can prove that
MMT is harmful to our health and to our environment. Otherwise
we are totally opposed. Ours is a reasonable approach as there are
environmental benefits for the use of MMT.
The Minister of the Environment has a choice and the choice is
rather simple. Withdraw the bill from the Order Paper and conduct
a series of third party independent tests to prove without a shadow
of a doubt the effects of MMT. Canadians do not want to see tests
from the automakers nor do they want to see tests from the oil
companies. We know how tests can be skewed to reflect the views
of those paying to have the tests done and I think this is what has
happened so far. There needs to be a fair process and it needs to be
done by someone not connected with either of the interested
parties.
The minister is going to have MMT as his political legacy and
the legacy will not be favourable. He inherited the environment
portfolio from a minister who acts before she thinks. Bill C-94
came into being because the Deputy Prime Minister reacted to one
lobby group without knowing all the facts. Now the same minister
has covered herself in the flag, not realizing how much trouble she
is in.
I want to encourage the environment minister to do the right
thing, withdraw the bill and instead proceed with tabling legislation
that will really bring protection to our environment, namely,
changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and bring
forward a new federal endangered species act.
In closing I want to read two letters that pertain to Bill C-29. My
colleague for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca recently read to this House
several letters from provincial environment ministers who opposed
the passage of Bill C-29. Further to this I want to read a letter
5257
written to the Prime Minister from the chairman of the board of the
Federated Co-operatives Limited based in Saskatchewan. It was
addressed to the Prime Minister with copies to three cabinet
ministers on September 23 of this year:
We were very disappointed to learn that Bill C-29, an act effectively banning the
use of MMT in gasoline in Canada is again being considered.
Federated Co-operative Limited (FCL) owns Consumers' Co-operative Refineries
Limited (CCRL), which operates a petroleum refinery in Regina. CCRL produces
gasoline and diesel fuel for co-op members and other customers.
On behalf of our members, we oppose any legislation that would ban the use of
MMT as a gasoline additive until an adequate technical evaluation has taken place.
We have used MMT for 18 years with no consumer complaints. MMT has allowed
the production of high quality gasolines from our refinery at a lower cost and with
lower environmental emissions that would have been required without MMT.
We do not believe the petroleum refining industry, and ultimately our members
and other customers, should bear the costs of MMT elimination unless it can be
shown conclusively that there is a legitimate need.
We had believed that if MMT were approved for use in the United States that, in
the interests of harmonization of gasoline qualities, the proposed Bill C-29 would no
longer be considered necessary. Certainly, a substantial amount of fleet testing and
study took place prior to the approval of MMT in gasoline in the U.S.
If further scientific study and testing is to be carried out in Canada, we suggest
that it be done in conjunction with the petroleum industry (CPPI), and the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, (MVMA), under the auspices of the CCME task
force on cleaner vehicles and fuels. We believe the banning of MMT without
scientific evidence of negative effects due to the use of this additive is premature.
We also wish to emphasize that there is no relationship between the banning of
MMT and increased utilization of ethanol. MMT is an octane-enhancing additive
and ethanol is a high octane blending material that has both positive and negative
effects when blended in gasolines. The refiners preferred route to offset this
proposed ban on MMT would be to increase the severity of gasoline processing (at
an increased cost). Ethanol considerations are a totally separate issue that our
organization is very familiar with.
FCL provides central wholesaling, manufacturing and administrative services to
more than 800 locally-owned retail co-operatives across western Canada and
western Ontario. FCL is owned by its member retailers, which are in turn owned by
an estimated 750,000 individual co-op members. Together, FCL and its member
co-operatives are known as the Co-operative Retailing System in western Canada.
Yours truly,
E. Klassen, President, Chair of the Board.
(1605)
Last, I want to read a letter that was sent to the Minister of
Natural Resources from the co-chair of the Council of Energy
Ministers. It is dated September 20, 1996. It is addressed to the
Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of the
Environment:
Dear Minister:
During the 1996 meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers in Yellowknife,
Northwest Territories, ministers discussed the federal Bill C-29, the
Manganese-based Fuel Additives Act, the bill to eliminate import and trade of MMT.
During the meeting, concern was expressed about the lack of effective
consultation of both industry and provinces on a proposal which will impose direct
costs on industry and consumers and will directly affect provincial jurisdiction.
Additionally, it is apparent that there is no clear consensus from a technical point
of view concerning the impact of MMT, and whether or not MMT is, in fact, a
significant problem for vehicle diagnostic systems.
Ministers are aware of the very helpful September 11, 1996 proposal to the Prime
Minister from the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and would like to
recommend it to the federal government.
In brief, the CPPI has offered that ``CPPI member companies will stop using
MMT if an impartial review process involving ourselves, the federal government,
and any other stakeholders you deem should participate, determine that the product
is flawed in terms of impact on human health, air quality, or vehicle compatibility''.
The CPPI suggests that a credible evaluation process could be completed within a
matter of three months.
The CPPI proposal is very constructive. Provincial and territorial ministers in
attendance at the Council meeting (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta) and the Deputy Ministers and officials on behalf
of Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Yukon urge the federal government to
immediately announce delay in passage of Bill C-29 to enable the time limited
evaluation process suggested by CPPI to be convened to report on technical related
issues.
Sincerely,
Stephen Kakfwi
Canadians expect government legislation to be drafted following
extensive study and scientific reasoning. Canadians expect the best
from their government. Passage of Bill C-29 will only show
Canadians that changes to regulations can be bought if the price is
right. Passage of Bill C-29 will surely be a sad day for the
democratic process of this country.
Delay the bill and let the independent science come in. Let the
government demonstrate, then legislate, and then we will support
to do the right thing, rather than the bidding of special interests. As
a country, let us be good neighbours and not violate our
international trade promises and also the goal of complete
economic union within our Canadian borders.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite has raised a number of good points, particularly around
the issue of independent science. However, this seems to be a game
of whose science is on whose side.
We have studies that indicate that MMT can cause neurological
damage, both in terms of speech and physical movements in
humans. I would like to know what side the Reform and Bloc
parties stand on? Do they stand on the side of public interest and
public good, or do they stand on the side of CPPI, the refineries.
(1610)
I would like to ask the member why he would side against the
majority of Canadians when it is his party that purports to be a
party of the people. The majority of Canadians overwhelmingly
support our initiatives on this matter.
5258
I would also like to ask him why he would stand against the
Allergy Asthma Association, the Canadian Institute of Child
Health, the city of North York public health, the city of Toronto
public health, the Council of Canadians, the Environmental
Defence Fund, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, the
Ontario Public Health Association, Pollution Probe and Sierra Club
when these organization quite clearly are not asking in the name of
any particular vested interest other than the public good?
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, that comment just highlights what I
have been trying to point out, that the comments are all over the
map. We have been proposing conclusive independent evidence. To
say that my list of lobby groups is longer than your list of lobby
groups really does not add anything to the debate.
The issue is that all the scientific material was taken into account
by Health Canada and it was determined that the use of MMT in a
vehicle was no more harmful than dust on the ground. We do not
recommend that people eat the dust from the ground, however,
Health Canada stated MMT is essentially benign and not relevant
to the previous problem of lead in gasoline.
The lead in gasoline was a health issue. Scientists were very
clear on that point and Parliament finally moved on it. But the
science on MMT is completely different. We take no position on
one side or the other.
We challenged the government that it had better demonstrate
scientifically before it legislates. Because it has not done that and
has gone the trade route, it is now in trouble as being a bad
neighbour under NAFTA and it will be challenged. We have been
warning about this for quite some time.
We say that we are not in support of one side or the other. Let the
true scientific evidence come forward and then we will do the right
thing.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a little
earlier, the hon. member for Terrebonne tried to table a letter here
in the House but was denied permission to do so. I would like to
quote a few excerpts from this letter, which was written by the
Minister for International Trade on February 23, 1996, and
addressed to the Minister of the Environment.
I quote:
[English]
``My department continues to have certain reservations
concerning this measure which I wish to draw to your attention.
Recently the U.S. Court of Appeal overturned the U.S. ban. This
has effectively removed harmonization arguments in support of
Bill C-94. Indeed, since adding MMT to petroleum products is now
permissible in the U.S., harmonization would now be promoted by
introducing no new Canadian regulations.
An import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with
Canada's obligation under the WTO and the NAFTA. The
possibility is that the United States could mount a challenge either
on USDR's own initiative or pursuant to a section 301 petition.
Also Ethyl Corporation may try to advance an argument that such a
ban would be a measure tantamount to expropriation of Ethyl's
investment in Canada. Thus Canada may also be susceptible to an
investor state challenge under chapter 11 of the NAFTA.
In view of the presidential and congressional election this year,
American politicians are particularly sensitive to any foreign
initiative which might injure their domestic industries.
In conclusion, let me stress my department's belief that Bill
C-94 should not be reintroduced, as it could have many adverse
implications for Canadian trade without compensating
environmental benefits''.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, for once we agree with the Reform Party, and we
repeat our request for a six months' hoist.
(1615)
We know that today, in fact for the first time, the automobile
industry has invested enormous amounts in research and studies to
determine if MMT is really harmful to automobiles and to our
health.
Let us wait for the results of these studies and have our say at
that time, instead of adopting a bill in a terrible rush-because that
is what we are doing-without waiting for the findings of these
studies. We are not taking sides, not for Ethyl and not for the
automobile association, although I am not sure we could afford
being sued for $201 million in American currency, considering
Canada's financial situation.
I would appreciate the opinion of my Reform colleague on the
subject.
[English]
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, it is good that we were able to put the
letter on the record. It indicates that the Liberal cabinet is split on
this issue. There is not conclusive scientific evidence to do what is
being proposed by the bill.
5259
In view of the long debate in which we have been involved on
this matter, one begins to wonder who really is in charge. Is the
minister in charge, or is the bureaucracy in charge? We can change
ministers but the same unsubstantiated stuff still comes forward.
Sometimes departments develop a life of their own. I am
wondering who is in charge in the government. Is it the minister
and the cabinet, or is it the bureaucrats who, once they get an
agenda, are going to drive it home?
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the
third reading and final debate on Bill C-29, formerly Bill C-94. The
primary purpose of the bill is to ban the additive MMT from
gasoline in Canada. As hon. members are well aware, this debate
has been going on in the House since May 19, 1995 when Bill C-94
was tabled and read for the first time. It is time for the House to
make a decision on the bill.
The bill has been characterized as a war of interests between two
powerful groups: the automobile manufacturers who want the ban,
and the manufacturer of MMT, Ethyl Corporation, and its oil
industry allies, that want MMT to remain in Canadian gasoline. For
us on this side of the House it is not one way or the other; it is
purely a debate on environmental and health issues, on sustainable
development issues resulting from automobile emissions that are
the greatest source of noxious gases in the atmosphere.
We are taking this action because we need to protect the latest
onboard diagnostic systems that North American car
manufacturers are installing in their vehicles. These systems are
extremely important for the environment. They are responsible for
monitoring the vehicle emissions controls and for alerting the
driver of malfunctions. Without this kind of technology one cannot
be aware of how well the car is working or if it is functioning at all
in terms of its emissions control processes.
These systems ensure that the cleaner burning engines of today
and tomorrow operate as designed. They ensure that automobiles
are properly maintained, resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions
and improved fuel economy. In other words, this new technology is
one more important tool to help us address air pollution, smog and
climate change.
This government will not allow MMT to get in the way of the
automobile industry's efforts to make cars cleaner, more efficient
and less polluting. Canada's environment and Canadian consumers
have the right to the best anti-pollution technology possible. In
fact, it is our duty as parliamentarians to do all we can to maximize
environmental conditions through the legislation we pass in the
House.
Yet Ethyl Corporation, the manufacturer of MMT, through its
subsidiary Ethyl Canada, denies the vehicle industry's conclusions
regarding the ill effects of MMT on vehicle emissions control
systems. In fact, it makes the counterclaim that MMT is
environmentally beneficial. Whom do we believe?
What is certain is that the efforts to reduce motor vehicle
pollution can no longer be addressed by just the petroleum
industry, the auto industry or the federal government. Progress in
reducing vehicle pollution requires simultaneous action by all. The
petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the
composition and the properties of the fuels that engines burn. The
automobile industry needs to keep making improvements in the
vehicle emissions control systems, such as those offered by
onboard diagnostic systems. The government needs to take
decisive action in Bill C-29 which will remove a major obstacle to
the introduction of these technologies. That obstacle is MMT.
(1620 )
An Environment Canada report states that on a national basis,
gasoline and diesel powered vehicles still contribute some 60 per
cent of the carbon monoxide emissions that are present in the
atmosphere, 35 per cent of nitrous oxide emissions or smog, 25 per
cent of our hydrocarbon emissions and 20 per cent of carbon
dioxide emissions. Obviously these vehicles, both gasoline and
diesel powered, are very big contributors to our smog and pollution
problems.
The same report stresses the need to proceed on all fronts at the
same time in all these areas. It states:
Vehicle technology and fuel composition, although two separate industry sectors,
must be treated as an integrated system in the development of policies and programs
in order to successfully reduce emissions from motor vehicles.
This is very sound advice. It should complement this
government's work in preparing our comprehensive motor vehicle
emissions standards. To meet these standards we are counting on
integrating improvements achieved in emissions control
technologies and fuels. However, we clearly cannot hope to meet
these standards without the kind of action we are taking against
MMT as contained in Bill C-29.
This is not an act of impatience as some members opposite have
suggested. On the contrary. Since 1985 the federal government has
waited for the automotive and petroleum industries to resolve the
situation without legislation. It has not been resolved. The time for
waiting is over. It is now time for the government to act.
In October 1994 the former Minister of the Environment gave a
final warning to both the petroleum and automotive industries to
voluntarily resolve the issue of MMT in Canada by the end of 1994,
otherwise the government would take action. The deadline was
subsequently extended to February 1995 with no resolution in
5260
sight. Therefore the government tabled Bill C-94 in May 1995 and
we have been debating it and its successor, Bill C-29, ever since.
The MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute. Its outcome can
affect the vehicle emissions program which we as a government are
putting into place, such as the new emissions standards recently
announced by the Minister of the Environment for the cars in the
1998 model year. Part of these new emissions standards will
include mandatory testing which will ensure that the only
automobiles allowed on the road will be those that are equipped
with proper emissions systems.
As was recently pointed out to me by one of my constituents, a
retired zone service manager for Ford Motor Company of Canada,
one of the main reasons for vehicles pumping huge amounts of
pollutants into the air is that many cars have been equipped with
cheaper but inferior after market exhaust systems. Mandatory
testing would ensure that these inferior exhaust systems are
replaced by the latest systems.
However, all these efforts will go for naught if they are not
accompanied by laws that require cleaner burning fuels. That is
what Bill C-29 is all about. In the long term, failure to take action
could also negatively impact on the entire automotive sector.
Canadians are ready for this legislative action. The results of a
poll conducted last May by Compas Incorporated show that
Canadians have some clearly defined opinions on this issue. The
most revealing finding from the survey reflects Canadians'
preference to exercise caution when asked to choose between two
potential approaches of dealing with MMT.
The question was: In assessing whether MMT should be used in
Canada, which one of the following two points of view best reflects
your own: MMT should be banned unless it is proven that it does
not have any negative effects on people's health; or, MMT should
be allowed to be used unless it is proven to have negative effects on
people's health?
The survey showed that 64 per cent of Canadians believed MMT
should be banned unless it is proven that it does not have any
negative effects on people's health. In other words, approximately
two out of three Canadians are concerned enough about the
potential health effects associated with MMT that they would
prefer to have it banned.
Canadians do not want to be used as laboratory rats. They have
heard enough evidence regarding the toxic effects of manganese.
Canadians remember hearing the argument from oil companies
concerning the use of lead in gasoline. We were all told not to
worry about it. Manganese, like lead, is also a heavy metal and like
lead, manganese definitely acts as a neurotoxin.
A full 75 per cent of the respondents to the survey said that the
argument that MMT should be banned in Canada because scientific
evidence suggests airborne manganese has adverse effects on
people is at the very least a good argument in support of a ban.
Somewhat fewer but still a strong 65 per cent also said this about
the argument: ``MMT should be banned in Canada because it harms
emissions control components in automobiles which monitor and
reduce automobile air emissions''.
(1625 )
I believe the jury is out concerning the reactions of the Canadian
people to the legislative initiatives before us today. It is quite clear
to me that the Canadian people support us in our desire to finally
remove MMT from Canadian gasoline.
Passing this legislation will accomplish a number of important
things. It will deliver a long standing commitment to ban MMT in
Canadian automotive fuels. It will advance efforts to reduce
vehicle emissions and to contribute to air quality improvement in a
manner consistent with the recommendations of the Canadian
Council of Ministers of Environment in its October 1995 report. It
will minimize the potential risk to the health of current and future
generations of Canadians by taking a precautionary approach until
the effects of chronic low level exposure are fully understood. It
will defend the interests of consumers by ensuring that gasoline
free of MMT is available across Canada. It will expand existing
and new market opportunities for acceptable alternatives to
manganese based gasoline additives, such as renewable fuels like
ethanol which are already widely available in Canada.
I urge my colleagues in this House to support the bill. Ensuring
that fuels free of MMT are available means that Canadian
consumers will receive the emissions reductions and air quality
they have demanded and have every right to expect. As their
representatives, we owe it to the Canadian people to pass this bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind the hon. member that six out of ten provinces are
opposed to Bill C-29. Once again, the federal government has
interfered by deciding to go ahead with this bill. It wants to replace
MMT with ethanol. I do not know if studies have been done on
ethanol production, but we have received nothing so far. Ethanol
production is very expensive and its environmental impact is
unknown.
We know that ethanol production causes considerable soil
pollution. Ethanol is made with corn. Is ethanol production viable?
It is highly subsidized by the government, but will this product
5261
eventually become viable? Will we have to switch back to MMT
five years from now?
Can the government not wait six months as we requested? Six
months is not the end of the world. Can the government not wait six
months for independent researchers, not lobby groups, to carry out
conclusive studies so we can find out if MMT is really dangerous?
[English]
Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a great concern in this
House as to whether ethanol is a pollutant and to its cost.
I would strongly encourage members to take the time to read the
information on ethanol to see how cost effective it is. Burning
wood, using corn, as pollutants I can hardly see that being a heavy
metal. I would strongly encourage members to read that
information.
There is ethanol, there is MTBE, there is ETBE, but there seems
to be a red flag in this House when we mention ethanol. It is not a
polluting agent when we use a byproduct such as wood shavings
and corn to produce a product like this. It is an environmental
concern that helps all Canadians to breathe cleaner air.
All of us should be on the bandwagon to support this issue.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened, as I always do, very attentively to the hon.
member's dialogue on Bill C-29.
During her speech she referred to the fact that the government
had been hoping that the automobile industry and the oil industry,
and specifically Ethyl Canada as a subsidiary of Ethyl Corporation
of the United States, would have come to some voluntary
arrangement on the issue of MMT. That is what she said during her
discourse.
(1630 )
What I found interesting in that is that 1984 to 1996, by my
calculation, is 12 years. I would have thought that in 12 years, if
this government and the government before had really wanted to do
something to drive this to resolution, as she said, they would have
insisted that these two opposing factions would have got together
and had an independent study done, which is what the Bloc and the
Reform have been calling for for a year and a half. Clearly we have
had 12 years where we have had conflicting testimony and studies.
It is interesting to note, as an hon. Bloc member did before, that
the automobile industry has been very reluctant to bring forward
any proof of its studies and its findings. All they say is that they do
find that MMT is harmful to the onboard diagnostic systems and to
health.
I have two quick points. In the hon. member's speech she said, as
did a preceding Liberal member, that MMT is harmful to the health
of Canadians. Yet Health Canada does not support that, as the hon.
member from Burnaby stated earlier in his remarks.
The second point is whether the hon. member is aware, when she
makes the point about how MMT gums up the onboard diagnostic
systems in new automobiles, that it is claimed by the automobile
manufacturers that they are experiencing just as many problems
with the onboard diagnostic systems in the new automobiles in the
United States. In the United States MMT has not been in fuel for
some years now. What is the problem down there?
If this government is going to blame the malfunctioning of
onboard diagnostic systems on the use of MMT in Canadian
gasoline, then clearly there should not be a problem in the United
States. However, my information is that there is. Does the member
know that?
Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
question.
As to knowing the concerns of the automobile diagnostic
systems in the United States, I am not totally aware of that. I am
going by the recommendation of one of my constituents, whose
party partisans I do not know, who told me emphatically that it was
my duty as a Canadian, because of the knowledge he had working
in the industry, to come to this House and support Bill C-29
because of information he had at his fingertips.
I am not a service manager. I do not know the components, but
he told me that once MMT was in the gasoline, all kinds of cases
with spark plugs in the mobile service managers' cars or vans and
catalytic converters rose in numbers because of the MMT. He feels
that banning MMT would certainly be the right approach for this
government to move forward with.
The statement was made that MMT was not used in the United
States. Actually 85 per cent of U.S. oil refineries have confirmed
they are not currently using MMT. Obviously they have inside
knowledge not to promote MMT in their fuels because of what the
hon. member is talking about. One does not have to be a rocket
scientist to put those two things together.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member
for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Unemployment insurance; the
hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Canadian
Wheat Board; the hon. member for Bourassa-Immigration.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-29 would prohibit the importation of the manganese-based
5262
gasoline additive methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl,
a chemical expression that sounds complicated but is sometimes
more straightforward than the government's logic.
When the people of my riding chose a young person to represent
them in this House, I think they were fully aware of the fact that
one of the benefits of electing young politicians is to be able to plan
ahead, 30 years ahead maybe.
The environment is an issue very close to my heart because
decisions made today might have disastrous effects 30 years down
the road. I hope that I will still be around in 30 years. There is a
fairly good chance of that. At least, I hope so.
(1635)
Carbon monoxide emissions must be reduced to an absolute
minimum. Studies show that there is a gasoline additive that helps
reduce by up to 20 per cent these carbon monoxide emissions
which are so harmful to our environment and to our health.
This additive is manganese, or MMT if you prefer. Even those
who oppose the use of MMT agree that using this substance helps
cut carbon monoxide emissions by approximately 5 per cent.
So, if we try to understand the reasoning of the Liberal
government, something not always easy to do, it agrees and even
seeks to let our atmosphere get polluted even more than it already
is. Once again, the government wants the public to believe that the
environment a priority. However, this bill is proof that it is really
not the case.
When I talk about the environment, I always feel a twinge of
sorrow because, in spite of what some may claim, the current
situation is not pretty. There are problems with the ozone layer in
the north, and the smog is everywhere in the south. Our water is
highly polluted. We can no longer drink the water of our lakes and,
in some places, we cannot even swim or fish any more.
Clear-cutting is also a widespread phenomenon.
Recently, the Minister of Human Resources Development said I
was a frustrated young person. He was right, because it is not
always easy for an environmentalist to speak in this House.
Indeed, I am somewhat frustrated because the previous
generations were a bit careless and now we have to pay the price.
With bills like this one, it is hard to say: ``Yes, we know what is
going on and this is where we are headed''. I feel this bill is a step
backward. It is disappointing.
Hubert Reeves said: ``The universe gives rise to complexity.
Complexity gives rise to efficiency, but does efficiency make
sense?'' Looking at all the pollution created worldwide, I think that
efficiency does not necessarily make sense.
Unfortunately, a lot remains to be done in the environmental
sector. I sometimes have the impression that we have been
mistaken in a number of areas, but the time has now come to take
concrete action, and I think it is still taking too long. There is a
tendency to stick one's head in the sand, to try to show that things
are just fine.
I cannot overlook the fact that last week I heard a very influential
minister in the government saying that things were going well in
Canada. It is unbelievable, when we know that the unemployment
rate is over 10 per cent, that young people are fed up. Even when
they graduate with a university degree, there are almost no jobs.
Canada has the highest rate of suicide in the world. The debt is over
$600 billion, but things are going well. It is too bad, but it is an
indication of where we are headed.
I see that some members of this House are reacting, and I am
glad, because they should. You will tell me that you find me rather
pessimistic, but what I want to be is realistic. The bottom line is
that I was recently reading in a Quebec publication that 50 species
disappear every day worldwide. The bottom line is that we are
destroying the habitats of these species every day, by destroying
our soil, our waterways and our air. The bottom line is that it is the
air we breathe that we are talking about today.
When all is said and done, what must be understood is that this
will probably have repercussions 20 years from now. The food
chain being what it is, when something happens to the smallest
components, the effect continues on up the chain. When I speak of
the smallest components, I am speaking of species that many
people have still never heard of today. Unfortunately, ecologists are
still misunderstood.
When Galileo said the earth was round, people laughed at him
for years. Many ecologists today are raising the alarm and there are
still too many people on this planet laughing at them, and at the rate
things are going, I am very worried. When we see that countries
like those in Asia are modernizing and that soon everyone will have
his own car, as we do here, I think we should be worried. But let us
limit ourselves to the smaller picture.
(1640)
I said earlier that the fringe elements and ecologists are
misunderstood. Which reminds me a little of the plan for
sovereignty. When all is said and done, it is about taking a different
route, a new route, which is something that scares people or for
which they are not yet ready. It takes several years before people
can support this kind of thing. But the environment is an issue that
has to be settled now. It takes concrete action.
There are still fringe elements, as I said before. The other day I
heard someone in my riding saying we should not eat meat more
than once a day. This is the kind of thing even I have trouble with.
But we must listen to the environmentalists. I think there is hope. I
know I seem rather pessimistic, but I am not that pessimistic. I
would say I am a realist and a reasonable person. I am an optimist,
but I do not want to bury my head in the sand. I want to face the
facts. I want to see the kind of problems we have, but I also realize
5263
that good work is being done today, which gives me hope for the
future.
I will first give an example from my riding, and I will then look
at all this globally. Not long ago this year, we stopped the practice
of log drives, which were polluting our rivers to a tremendous
extent. The Péribonka river which flows along the north side of my
riding may be developed for tourism in a dozen years or so. We
would even be able to swim in the river. In my riding we also have
a ZIP committee, Zone d'intervention prioritaire, which is
supposed to raise public awareness of environmental problems. A
river flows near my town, and I hope that someday we will be able
to swim or fish in the river. I know I am talking about just one river
in my riding, but it is not the only one. I have travelled across
Canada, and there is pollution everywhere.
I have further cause for hope. The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
region is a laboratory for sustainable development. You can see
progress has been made. There are people who opposed plans to
develop the Chamouchouane, a river in my riding, which we
decided to keep in its natural state-one of the few rivers in Quebec
where that is the case.
We even have town councillors involved in politics, and I am
thinking of one in particular, Gérald Scullion, of the Town of Alma.
He is probably the first ``green'' councillor in Quebec to be
involved in the ``negawatts'' project of Métabetchouan. A village
decided to set up the ``negawatts'' project. It decided to raise public
awareness, and all energy savings would be reinvested. This project
is headed by Mr. Paradis from Lac-Saint-Jean. At the regional
level, I think we should pay tribute to these attempts to build a
better world.
Of course there is all the recycling as well. Whether we like it or
not, we are increasingly seeing blue boxes next to the garbage cans.
There is also the electric car, which is quietly making its way. In
fact, not long ago a research centre was set up in the riding of the
hon. member for Laurentides. These projects give me cause for
hope. And there are of course movements like Greenpeace.
Slowly but surely, we can come up for air. Except that when you
do come up for air and go to Parliament and see what is going
on-They try to act like environmentalists, although direct action,
which was one of my slogans when I entered politics, is what
makes lobbying a powerful force.
The government says it is going to be more environmentally
conscious by replacing MMT with ethanol. In fact, when I did my
research for this speech, I found there were no specific studies that
said that ethanol was safer for the environment. Well, perhaps in
the combustion process, ethanol leaves fewer residues in the air,
but look at all the consequences. When you grow corn, which is
used to manufacture ethanol, you have the whole ethanol
production process. That is the problem. That is where we see that
in the end, we lose out.
Actually, all this is pretty useless since we have no studies on the
subject, and this bill is taking us down an uncertain path. We can no
longer afford to play around with the environment. There is too
much at stake, and this worries me. When I an ordinary bill like this
one, it is just one of many things people can do. Much remains to
be done.
(1645)
In concluding, I will say that what saddens me is these short term
policies. There is no long term view. Everything is short term.
People build big stacks so the smoke will go to the village next
door. It is really too bad, but that is how some people still think.
In concluding, I would like to say the following: We do not
inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
that the member for Lac-Saint-Jean has a catch in his throat when
he talks about the environment.
It is wonderful to know that we have an ally on the other side of
the House. However, I am a little troubled in understanding why he
is against Bill C-29. And perhaps the people in his riding would
like to know why this member is going against the direction of the
former leader of his party, the new premier of Quebec.
This talk about politics, I am wondering where the politics is
really coming from, if we are really concerned about the
environment.
I would like to quote a former minister of the environment on
April 21, 1989. Maybe this was such a long time ago that the
members of the Bloc have forgotten these things. The minister said
he was aiming for the toughest regulations that technology can
provide.
The regulations he was referring to were the tough new standards
for emission control technology on new model cars, which is the
OBD-II system that we are talking about. We will not have
effective operation of those OBD-II systems on our cars unless
MMT is taken out of gasoline.
I would like to ask the member opposite if, indeed, his throat
catches when he talks about the environment and his love and his
concern. How can he be so against what the previous member for
his riding was advocating?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I would point
out that the province of Quebec, of which Lucien Bouchard is the
premier, is against this bill. I am not referring to when the
Conservatives were in power, I am talking about the present.
5264
I think my colleague across the way has not properly understood
where my disagreement lies. Perhaps I digressed. Concretely, in
short, imports of a product are banned without any certainty that
it is harmful for the environment.
In reality, we are well aware that interprovincial trade will not
occur. The provinces are entitled to produce manganese, no
problem with that. Yet we know that they will not. We know that
the Ontario lobby has said that, if the government were to ban
manganese, that would make it possible to add ethanol to gas, and
ethanol is produced in Ontario. As I have just said, there are not
even any studies available to demonstrate that ethanol is
environmentally any cleaner.
As my colleague has just pointed out, I am asking for a six
month hoist to find out where we are at with this. I get the
impression that a bill is being introduced just for the pleasure of
introducing a bill, in order to show they are looking after the
environment by passing some wonderful bill.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind the House of a few facts. The hon. parliamentary
secretary to the Minister of the Environment, who sits on the
environment committee with me, is fully aware of the work we did
in committee. However, when there is a need for the Minister of the
Environment to do something, nothing happens.
We spent a year and a few months reviewing the CEPA with no
results. Nothing came out of the department. We are supposed to
review a bill on endangered species. Despite the urgency, nothing is
moving at Environment Canada.
(1650)
The Minister of the Environment even told me the other day he
thought we did not ask him enough questions. The environment
committee does not even have a legislative agenda. Instead of
steamrolling bills like C-29 in order to satisfy Ontario, the ethanol
plant announced by the former Minister of the Environment, which
is currently under construction, as well as Ontario farmers-as we
know, 75 per cent of Canadian corn comes from Ontario-we
should perhaps think about this and, as we requested and as I will
never stop saying, wait long enough for concrete studies to be
carried out before we make a real decision.
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I will speak
along the same lines as my colleague. I would like to take this
opportunity to talk about a letter I have here that was sent by the
Minister for International Trade to the Minister of the
Environment, asking him to wait. Once again, we see a lack of
consistency even within the government.
As far as I am concerned, all I said today sums up the matter
well.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the remarks made by the opposition critic, who said
that this bill was of interest to Ontario manufacturers, who were
pushing for it.
It think there is something else at stake here: the health of
Canadians, Ontarians, Quebecers, everyone. I do not think that
health issues know boundaries and stop at the Quebec or Ontario
border.
I would simply like to ask my hon. colleague who raised the
issue of the environment a moment ago a short question. How can
he justify something like this going on for so long? The facts speak
for themselves. Even manufacturers outside of Ontario, those for
whom I worked many years ago, are concerned not only about what
will happen to their product but also about the health of the public.
There are many people asking this House to pass this bill. How
can the hon. member turn his back on people and their health?
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): This is quite
unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member opposite is giving us
this rhetoric about his bill preserving life on this planet, when there
are no studies backing his claims.
Here is a member's statement under Standing Order 31,
announcing the opening of a $153 million ethanol plant in
Chatham, Ontario. The debate today is not about the environment,
it is about patronage and lobbying.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to reply to the statement which was just made by
the hon. member for Ontario. He stated that it really comes down to
a health issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. If it is a
health issue, why has Health Canada not recommended that MMT
be banned? It does not support all of the so-called studies that the
Liberal members are bringing up today. It simply does not support
those studies. If Health Canada cannot find reasons to proceed with
the banning, then I would say that hon. members opposite are
simply puffing hot air on the issue. It certainly is not a health issue.
Quite frankly, I find it appalling that they would try to use scare
tactics, as they have so many times on other issues, to scare
Canadians into believing that what the government is doing is
really in their best interests. I find that quite despicable.
(1655)
As said by a number of individuals who spoke this afternoon,
Bill C-29 goes back a long way. The thrust of this bill will be to
impose a ban on trans-border transportation of MMT.
It is somewhat ironic that the government would not impose an
outright ban if it truly believes that this is in the best interests of the
health of Canadians. It is not only harmful to the health but it is
going to follow the onboard diagnostic systems in new automo--
5265
biles and all sorts of other issues that it believes are attributable to
the burning of MMT in gasoline. If the government truly believes
that why would it not just outright ban it, ban the use of MMT in
Canada instead of simply banning the transportation of it?
As said by one of my hon. colleagues, I think the House and
individual members are reaching a point of exhaustion with this
legislation. As an hon. Liberal member noted earlier, it dates back
to May 1995 when the previous environment minister brought
forward Bill C-94, before Parliament subsequently prorogued in
January of this year, and that died on the Order Paper.
I, along with a number of others, had hoped that when Bill C-94
died on the Order Paper the new environment minister, following a
cabinet shuffle, would not have seen fit to bring this bill back
unamended, despite all the debate that had taken place in the House
on Bill C-94, all the points that had been brought forward by a wide
ranging number of speakers both in opposition and in government,
as well as witnesses and, admittedly, the lobbying efforts on both
sides of this argument. Despite all that information being brought
forward, the new Minister of the Environment saw fit to bring in
Bill C-29 which in reality is the old Bill C-94 virtually unchanged.
It brings into question what exactly is the role to be debated in
this House of Commons. Regardless of political stripes, if
members bring forward points in debate in the House and they
simply fall on deaf ears, what is the point to debate in the House at
all when we see a minister bring back a piece of legislation
unchanged despite some serious reservations being expressed by a
lot of people?
I believe quite strongly that this government with Bill C-29 has
fallen prey to the lobbying efforts of the very powerful Canadian
automobile industry. I know we have been accused on this side of
the House of being in the pockets of the oil industry, which is on the
other side of the argument.
While we can defend what we have been saying, it is very
difficult for the government to defend the real thrust of why it is
bringing in this legislation if it is not to appease the automobile
industry. It is bringing in a piece of legislation that will see the
banning of a product used by the oil industry.
The Reform position on this is and always has been that we
would support an independent comprehensive third party study.
When we see that this issue goes back to 1984, some 12 years ago,
surely to goodness the two sides could have been brought together
and forced by government legislation rather than imposing a ban
and taking one side of the argument with what we believe is not
substantive evidence against the use of MMT.
Rather than taking one side of the argument surely the
government could have brought legislation forward to have an
independent study done to substantiate who is right in this
argument. We believe quite simply that the whole issue of the
banning of the transportation of MMT is one built on fallacy. It is
built on scare tactics. When we look at the evidence that is
provided by the two sides in the argument, it certainly supports
what both opposition parties have been calling for, an independent
study. That is why I find myself speaking in support of the hoist
motion of the Bloc Quebecois to see this bill put off for six months.
That is what we are debating here. It is not specifically Bill C-29
but the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois to see the bill delayed
for six months in yet again the hope that a study could be done in
the intervening time to bring forward evidence on one side or the
other.
(1700)
If the evidence, clearly supported, is what the government has
been saying on this issue, I know all members of the House would
support what the government has been endeavouring to do.
Currently there is no studies or evidence before us to allow us to
make that decision.
I find it quite ironic that when I questioned the previous Liberal
speaker during questions and comments she said that her
constituent had brought forward information which she listened to
and he said there was overwhelming evidence that MMT was
harmful to vehicle emission systems, and therefore she was going
to support the bill.
I find it interesting that an MP would rise and say that one person
had brought forward one side of an argument and therefore that is
why she was going to vote a certain way on a piece of legislation. I
would hope that all MPs of all parties would be much more
comprehensive in studying an issue and looking at both sides of it
before they cast their vote. At least that is how I approach this
issue.
I want to bring to the attention of the House something that is of
importance to me as the member representing Prince
George-Peace River. I want to take this whole argument about
Bill C-29 and the banning of the transportation of MMT to the level
of my riding of Prince George-Peace River which I am pleased to
represent in this House.
There is a refinery currently operating in the city of Prince
George. This refinery produces some 10,000 barrels per day of
gasoline. It is therefore the smallest fully integrated Canadian
refinery. It is owned by Husky Oil.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): I hear all sorts of
heckling. Is the issue here really that we are supposed to try to
represent the interests of our constituents or not? Is that the issue?
5266
It has been said that the hon. members across the way are
supporting the interests of a certain side of this argument. I want
to repeat, because of the heckling coming from the other side of
the House, that I am not supporting the continuation of the use
of MMT, although it would be very appropriate for me to do so
in support of the refinery that exists in Prince George.
Quite the contrary, what I am saying is that we need further
study. We need a comprehensive study. After 12 years I do not
think it is too much for Canadians to expect that the government
would conduct such a study instead of going with one side of the
argument, as I have already stated.
This refinery, although it is quite small, employs some 80
people.
An hon. member: Eighty people.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Yes, it is a very small
number. The hon. member says: ``Oh, 80 people''. What is 80
people? They are potentially out of work. It does not really matter
to him, no doubt. It matters to me. It matters to those 80 people
who are concerned about their jobs. The whole point is that it is so
needless to bring in something like this without proper study.
Those people would support the banning of MMT if it could be
conclusively shown that it was either harmful to the health of
Canadians or that it was creating some sort of substantive problems
for the automobile manufacturers that could not be overcome in
some other way. Other members earlier said that they did not want
to see the Canadian government browbeaten with the threat of legal
action by Ethyl Corporation.
(1705)
What about the threats that came from the automobile industry
over the last year and half suggesting that if the government did not
put this in maybe the price of cars would go up by some $3,000? If
that is not a threat I do not know what is. It is inappropriate to listen
to one side of the argument. None of us want to see the price of cars
go up. I keep returning to the fact that the conclusive evidence is
not there so how can the government arrive at a decision to simply
ban this product on the basis of available information?
We could go on and on debating this. I spoke for some 20
minutes in June 1995 on this issue, as did a lot of other members. I
find it incredible that a year and a half later we are still debating the
same issue. The government has refused to listen to any of the
arguments put forward by members in debate. It is simply bringing
back the bill to appease the automobile industry. It will force it
through and it will get its backbench members to vote along party
lines to force this through. I find it disgusting.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased
to hear the comments of my hon. colleague for Prince
George-Peace River. However, I thought I was probably at a
meeting of the flat earth society when I heard what he had to say.
I realize and understand that the hon. member has the interests of
a refinery in his riding in mind. I do not blame the refinery nor do I
think it is fair to trade off the interests of eight people who happen
to work at that refinery. After all, they have health concerns and
concerns about the environment just like everyone else.
I should point out to the hon. member that I know a little bit
about the automotive industry. I know that there are several Toyota
dealerships in his riding, each having 20, 30 and even 40
employees whose livelihood and jobs are at stake simply because
the new vehicles that are coming in, not made in Ontario, not made
in Quebec which is, of course, the pretext by which the member of
the Reform Party likes to side with the Bloc Quebecois. Obviously,
Reform members find themselves in a very interesting position. It
must be an election year and they are desperate to find any issue,
even at the expense of someone's health.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to resolve this question.
According to the B.C. motor vehicle emission control warranty
regulations by this time next year, for the 1998 models, it will
probably be that the emissions, which is what we are speaking
about here, will not meet the standards set by his own province.
How is he going to resolve this dilemma for his own constituents
and for the sake of the car dealers there who are creating jobs and
who are trying to make ends meet? He knows this is an important
issue that will have to be met, particularly from the health and
environmental standpoint.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Ontario.
With his extensive background of working for Toyota he would
be an unbiased source to make the points for the automobile
industry. I appreciate his enlightening me on how many Toyota
dealerships there are in my riding. It certainly is of importance as
well.
Mr. McTeague: That is a small number too. More than eight.
(1710 )
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): If the hon. member is
not too busy heckling, I wonder if he would listen to another point?
With a nuclear power plant in his riding, would he be so concerned
about the environmental issues with nuclear power that perhaps we
should just pass a quick piece of legislation this afternoon to shut
down the power plant, just on the evidence we have before us
today, which admittedly is not very substantive?
5267
I know, for example, that the industry and refineries in the
province of British Columbia are working extensively with the
province to move toward stricter environmental standards. The
hon. member mentioned them. From what I can understand, in
speaking with members of the industry not only from my riding
but from the province of British Columbia, they have a good
working relationship with the Government of British Columbia.
They are working toward adhering to those new guidelines and
regulations when they come down the pipe.
I do not think the comment made by the hon. member is
appropriate in the sense of again trying to throw out the scare tactic
that somehow the industry is resisting, all the way down the line,
making the necessary changes to make Canada, environmentally, a
safer place in which to live.
As the member pointed out, the people who work in the oil and
gas industries, be it exploration, production or refining, all breathe
the same air and drink the same water as the rest of Canadians do.
Therefore, it is certainly paramount to them to ensure that we have
an environmentally sustainable country and a province of British
Columbia in which to live.
I believe that using scare tactics and trying to paint one side of
the argument as the bad boys in this dispute is not going to do
anyone any good. That is why the common sense approach, the
approach that is supported by the majority of Canadians where they
can have all of the evidence in front them, would be to support the
position of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party of Canada on
this; which we have been demanding for a year and a half to have a
comprehensive study done of this issue and have those results
made known to the public.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite has talked about public support. First, the overwhelming
majority of Canadians support the ban on MMT. Perhaps the
member should be aware of that point.
Second, the member also has been talking about an independent
voice. I believe the member might be considering the public
interest. I do not know how many times I have to go over this in the
House, but I will try yet again.
When we talk for the public interest, I would suggest that the
Allergy Asthma Information Association spoke in the public
interest. I would suggest that the Canadian Institute of Child Health
spoke in the public interest. I would suggest that the Environmental
Defence Fund, the Sierra Club of Canada and the Learning
Disabilities Association of Canada have spoken in the public
interest. I would suggest that all of these associations and
organizations spoke in the public interest.
I would like to know why this member is speaking against the
public interest and against the Canadian people on this issue.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): I would think, Mr.
Speaker, I have been on my feet enough today that we would not
have any problem recalling my riding at this point.
I thank the hon. member for her question and comments about
my presentation. On the issue of Canadians and whether they
support the banning of MMT, I would like to know who conducted
that study, how comprehensive it was, how much information was
made available to the Canadians who were actually polled, how
many were polled, where they were polled and what background
they were given. We can all play with statistics. We have done that
all day long in this place. Anyone can conduct a poll and get the
results they want. If they ask the right question they will get the
answer they want. That addresses the issue of the poll to which the
hon. member referred.
(1715)
She also mentioned the need for an independent voice. As I said
earlier, and I am getting tired of saying it, that is what we have been
calling for. When we consider that this issue has been around for as
long as it has, surely to goodness some government at some time
could have undertaken a comprehensive study of this issue so that
we as parliamentarians would have had enough evidence in front of
us to make a decision one way or the other without there being a big
question mark.
As to her statement about being on the wrong side of Canadians,
when she read off a list of people who made presentations and who
have made their views known, certainly those people and those
organizations are representing a certain point of view. They are
speaking in support of what they feel is in the best interests of the
health of Canadians.
What I cannot understand is despite the representations which
were made before the committee, the fact is Health Canada did not
support the recommendation that MMT is harmful.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
not talking about public interest right now, we are talking about
commercial interests. On one side of the House, some members
have automakers in their riding, while on the other side, some
members have refineries in their riding. Since there are no
automakers or refineries in my riding, I feel I can be relatively
objective regarding this issue.
What we are asking is simple: if the automobile industry has
real, independent studies, and I am not talking about lobbying, then
let us see these studies so we can be convinced that this is indeed
the right thing to do. We have asked time and again for such studies
to be tabled.
5268
We also asked Ethyl Corporation to do the same. It did so. It
did its homework. It asked independent firms to conduct studies
which have shown that MMT is not harmful to the environment
or to one's health.
We want automakers to do the same. Let them do their
homework and let us wait six months, as we are asking, to take a
look at these studies in an objective manner, with no bias towards
refineries or automakers. This is what we ask.
It seems very complicated for the government, and when I see
Liberal members rise, I find it strange that they all represent
Ontario, where ethanol is produced.
I would like to hear the Reform Party member elaborate on this.
[English]
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for her comments and her question, but I honestly
do not know how I could possibly elaborate any further on what has
been said over the past year and a half on this issue.
I would, however, question her statement about the objectivity of
a member who happens to have a small oil refinery in their riding.
The reason I say that is I have been very careful not to come down
on the side of the oil industry or Ethyl Corp. to say that MMT is not
harmful and that we should proceed full bore and forever use MMT
in gasoline. I have not said that. The Reform Party has not said that.
In its defence, the Bloc as well has not said that.
(1720)
What we have said repeatedly is that we need this independent
study to see which side of the argument holds the most water.
Without using any more time of the House-time is of the
essence-we have only debated this for some year and a half, I am
sure all of us are hoping to be finished with this.
My only hope is that the government members will break with
party discipline and on this issue at least will vote with common
sense and support the motion to hoist this for six months to allow a
study so that we can really have the evidence placed before
parliamentarians.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
today to speak in this House to Bill C-29 banning the use of MMT.
First of all, I would like to say that I feel like I am trapped in a bad
movie. Admittedly, back home in the Gaspé, the air is pure, we do
not really have any problems with the environment as such, and
given that I come from that area of the country, the fisheries are
more up my line.
When I listen in the House today to all the efforts of the Liberal
Party to justify its bill C-29, I want to get up and ask them what is
going on.
Mr. Speaker, you will tell me if I have misunderstood. The Bloc
Quebecois amendment proposes a six month delay because no
study has been done. We would like to know why manganese is
being banned, but we would also like to know what will replace it.
When I say it is like being trapped in a bad movie, as the member
for Laurentides said a few minutes ago, it is more like a trade war
we are engaged in here.
I hear people who seem to be caving in to the automobile lobby
and I hear people who seem to be caving in to the ethanol lobby. I
wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment has a popcorn solution to the ban on MMT. As you
know, popcorn is another way of using corn. As my colleague on
the backbench mentioned, it creates energy. When corn pops, it
causes movement. But where are they headed with this bill? They
have lost me.
Have they a viable alternative in mind? I do not think so. In the
case of ethanol production, what are the other negative impacts that
have not been studied? I am told that if we launch blindly into large
scale production of corn on the same acreage, the soil will be
impoverished.
I tell myself that maybe there is enough land in Ontario, in
Canada, to rotate crops. Farmers always like to limit their risks. Is
there a risk of ethanol pollution? I am told that perhaps not from
ethanol as such, but if insecticides are used on corn crops, then
there is a risk of pollution. I know that farmers will be tempted to
use insecticides.
As you can see, there is no clear solution to these questions, and I
am only looking at something that would give the government an
opportunity to find an alternate solution. That is why I like the
popcorn image. They are looking for an easy solution, but they are
not just going to pop this problem away with a poof.
The other questions we might have about MMT concern the
studies on the real impact on people's health.
(1725)
Yes, I too am aware of that, but no one has yet confronted us with
any direct cause and effect relationship. You will reply: yes, but as
soon as there is any danger perhaps it will be wise to be a little
more careful. There are no other solutions. Will any attempts to
save money, maybe with impact on people's health, be done away
with completely because the next solution has not been worked out
properly? I think that the proposal by the hon. member for
Laurentides is a very good solution, namely to take another six
months, at least.
I wondered whether we were not in a league by ourselves, since
the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, who spoke just
now, was telling us that MMT was banned virtually everywhere. I
5269
am told that it has just been reintroduced in some states in the
U.S.A. That opens the door. I am trying to see whether the
Americans have made a mistake. We are 25 or 30 million
Canadians, while they are 250 million, 250 million Americans who
may be wrong. I think the solution to give ourselves another six
months is reasonable.
While my colleague for Laurentides was speaking just now, with
her numerous questions, for which I congratulate her-someone
has to stir up the government, and she does an excellent job of it-I
heard some of the Liberals saying: Yes, and if ever that study is
done, it will never come out until after the elections. Once again,
we understand the spin the government is trying to put on the
debate on Bill C-29-it is pure vote-chasing. On the one hand, if
they do want a study, it will be released only afterward, so why are
they talking about it now? Because of the automotive lobby, the
ethanol producers' lobby, wanting to get its share of the pie-a
trade war pure and simple.
I was just thinking that we have been here three years now, and
how can it be that the government has nothing better to offer on the
environment? A good question, and I would like to hear the Liberal
members, the Minister of the Environment, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of the Environment give us the answer.
What is the story on PCBs in the Magdalen Islands?
Those islands are just across from us in the Gaspé. From what I
hear, there was a PCB problem relating to the wreck of the barge
Irving Whale. PCBs escaped on the ocean floor. Tests were done
and, perhaps as in the popcorn solution-poof-the Minister of the
Environment sees no more trace of PCBs on the ocean floor.
This is something tangible. The danger relating to contact with
PCBs has been proven. As for MMT, there is not yet any scientific
proof.
You will understand my surprise, will understand that I am
wondering how much the speeches of the government side are
based in fact, and you will understand that there is good reason to
listen open-mouthed.
The hon. member for Lachine has also asked whether Canada is
really entitled to legislate on this. I think the answer is yes, we are.
It is not because we have the right to pass legislation that we
have the right to ruin people's lives, because we have no alternative
solution to offer. If we really want to act intelligently in this area, I
believe that we must stack the decks in our favour as far as
possible. That would mean adopting the member for Laurentides'
amendment, a six month hoist, and to do the necessary work during
that time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5269
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP) moved that Bill
C-311, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to extend my
appreciation to my colleague in our NDP caucus, the member for
Burnaby-Kingsway, for seconding my bill.
Bill C-311 is a very important bill with respect to prescription
drugs in this country. The bill will limit the life of patents for
medicines to 17 years and allow for compulsory licences to be
granted for the manufacture and sale of medicines after the original
patentee has had the medicine approved for marketing for four
years.
The royalty rate is to take into account the amount of medical
research carried out in Canada by the applicant and the patentee.
There is provision for refusal or deferral of a licence if a patentee
has been unusually delayed in commercializing a medicine.
What is compulsory licensing? Compulsory licensing is
allowing generic drug companies to produce a copy of a brand
name drug. Generic drug companies pay a royalty of 4 per cent to
the brand name company. Compulsory licensing can only occur
after the patent set by the federal government has run out.
Before Bill C-91, passed in the previous Parliament, the length
of drug patent was seven to ten years which was set by Bill C-22.
Bill C-311, my bill, would shorten the length of a patent to four
years. Bill C-311 does not set a royalty rate to the brand name drug
companies but states that factors such as the amount of research
money spent in Canada be rewarded under the royalty system. A
name brand drug company that does original research and
development in Canada would receive a higher royalty. This would
increase job opportunities in the industry by encouraging drug
companies to do their research in Canada.
Every opinion poll that has been conducted in this country in the
last 10 years in terms of important concerns for Canadians has
listed health care. We have seen the cutbacks to health care. We
have seen a great deal of problems with respect to the federal
government's offloading to the provinces. This is a major concern
for poor families, for middle class families and for working
families.
5270
Rather than address the concerns of these families, the Liberal
government in Ottawa has turned a blind eye to the anxieties of
these people. In fact, the Liberals have taken a simplistic approach
by cutting back billions of dollars from health care and transfer
payments and offloading to the provinces. There are better ways
to address rising costs to health care. Prescription drug costs, for
example, are the fastest growing component of costs to health care
in Canada. Bill C-311 offers a better way to curtail some of the
rising costs.
Since the introduction of Bill C-22 in 1988, the average
prescription bill has gone from $12.48 in 1987 to about $24 in
1993. This average prescription drug bill represents a 93 per cent
increase as a result of providing these manufacturers with a 20 year
monopoly to charge whatever they want for these prescription
drugs without competition.
If we look at the increase of the licensed drugs alone during that
period the average prescription has gone from $16.92 in 1987 to
$43.42 in 1993. This represents on the licensed drug alone an
increase of 258 per cent. Prior to Bill C-22 and Bill C-91 of the last
Parliaments, drug costs amounted to 8.9 per cent of total health
spending in Canada. In 1993 it had risen to 15.1 per cent of total
health spending. That is a 70 per cent increase with respect to
health care costs in the drug component alone. Rather than address
this particular problem the government cuts back health care
further. My Bill C-311 deals with this issue of rising costs in the
health care programs in this country.
In total, Bill C-91 will cost the Canadian health care system
between $4 billion and $7 billion according to research by
respected U.S. health economist Stephen Schondelmeyer. The
financial impact of Bill C-91, which my bill in effect repeals, will
accelerate dramatically during the years 2000 to 2010.
(1735 )
The passage of Bill C-91 was supposed to increase employment
as well in the brand name pharmaceutical industry. Since the
passage of these bills we have seen not an increase in R and D jobs
but in fact a decline. We have seen a 1,200 job cut in the R and D
sector of the pharmaceutical industry in Ontario alone, and about
800 jobs in Quebec have been cut as a result of these bills.
This was on the promise by the pharmaceutical companies when
they came to this Parliament and asked for protection for up to 20
years. They promised jobs; we have fewer jobs. They promised
stable cost in terms of pharmaceuticals; we have seen those costs
sky-rocket.
We have also seen some very important developments with
respect to what the generic drug companies have done for our
health care plans and for our country. Here are examples of some of
the drug costs that are generic brands which are cheaper brand
drugs, which my bill would encourage in terms of production in
Canada. An ulcer drug, brand name Zantac, costs about $1.10 and
the generic price is about 42.5 cents, which is a 61.1 per cent saving
on a generic drug. An asthma drug, Ventolin, is $12.27 for 15
millilitres versus $4.95 for the generic price. That is a saving of
nearly 60 per cent. On blood pressure drugs as well, brand names
are roughly 41 per cent to 45 per cent more expensive than generic
prices. Anybody who has children will know that with the
antibiotic Amoxil there is about a 44 per cent to a 45 per cent
saving when purchasing a generic drug.
Bill C-91 and some of these bills prevent those sorts of generic
companies manufacturing generic drugs under a licence and a
royalty fee for up to 20 years. That is why my bill is very
important. It basically rolls back that period from 20 years to 17
years, but after four years generic companies can license and
manufacture drugs in competition.
We have had support from a number of organizations, provinces
and individuals across this country. The minister of social services
in Saskatchewan, Mr. Lorne Calvert, who was the associated
minister of health when this bill was being reviewed in the House
of Commons, represented Saskatchewan at the Senate hearings on
Bill C-91. He brought all of his research on the prescription drug
program in Saskatchewan and warned at that time that the bill
would drive up Saskatchewan drug costs $6 million to $10 million
a year.
We have had about a three year passage of time since this
warning was made by the provincial Government of Saskatchewan
and this has proven to be more than accurate because we have seen
not a $7 million to $10 million increase but something much more
substantial.
Mr. Calvert gave the example of generic drugs and the savings
they provide: ``Generic drugs save the provincial government drug
plan millions of dollars yearly. Enalapril, a commonly used
prescribed heart drug, would have been available as a generic in
1994 prior to the introduction of Bill C-91. The bill delayed the
proposed entry of Enalapril until the year 2007''. As a result of a
drug dispute this drug was available for a short time as a generic
and in one year saved the province alone $2 million. That is on one
drug. Yet we see members in this House are concerned about
protecting their own position with respect to drug companies and
patents.
We have had thousands of letters and calls. In this House as the
New Democratic Party we have done a number of things. I have
tabled thousands of petitions calling for the repeal of Bill C-91 in
support of my Bill C-311. I have had hundreds of people write
letters to me. We have had motions raised and debated in this
House. We have had questions raised with the government with
respect to Bill C-91. They seem to fall on deaf ears.
I have some letters I want to share with my colleagues in the
House of Commons today. One says: ``You have my heartiest
agreement on your attempt to rescind the legislation on Bill C-91.
It is my profound belief that this perpetrates a distinct hardship on
5271
those who pioneered our country, suffered through world wars and
a traumatic depression and now in their latter years are held ransom
by the greedy drug corporations. I can personally attest to the
horrendous gouging because my mother in her last two years of life
was paying monthly bills in the hundreds of dollars for prescription
drugs''.
(1740 )
This is an example of many that I have received. I have another
one here which I think is really important for members to pay
attention and listen to: ``My wife and I are senior citizens on fixed
income and it costs me approximately $100 per month for
prescribed medication. The only thing we have to cut back on to
pay for our drugs and our prescription drugs is food and clothing''.
Bill C-91 and Bill C-22 have resulted in sky-rocketing
prescription drug costs and many people in the country have to
make a choice between a life sustaining prescription drug or a life
enhancing prescription drug and purchasing food. What kind of a
government is this that would not pay attention to these problems
in our communities, particularly to those pioneers, those seniors
who have built our country? I think we have to get to the bottom of
this.
Perhaps we have some information which will provide the House
with a bit of insight in terms of why the government is not taking
any action. In contrast to the letter from Mr. Nord who wrote
saying that he is making a choice between prescription drugs which
are necessary and food which is absolutely necessary, the Minister
of Health of the Liberal government says that it is more important
to protect patents and the big multinational pharmaceutical
corporations.
I quote from an article on ``the surprise the minister gave to the
brand name drug manufacturers who are pushing for maintaining a
20 year control over the sale of pharmaceutical drugs that they have
developed''. The minister said this at a pharmaceutical convention:
``I have not come here tonight to talk about Bill C-91 because no
one wants to hear about that. This government believes that
intellectual property rights are important and they ought to be
protected and enhanced at every opportunity in this country''.
The article goes on: ``One industry spokesman said the
minister's comments were a `victory' for the pharmaceutical
research companies''.
This is a problem with this government. It does not seem to have
its priorities straight. It would rather embrace and protect the
multinational oil companies, protect and embrace the multinational
pharmaceuticals than look after people like Mr. Nord who has to
make very crucial decisions on a daily basis about whether he can
continue to live because of his medical condition. What kind of
empathy is that?
I hear the Liberals all the time in the House and it makes me
want to puke. We close our eyes and listen to all the wonderful
things they say. Then when we open our eyes and see what they
have done, they have always done the opposite. They get up and
talk about the great things they are doing for social programs.
When we look again they are slashing health care and encouraging
pharmaceuticals to gouge Canadians for prescription drugs. It
makes people absolutely sick. The Minister of Health is a nauseous
part of this entire Parliament as far as I am concerned.
Members are probably saying the member for
Regina-Lumsden is on a bit of a crusade here and does not have
much support. I have support from the Consumers' Association of
Canada, seniors organizations, the National Health Coalition, a
number of organizations from across the country. The CLC is
another sponsor and supporter along with many organizations and
individuals from the province of Saskatchewan and other parts of
the country.
I want to share with members today an experience I had meeting
with an Argentinian parliamentarian, Ernesto Algaba, a national
congressman who came to see me because he heard about the work
I had been doing in the past three years with respect to Bill C-91
and the pharmaceutical patent protection.
He told me: ``In Argentina we are very concerned. We are being
pressured by the American Pharmaceutical Association to institute
a drug patent law like that in Canada, the United States and
Mexico. The American Pharmaceutical Association came to us,
promised us jobs, promised us low cost, stable price prescription
drugs. We are kind of worried about this because we said no
initially. Then the U.S. ambassador came to our Parliament and met
with some of the parliamentarians and threatened us on behalf of
the American Pharmaceutical Association saying either we pass
this legislation or they are going to pull out some of their economic
supports and maybe they will pull their embassy out of our
country''. He wanted to check and see what was going on.
(1745 )
Mr. Algaba said that they went to Chile. He told me: ``Do you
know what they found in Chile?'' The Chilean government was
given the same garbage that the government was given about Bill
C-91. ``Pass the legislation, Mr. and Mrs. Chilean
Parliamentarians. You will have jobs galore in R and D and you
will have stable prescription drug prices''.
Do you know what happened? The Chileans passed legislation.
Their jobs are gone and their drugs are almost more expensive than
they are in Canada. That is what we hear from Argentina and other
countries. The government has to pay attention to some of the very
serious charges by other parliamentarians.
5272
There is also some confusion about profits with respect to the
pharmaceuticals. I have some information here.
From 1987, when Bill C-22 was passed, to 1992-it looks pretty
darn good for the pharmaceuticals-the revenue of Miles Canada
Inc. grew 52 per cent. The revenues of Merck Frosst MSD AGVET
grew by 111 per cent. The revenues of Burroughs Wellcome Inc.
grew 172 per cent. The revenues of Merck Frosst Canada Inc.
increased 185 per cent and Abbott Laboratories had a 1,120 per
cent increase in revenues as a result of these drug patents and the
jacking up prices and gouging consumers.
I want to save my last few comments to talk about what the
Liberal Party did in opposition. The NDP was the only party that
spoke and voted unanimously in opposition to Bill C-91 when it
was passed. The Liberals joined with the New Democrats in 1992
and voted against Bill C-91. They said: ``If we are elected, Bill
C-91 will be repealed''.
We even have some reference in a famous red book of broken
promises-this is just one more-which is found on page 81. It
speaks of a national forum on health which the Liberal Party would
undertake to institute. It says: ``The forum must be part of a
thorough study of the health of Canadians and of our health care
system. It will be mandated to consider questions such as the goals,
results and evaluation of our system as well as the costs of care,
including prescription drugs''. That is what the red book says. That
is what will be done on the national forum on health.
I have here a speech from the Prime Minister. They are opening
remarks by the Prime Minister to the national forum on health, his
Liberal baby in the red book. There is not one reference, inference,
suggestion or idea about the words drugs, prescription drugs,
pharmaceuticals or anything of that nature. There is not one
reference in the speech with respect to some of the action they were
going to take.
I wonder why. I think he who pays the piper calls the tune. It
seems to me when a former Liberal cabinet minister, Judy Erola, is
the chief lobbyist for the international pharmaceutical corporations
lobbying the government, it is going to be pretty easy to get their
attention.
What about some of the contributions? Bristol-Myers Squibb
gave the Liberals $4,800. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. gave the Liberals
$5,200. Burroughs Wellcome Inc., to which I made reference in
terms of its huge increases in revenues, gave $8,700 to the Liberal
Party and Merck Frosst, to which I also made reference, gave a
paltry $11,000.
These guys are getting billions of dollars in revenue. I think the
Liberals are missing an opportunity. They should be gouging them
a little more. Get a few more bucks from your buddies in the
pharmaceuticals. That is the only thing that is going to happen.
The last straw is when the Liberal members of Parliament sent
out letters to their friends in the pharmaceuticals. I note that a
member from Winnipeg sent a letter out trying to collect some
money from pharmaceutical companies. Of course, the
pharmaceuticals are more than happy to comply, although it looks
almost like a bribe. Who knows? We have seen these sorts of
articles appear in newspapers, particularly in the Hill Times.
I am going to wrap up my comments but I want to underline the
importance of this bill as I have stated in my remarks today. I want
to ask members here who believe that this is an important bill-we
should address the concerns of Canadians with respect to
prescription drugs and their skyrocketing costs-that this bill be
designated a votable item.
(1750 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the request of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden to
make his motion votable. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is not unanimous
consent.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, if the motion is not votable, could I
have the unanimous consent of the House to refer the bill to
committee?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the request of the hon. member. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is not unanimous
consent.
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, it is very interesting to listen to the political
posturing of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. He knows
very well that Bill C-91 is up for review in 1997. Unfortunately, he
is trying to show how conscientiousness and how concerned he is
about this matter.
I speak against the bill presented by the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden. I would like to explain why the bill is not
appropriate.
5273
First, it ignores the important role that intellectual property
protection plays in the Canadian economy by reducing the patent
term for pharmaceuticals and by reintroducing compulsory
licensing.
The bill would shorten the patent term for drug patents to 17
years from the date the patent application is filed. It reintroduces
the compulsory licensing regime that was eliminated when the
Patent Act was amended by Bill C-91 in 1993.
The House will recall that before the Patent Act was amended,
patented medicines did not enjoy full patent protection. Instead
they were eligible for a period of marketing exclusivity for seven to
ten years. This bill would not even allow innovative drug
companies that protection. The holder of the patent under this bill
would have only four years before the generic companies could
copy the formula under a compulsory licence. The bill would allow
the patentee to receive a royalty and the compulsory licence could
be refused or delayed if a patentee has been unusually delayed in
commercializing the medicine.
Perhaps the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden believes that
these provisions would be sufficient to encourage companies to
continue research in Canada. Perhaps he thinks that Canada would
continue to attract R and D investment under these terms. Perhaps
he thinks that these measures would be suitable in today's
knowledge based economy. I assure the hon. member that these
measures would not be sufficient. Why would a company invest in
a country where it is not assured adequate property protection,
including patent protection?
The hon. member should know very well that he comes from a
province where the government quite often will attract businesses
and will change the agreements for those businesses halfway
through the agreement period. That is why that province is not
attracting this type of R and D. In particular, the province of
Saskatchewan does not attract this R and D because the
government changes rules on companies that come into that
province.
Since patent protection was first enhanced in 1987 through Bill
C-22 the ratio of R and D to sales by pharmaceutical patentees has
continuously increased. Last year the innovative companies spent
$624 million on R and D. That represents 11.8 per cent of their
sales revenue, nearly doubling the ratio of 6.1 per cent achieved in
1988.
The brand name pharmaceutical companies are among Canada's
leading investors in research and development. Last July, when the
publication Research Money listed Canada's top corporate R and D
performers, 17 integrated brand name companies were among the
top 100. This investment in research and development means
highly qualified jobs for Canadians. It means jobs in the brand
name companies, jobs in the universities and hospitals that support
their research, and jobs in the many small and medium sized
businesses that have flourished in the past few years as Canadians
respond to the challenge of designing new products for the health
care industry.
The growth of small and medium sized biotechnology
companies has been particularly impressive. In fact, when we look
at the Research Money list of the top 100 R and D performers,
seven of the companies are Canadian research based
biopharmaceutical firms. The growth and success of these young
companies has been built on a solid foundation of world class
intellectual property protection in Canada.
(1755 )
During this period of increased R and D, the prices of patented
drugs have been kept under control. According to the Patent
Medicine Prices Review Board, an independent body which
regulates the price of patented medicines, the prices of patented
medicines actually fell by 1.75 per cent in 1995. They dropped at a
time when the consumer price index rose by 2.14 per cent. This is
the second year in a row they have dropped.
Furthermore, an international comparison of the top 200 selling
patented drug products produced by the Patent Medicine Prices
Review Board showed that for the first time Canadian prices on
average were below the median international prices in 1994.
If this bill was passed, Canada would become one of the only
countries in the industrialized world where pharmaceutical
intellectual property would not be effectively protected. Canada
would become the only developed country in the world with
compulsory licensing regimes for drugs. In addition to the
detrimental effect on jobs and growth, we could expect a strong
reaction from our trading partners.
This brings me to my second reason for opposing Bill C-311.
The measures proposed in the hon. member's bill contravene
Canada's international obligations under the World Trade
Organization and the North American free trade agreement. The
patent term of 17 years from date of filing for drug patents would
violate Canada's international obligations under the WTO. These
drugs require a minimum patent term of 20 years from the date of
filing a patent application.
There is another aspect of this bill that runs counter to our
international trade obligations. Both the WTO and NAFTA require
that patent rights be enjoyable without discrimination as to the field
of technology. A compulsory licensing regime for pharmaceuticals
would constitute discriminatory treatment toward pharmaceutical
patentees. We could expect action under both the WTO and
NAFTA as a result.
The government has signed these international treaties because
we believe they will promote economic growth. Canada must
5274
compete with other countries not only for global market shares but
also for investment and technology.
International trade agreements that provide for strong
intellectual property protection create the necessary climate for
investment and technology transfer. Canada, as a trading nation, is
not prepared to ignore its international obligations. The challenge
with Canada's drug patent policy is to ensure that it conforms with
our international trade obligations and supports the development of
our pharmaceutical industry while making patented drugs available
at prices that are not excessive.
With respect to some of the comments that were made by the
hon. member, it is very interesting that he referred to the growing
revenues of these companies. He never referred to what their
profits are. Revenues are not necessarily profits. It is also
interesting that he wants millions of dollars to be spent by
companies on R and D. Then he wants the fruits of this R and D,
which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, to go to other
companies that have put no money into R and D.
Mr. Solomon: There's a 4 per cent royalty.
Mr. Bodnar: That is what he wants, and that is what he has
proposed to this House.
Now is the time to look for a balance in this legislation with a
review of Bill C-91. It should not be dealt with in the theatrics that
have been proposed by the hon. member in this House with this
bill. He is trying to show how conscientious he is when he knows
that a full review is coming before the industry committee on Bill
C-91. I wish he would attend some of those meetings.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to the bill introduced by
the hon. member for the NDP, a bill that basically, and very briefly,
will reduce the protection granted the drug manufacturing sector.
There are patents that protect the industry for a period of 20 years
but in fact have an effective duration of about ten years.
We should realize that it takes about ten years from the time a
molecule is discovered that will be used to manufacture a drug to
the actual marketing of the drug, so that unlike other products,
where the actual marketing takes place very quickly after the
development of a product, the actual protection of the patent
extends well beyond the 20 years allowed by law, because the
initial date applies from the time the new molecule was patented.
(1800)
Of course when we are talking about the pharmaceutical
industry, we are talking about one of the major sectors of the
economy, especially in Quebec and Ontario, and in other provinces
as well. But when we are talking about the innovators, the
companies that do research and discover drugs in Canada, they are
mainly concentrated in Quebec and Ontario.
In fact, more than half are located in Quebec, in the Montreal
area, and quite a few in the Toronto area as well. This is the reason
why both the Montreal Chamber of Commerce and the Toronto
Board of Trade are recommending not only that we maintain a
legislative framework to support and protect pioneering industries,
but that we upgrade it.
As we know, this debate has taken place twice since 1987. The
first time, in 1987, the law was changed to extend patent
protection. If I recall, it was extended to seven years. The member
is suggesting that we revert to a system of compulsory licences. In
1993, the Conservative government returned to the attack,
increasing patent protection for drugs to 20 years.
Of course, there were very active lobbyists on both sides. These
people are always part of the picture. Behind the humanitarian
reasons often quoted to give less protection and allow for drugs to
be copied earlier, on the grounds that they would be cheaper, there
are the industries which make a lot of money copying these drugs.
It should be emphasized that since this bill came into effect, we
have seen an increase in research activity in the pharmaceutical
industry, and an increase in job creation both in the area of patented
drugs and pioneering industries and in the area of generic drugs, or
copied drugs. Both sides have been expanding.
This bill was aimed at striking a balance. It is true that there is
always a risk when granting a patent. One should be very careful
and monitor the situation closely. There is a risk of creating a
monopoly, pushing prices upwards. The government created the
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board to keep track of the
situation. There are standards, guidelines that ensure that, when the
drugs developed reach the market, their price will not be
unreasonably higher than the costs involved.
So the review board tables reports. What do these reports say? I
heard the member sponsoring this bill talk about sky-rocketing
costs and give us some examples. In fact, since 1987, the cost of
patented drugs has increased only by 2.1 per cent a year. According
to the report of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the
increase has been lower than inflation. It is always appropriate to
monitor the situation, but in fact the legislation and the regulations
have been well enforced and are very efficient.
Sky-rocketing costs might be due to other factors. If health costs
are increasing in Canada, it is also because the population is aging.
There are other similar phenomena that have to be considered. I
would like to remind you that, in 1993, when health costs were
being examined throughout Canada, 3 per cent of expenses in the
health system were related to patented drugs, that is, drugs coming
5275
from the innovative industry. We must be careful, therefore, not to
fall into the trap and stick to the facts.
I would like to remind the hon. member that the current act
comes up for review in 1997. We are talking about spring 1997. Of
course, people are wondering if election deadlines will change the
situation. We will see. However, the current act must be reviewed
in 1997.
At that time, each of the industries and groups concerned will
have an opportunity to be heard and explain why they want
changes, why they want more or less patent protection and how.
They will have an opportunity to present their cases.
It would be premature for Parliament to draw conclusions from a
very partial analysis of the situation-which, according to the
arguments I heard, is not always connected to the actual
figures-and pass this bill reducing patent protection to 17 years,
as the hon. member proposes.
(1805)
We know that in reality this would be reduced by three years. It
is a lot. It is important to note that putting a drug on the market is
very expensive and time-consuming. Many research initiatives
never pan out. In all areas involving research and development,
many research efforts never lead to real-life applications.
Considerable amounts of money are invested in R and D.
If we limit the protection they enjoy and their ability to market
their products and recoup their investments, how will this translate
into reality? There will be a drop in research activities. The focus
will shift to generic products, duplicating and selling various drugs.
This brings us to the social aspect. All of us in this House expect
help if we take ill. We expect to have access to drugs or care,
palliative or otherwise. Now, for these drugs to be available,
someone has to do research in their applications. Unless our legal,
fiscal and economic framework does not create incentives, these
drugs will just not be produced and we will find ourselves with
another problem on our hands: not having access to the drugs we
want.
Caution must be exercised in saying that drug patent protection
should be reduced on compassionate grounds. This has a serious
and major perverse effect. Therein lies the social dimension.
Should the act be amended, the economic factor would also
affect the balance that currently exists whereby, in Quebec and in
Ontario in particular, a lot of people are involved in research and
development.
Let me give you a few figures. In Quebec, there are over 6,000
jobs in the research sector for this industry. This is a large number.
These jobs are in areas where knowledge and technology are
important, and where major infrastructures and investments are
required, in excess of $600 million for the companies located in
Quebec.
So, we are talking about 6,000 jobs and, in 1994, the most recent
data I have indicate that research activities totalled more than $240
million. This is quite a sum of money. The government itself could
not do as much in the present context. Who is going to do the
research if, through this bill, we reduce the incentives these
companies have? Many of them are concentrated in the Montreal
area. Some of them are also located in the Laval area, in Metro
Toronto and just outside Toronto.
We find many generic drug companies in Ontario and Manitoba,
and a few in Quebec. There has been a slight shift since 1993.
We now have a situation that makes development, research and
job creation possible. The hon. member talked about jobs. Jobs
have been created in both generic and new drug companies. It has
been possible to achieve a good balance under the present
legislation. Should we be doing more? We will have to take a look
at that. Do we need to monitor more closely price control? We will
also have to consider this issue.
Right now, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board argues
that the situation is under control and that everything is going
relatively well. Under these circumstances, it would be ill-advised
to jeopardize an industrial structure that is so important to our
future. We need think only about the existing relationship between
the scientific community, the universities, and the companies that
have developed in the last few years a very important rapport,
which will give our country an edge in this area.
Lastly, I want to remind the House of our international
obligations. Canada has some obligations under NAFTA, the World
Trade Organization, what was formerly known as the GATT. If we
pass this bill, we will be violating these international agreements,
which require us to provide the same protection we were giving in
1993. We have to be very careful before adopting such a bill and
make sure that what we are doing will be good for employment and
medical research and will promote economic growth in Quebec as
well as in Ontario and in the rest of Canada.
(1810)
In this regard, this is not a votable bill, but had it been a votable
bill, we would have had to vote against it. I invite the member to
come and express his views next spring when a broader and more
public debate takes place. We will get the facts straight and review
the situation.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a very interesting bill that has been presented to us, Bill
5276
C-311. I want to commend the purpose and the intent that prompted
this private member's bill.
There is no question at all that we all would like to reduce the
cost of medicare in Canada and in the provinces and in the
individual lives of people. We would like to do that but we have to
recognize within this context that we are entering into an extremely
controversial area. In fact, the practice of medicine itself is rather
controversial.
The whole concept seems to be evolving around the fact that
there is a single variable that will change the cost of medicare and
that is the matter of the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. Admittedly it
is one factor and it is a variable. To suggest that it is one of the
major points has as much to do with the cost of the drug itself as it
does with the practice of medicine in the first instance. There was a
time when the prescribing of drugs was not as rampant as it is
today.
With all due respect to the intent and purpose of the bill, I think I
will have to take exception to this bill on several grounds. The first
of these has to do with our position in the overall world. We do not
live any longer as an island called Canada on the globe. We must
compete on an international, global basis.
We need to recognize that there are a number of countries that
have accepted the 20 year patent protection. There is a list of not
less than 50 countries that have accepted this as a way of doing
business. If we are going to compete in that world we need to
recognize that it is the field on which we are playing.
Let me give a sample of some of these countries: Germany,
Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland,
Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
There are a number of these countries which have used 20 year
patent protection. I could name more countries.
We need to recognize that there is a major competitive issue at
stake here. I want to suggest that this bill take recognition of the
fact that essentially the production of pharmaceutical drugs in the
first instance is basically a knowledge based industry. Knowledge
does not find itself limited by political boundaries. Knowledge can
leave as easily as it comes.
The one thing we want, which leads me to the second point as to
why we want to protect this particular patent, the intellectual
property, is the business of attracting the skill, the ability, the
knowledge and the know how of doing the research necessary in
order for us to be competitive in the international field.
I would like to refer to what happened in 1987. With the 1987
amendments to the Patent Act the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers'
Association of Canada made a public commitment that its
members would increase their annual R and D expenditures as a
percentage of sales to 8 per cent by 1991 and 10 per cent by 1996.
I just received the annual report of what actually has been the
experience. As a result, the ratio of R and D expenditures to sales
revenues for the patented pharmaceutical industry was 11.8 per
cent in 1995, up from 11.3 per cent in 1994. They have lived up to
their particular suggestion.
I would like to give the House some numbers that I think
illustrate this rather well. In 1988 the amount of money spent on R
and D expenditures by the pharmaceutical companies was $165.7
million. Then it rises all the way to 1995 when that number went to
$623.9 million. Somebody will immediately suggest that it
includes certain government grants. Indeed it does. In fact in 1995
the government grants to the pharmaceutical industry doing
research were $7.6 million out of $623.9 million, a small amount.
(1815)
We then also have to ask in what areas these companies have
done their research. Have they done their research in basic
research, which is the curiosity driven research, how we find a new
idea, a new way of treating various ailments and applied research.
The distribution goes this way: 22.2 per cent of the R and D
expenditures were for basic research which is the basis on which
new discoveries are built. If we do not have that, we do not have
advances in knowledge and we do not move back the walls of
ignorance. There was 61.9 per cent given to applied research.
What else would one expect? Here we have manufacturing
agencies that recognize the need for new knowledge to be
developed and at the same time how that knowledge can be
commercialized. Logically they would put more money into that
area. In total, that was $623.9 million in 1995 alone. Look how
many jobs that created.
When the hon. member presented his bill he said that jobs were
lost, some 1,200 in Ontario and some 800 in Quebec; $623.9
million was spent, whether it was the research people who lost their
jobs or whomever, I do not know, but $623.9 million created other
jobs. I wish the member had indicated that perhaps not only were
some jobs lost but there were a lot of other jobs created.
The net position on $623.9 million has to have created some
jobs. Therefore, I will not accept that we had a net loss in this
particular area. When we put $623.9 million into the economy,
nobody can tell me there is a reduction in the number of jobs in
Canada.
I would like to move now to a couple of provisions in the bill
itself. Bill C-311 is suggesting that we replace the Patented
Medicine Prices Review Board with a patented medicine review
board, taking out the word prices. The member is probably
suggesting that the marketplace will maintain that the prices be
5277
kept in some sort of a competitive position. Essentially if the
playing field were level, I would agree.
However, knowledge and the advancement of knowledge
sometimes require special protection which is exactly what the
patent law does. It provides protection until that knowledge has
grown to the point where it can play its competitive role in the
world and where the marketplace has indeed determined the prices.
The important thing to remember here is that the Patented
Medicine Prices Review Board has in fact been able to control the
prices during the time when the pharmaceutical companies did
have a monopoly in the distribution of those drugs. There is
evidence and there is an annual report. If it has not been the case,
then the time has come to review what that board is doing. If it is
not doing its job, then the House of Commons needs to take issue
with that board. It does not become a matter of standing up and
saying that this ought not to be the case. Therefore, we have to be
careful as to just exactly what it is that this bill does.
In conclusion, I need to remind all members that the provisions
of Bill C-91 are coming up for a major review. At that time we need
to look not only at this particular aspect but at the whole business
of medicine and how pharmaceuticals fit into the medical patterns
as such in Canada. We have a big job before us. It is a challenging
and wonderful job. I wish that we and medicine would do the right
thing.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate on
behalf of the Minister of Health.
(1820 )
I would like to correct a couple of misperceptions and
misinterpretations that have been brought forward by my hon.
colleague who presented the legislation for our consideration
today. If we want to be fair and sincere about the issue at hand, and
I believe all members in the House do, then we cannot begin by
misrepresenting what the minister has said outside this Chamber.
The Minister of Health has said repeatedly that he is committed
to a parliamentary review as is mandated by Bill C-91 and
identified by my colleague a moment ago. It is unfair to suggest
otherwise. Not only is he committed to that, he is not engaging in
the kind of rhetoric that my colleagues opposite enjoy by trying to
predict what the parliamentary review will produce or by trying to
influence it. It is important to understand that the minister is going
to abide by the regulations and by the legislation as presented by
Parliament. We would all do well to honour the same thing.
My colleague from Regina-Lumsden presented the legislation
for two basic reasons. I would like to focus attention on the issue of
addressing drug costs. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Industry has already addressed the licensing component. I would
like to focus for a few moments on drug costs and health
expenditures.
Make no mistake. The government is concerned about both the
level and rate of increase in expenditures for pharmaceuticals in
this country. Expenditures for drugs make up 12.7 per cent of
Canada's total health expenditure. It is the third largest component
of health expenditures behind only hospitals and physicians.
Not only are drugs the third largest component in Canada's
health expenditures but these are increasing faster than any other
component in health spending. In 1994 drug expenditures grew by
3.8 per cent. Even factoring in the population growth, the rate of
growth is 2.1 per cent. Other speakers have already pointed out that
in the late 1980s and early 1990s the situation was worse than it is
currently, with increases in drug spending of well over 10 per cent
per annum, year after year.
If we are really serious about addressing drug costs, then we
must look much deeper than these facts and figures. We must
consider the extent to which patented drugs contribute to the
overall drug costs.
The federal government currently regulates patented drug prices
through the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.
An hon. member: That is the biggest joke.
Mr. Volpe: There may be people who share a different opinion,
but in our view the regulations under the PMPRB are strict. The
prices of existing patented drugs cannot increase by more than the
consumer price index. Introductory prices for new drugs are
limited to the range of prices for other drugs which treat the same
disease, unless the new drug represents a breakthrough or a
substantial improvement. In that case, its price cannot exceed the
median of prices charged for those drugs in other industrialized
countries.
The evidence, notwithstanding the objections opposite, indicates
that the PMPRB is doing its job in controlling patented drug prices.
I ask members to consider some of the facts.
The member for Regina-Lumsden will note that in 1995
patented drug prices actually decreased by 1.75 per cent. That was
the second year in a row that prices actually declined. By
comparison, in that year the consumer price index actually rose by
2.14 per cent. My colleague may not be impressed with that but the
fact is that there was a decrease.
(1825)
Price increases for patented drugs have consistently been below
the consumer price index ever since the PMPRB was created in
1987. Before that the member will know that drug prices were
increasing at rates well above the consumer price index. As I said
5278
earlier, I want to address the element of this bill that takes issue
with health expenditures and drug costs.
In 1994 for the first time, patented drug prices in Canada were on
average below the median international price. In 1994 the prices of
new breakthrough drugs in Canada were on average 11 per cent
lower than the median international price.
The reason I highlight these facts is to show first, that even in the
absence of compulsory licensing, patented drug prices have
remained under control and second, to show that influencing
patented drug prices will not necessarily lead to reduced
expenditures on drugs. The reason for this is not that difficult to
see.
Overall drug prices and overall drug expenditures are influenced
by additional factors such as the price of non-patented drugs,
pharmacy dispensing fees, and the rate of utilization. All of these
are factors which provincial governments are finding much to their
dismay are contributing to a very large extent to the overall health
costs. No matter how low prices are, the more drugs people take,
the more drug expenditures will increase.
Federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health have
recognized that action on drug costs can and must occur on many
fronts. In April 1996 they directed deputy ministers of health to
review and to report back on six pharmaceutical issues: price;
utilization; marketing; consumer education; research and
development; and waste.
Current estimates of wastage would astonish even the members
opposite. They are well over 10 per cent of the overall costs. I am
confident the work by the deputy ministers will lead to
collaborative initiatives that will have a real impact on drug costs,
the effective use of medicines and the health of Canadians.
Working together with provinces and territories to discover and
address the root causes of increasing drug costs is the way to
achieve results.
We need to encourage pharmaceutical investment and research
and development in Canada. It is in these kinds of jobs and these
kinds of job creation opportunities that we can bring Canada's
economy into the 21st century and make substantial contributions
to the health and well-being of Canadians.
The factors that have helped Canada to attract this investment in
R and D, and I refer to our excellent university structure, a
competitive tax regime, and a supply of eminent scientists, would
not be able to overcome the negative impacts of this bill. I refer
back to Bill C-91 because what the member's bill does is it
pre-empts what is required by Bill C-91 and that is a parliamentary
review four years after royal assent, i.e., in 1997.
As I said in my opening remarks, it is one thing to propose an
item of legislation and it is another one to pre-empt a process that is
already in place and to try to predict and influence its outcome
when it is going to be open for all members of this House.
(1830 )
Only when that review is completed and only when we have
struck the appropriate balance between industrial objectives and
health issues in Canada can we look at the patent policy to examine
how it should be adjusted.
As I said earlier, this bill would pre-empt the process of that
parliamentary review and presumes that change is needed without
giving stakeholders a chance to participate and without allowing
the evidence to be considered.
My minister has already indicated an openness and a willingness
to ensure that the process works and works properly. In fact, he has
already asked the national forum to speed up its work and to
produce the work on its consultations for the benefit not only of
that review but for the benefit of other reviews on health.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Now that
we have heard the debate on this bill I was wondering if we could
have unanimous consent to refer the bill to committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
request of the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is not unanimous
consent.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order
Paper.
_____________________________________________
5278
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a while ago I asked the former minister of human
resources development how he expected public trust and
confidence in government to be restored when his government
pulled an about face on unemployment insurance. We all remember
the red book promise about public trust and confidence in
government.
How did he see the serious hypocrisy of his actions, I asked.
While in opposition he and his Liberal colleagues opposed
Conservative cuts to UI which were not nearly as deep as those they
recently pushed through the House.
In today's economic climate support programs like UI are
necessary to help workers adjust to changing technological and
global economic circumstances; however, income support alone
5279
has not and will not create the long term economic growth and jobs
that today's economy demands.
Clearly our aim should be to move the debate forward and
develop a bold new approach to unemployment and unemployment
insurance reform. It is no longer enough to focus solely on the
unemployed, who have clearly been made a scapegoat by
successive Liberal and Conservative governments. Instead I
believe it is time to focus on what is required from society as a
whole, from those who are looking for work, those who are able to
supply it, and the governments which facilitate relationships
between the two and which help to shape the way we do business in
Canada.
A creative and modern approach would include a scheme which
would of course provide the unemployed with adequate resources
for living for themselves and their families but which would also
enable unemployed Canadians to get back to work and, when
possible, to get the kind of jobs that match their needs.
Real UI reform involves helping Canadians to find the kind of
work they need and to help in creating the kind of workforce which
can win a place in the global economy. This certainly means that
overlap and duplication must be dealt with. It means establishing
partnerships between federal, provincial and municipal
governments and the private sector.
The issue of dependency and abuse must also be dealt with, but
separately from issues surrounding benefit levels and conditions so
that eligibility benefit levels, training, job creation schemes and
other active measures can be discussed in a more rational way.
Unfortunately this has not been the case in Canada when UI
reform has been discussed by the government. With the present
policies, these crucial objectives are farther from being met than
ever before.
It is clear that the kind of reform carried out by successive
Liberal and Conservative governments amounts to little more than
thinking up new wheezes with which to bash the unemployed.
Liberals on the government side opposed those measures when
they were in opposition but now support them. The approach of the
current government to unemployment and UI is more a restatement
of the problem than a strategy to improve active support and
develop truly effective measures to deal with unemployment and
the transition of the unemployed into the labour market.
The primary solution being offered is that the unemployed
should receive less in benefits for a shorter period of time and the
benefits should be harder to get; a strategy that has been tried and
shown to have failed over the last decade and a half.
Further, perhaps one of the most troubling measures with the
government's UI reform constitutes the theft of $1.9 billion
belonging to employers and employees. Even with the
reinvestment into so-called active programs, the government
admits to stealing more than $1.1 billion, money which plainly
does not belong to the government. The government expects that
two years from now there will be a $10 billion surplus in the UI
fund. Instead of using these surplus funds to establish more
aggressive and more constructive active support measures that
would help the unemployed get back to work, measures that have
been proven highly successful in other countries, the Minister of
Finance will use this money so that he can meet his deficit
reduction targets. This is theft, plain and simple, and we cannot
afford to continue in this way.
(1835)
Canadians understand the need for a UI program that is fair,
which provides basic financial support and which encourages and
makes available the tools they need in order to re-enter the labour
market.
Canadians support aggressive active support measures that help
people get back on their feet. The unemployed want a system that
focuses on moving UI recipients into the workforce and which will
support them in their efforts to achieve a greater degree of
independence. This is a modern and progressive agenda which this
legislation falls sadly short of. There are active measures but we
know that they are simply not adequate for the needs of Canadians.
I want to remind the minister that Canadians are watching as this
government continues to listen to and give unfair and undeserved
tax breaks to banks and big corporations while cutting funding for
unemployment insurance, health care, education and other services
needed by people.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member
seems to imply in his question, this government does not assume
that public trust and confidence in government can be gained only
by ever increasing spending. Governments everywhere of all
political persuasions must address the real limits imposed by debt
and deficit.
The previous unemployment insurance program was no
exception. In the first half of the 1990s UI premiums rose by more
than one-third and neither employers nor workers could afford any
more. At the same time, there was widespread recognition of the
need for structural reform of the previous program.
In response to these realities this government has implemented,
after consulting with over 100,000 Canadians and hundreds of
stakeholder groups throughout the country, a new modern system
of employment insurance.
The new EI system represents a dramatic shift from a passive
role to the active role of assisting the unemployed in becoming
re-employed as soon as possible. These changes are about getting
people back to work and providing a fair and balanced approach to
the needs of unemployed Canadians. For employers, more simple
EI requirements and less red tape will save time and money. The
goal is to encourage and help workers to accept available work and
5280
for employers to accept a larger responsibility for providing that
work.
Last May the minister issued a proposal to the provinces and
territories offering them responsibility for active employment
measures and labour market services funded from the EI account.
The proposal is flexible enough to result in programs tailored to the
different needs and priorities of each province. Negotiations are
still going on.
In short, by consulting widely, by protecting the most vulnerable
and by providing affordable programs that best serve the needs of
all Canadians this government is giving an example of how we can
act most effectively to restore public confidence in government.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday last week the minister of agriculture was in
Regina to make an announcement concerning the future of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Prior to the announcement I heard a rumour that the minister was
considering the possibility of putting the question of barley
marketing to a plebiscite. Indeed, the minister did say that he was
considering a barley plebiscite to be put to producers next year.
My question, which the minister's parliamentary secretary could
not answer at the time, can be answered today.
Of course, the minister did not call it a plebiscite. Instead he
opted for the more friendly term poll, but the bottom line is the
same. This kind of action is typical of the minister who has spent
most of his time in cabinet finding ways to avoid making decisions.
And when he does, he makes decisions that try to please everyone.
In this case it appears the idea of a plebiscite is aimed at
appeasing barley producers, particularly Alberta producers who
want an open market for their product.
Unfortunately if the Liberal government goes ahead with the
plebiscite, the net result will be continued uncertainty over the
future of the Canadian Wheat Board. If the results of the plebiscite
support the open market over single desk selling, then the long
term future of the Canadian Wheat Board itself remains in doubt.
The minister, knowing the vast majority of western Canadian
farmers support a strong, even enhanced Canadian Wheat Board,
has purposely chosen to support the corporate interests of the grain
trade over the collective interests of the prairie farmer by doing so.
Obviously the plebiscite continues the slow but determined
process to ultimately do away with the board, as was started by the
Tories in the last Parliament who removed oats from the
jurisdiction of the board. Remember, they did that without a
mandate from the people.
(1840)
In Canada, the government is continuing the dismantling of the
board by commissioning the marketing panel, which travelled the
country earlier this year, and now on the plebiscite issue as well as
internationally with a debate among officials at the World Trade
Organization level.
Forgotten in the debate seems to be the fact that the minister of
agriculture is not taking responsibility for farmers' interests. He is
asking farmers who do not have sufficient technical or financial
support to take on the major players in this debate, the grain
companies and the Alberta government.
If the agriculture minister were truly representing farm interests
and if he continues to insist on holding a plebiscite, he would
consider enhancing, rather than disturbing, the board's jurisdiction.
There is strong evidence to support expanding the powers of the
board. A good question would include the possibility of adding
oats, rye and canola to the jurisdiction of the board. It should be
done.
Perhaps the most troublesome element of the entire process so
far is that the minister is proceeding with major legislative changes
to the wheat board and is proposing to schedule a delicate
plebiscite without consulting the producer elected representatives
of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee.
This committee was elected by farmers to represent the interests
of farmers across the prairies and to, in that capacity, advise the
minister of agriculture on matters pertaining to the Canadian
Wheat Board.
Each member of this committee has studied the operations of the
board, has reviewed the recommendations of the Western Grain
Marketing Panel and has evaluated how each will impact on their
own regions of the country. Their input into this process should be
invaluable, yet they have been ignored.
Worse, it is proposed that they be replaced by an appointed
interim board if the government goes ahead with the announced
changes to the way in which the board should be governed. The
minister has really missed the boat on this one.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would assure
my hon. colleague that I was not here on Friday and therefore did
not respond to a question.
On Friday, October 4 and again on Monday, October 7 the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food outlined the federal
government's policy response to the intensely emotional debate
among
5281
farmers in western Canada about the western grain marketing
system.
Our policy position builds on the proven strengths of the current
system for marketing western wheat and barley while at the same
time modernizing the governance structure of the Canadian Wheat
Board, enhancing accountability, introducing new operating
facilities to accelerate cash flow to farmers and empowering
farmers with a great amount of decision making.
Included in the package is a vote this winter among farmers on a
clear cut question about the marketing preferences with respect to
barley. This is fully consistent with the establishment of policy
positions of many of the western farm organizations.
Overall, the government's plans on the thorny and diverse issues
related to grain marketing have been developed following the most
extensive consultations in the history of the western grains
industry.
Throughout, the Western Grain Marketing Panel has been very
much involved. Otherwise, the Canadian Wheat Board producer
advisory committee has let its views be known very loudly and
clearly, as have well over 12,000 other farmers who have
participated in these consultations.
It is still very early in the going, but we are pleased to note that
many of the major farm organizations have reacted favourably to
our policy package, including the Prairie Pools Inc., Keystone
Agricultural Producers of Manitoba and Wild Rose organization
from Alberta.
The Canadian Wheat Board itself has responded very
constructively. There have been encouraging editorials in the
Winnipeg Free Press, the Regina Leader-Post, the Saskatoon Star
Phoenix and the Calgary Herald. All that appears to me to be a very
good start.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 27, I
asked a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on
the growing number of refugee claimants in Quebec. Of the 26,000
claims made in Canada in 1995, more than 12,000 were transferred
to the Montreal IRB. For the first time, more refugee claimants
landed in Montreal than in Toronto.
(1845)
I also asked the minister if her government was willing to share
the cost of social benefits provided to refugee claimants.
Finally and fortunately, the minister and her counterpart in
Quebec met on September 6 and agreed on a number of measures to
respond to Quebec's concerns. As a result, health care costs for
refugee claimants in Quebec will be covered by the interim federal
health program, as is the case in the other Canadian provinces. As
of November 1, 1996, the Government of Quebec will gradually
withdraw from health care funding. However, health insurance will
continue to be covered by Quebec until cards have expired.
At the same time, the Quebec government reaffirmed its
intention to maintain a range of services that will permit these
people to wait for a ruling on their claim in safety and in dignity.
They will thus remain eligible for social and legal assistance,
temporary accommodation and help in finding accommodation.
Quebec will also continue to take responsibility for unaccompanied
minor children. It will assume the costs of primary and secondary
education, as well as of francization services on a part time basis.
In the year 1994-95, $125 million were spent on these services.
In addition, the minister responsible for relations with citizens
and for immigration, André Boisclair, called on the federal
government, and rightly so, to process refugee claims submitted in
Quebec more efficiently and more rapidly.
On a number of occasions, I have criticized how long it takes for
claims to be heard by the IRB, particularly where appeals are
concerned. It is not acceptable to have to wait one year for a
hearing, and sometimes years for a final decision.
IRB commissioners must issue their decisions rapidly so that
refugees who have been accepted can have immediate access to all
the programs and all the protective measures.
I am glad to see savings and arrangements between Ottawa and
Quebec. However, the international obligations of Canada, as a
signatory to the Geneva convention on refugees, must never be
forgotten. We must constantly reaffirm our deep attachment to the
humanitarian principle of protecting those who are persecuted and
in distress. For my part, I am very proud of the tradition of
open-mindedness and solidarity expressed by Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must admit that
I am not exactly clear what the member for Bourassa is implying
with his question. Does he want us to stop refugees from coming to
Montreal? Does he want us to say we will close the doors to
legitimate refugees? Does he want us to somehow intervene and
ensure greater refusal rates in Montreal? I hope not. That certainly
is not something we are prepared to do and certainly is not
something that the Canadian people want.
The hon. member has implied that Montreal gets an inordinate
number of refugees. It is true that a large number of refugees do
arrive in that city. This should not come as as surprise to anyone.
Montreal is a major international port of entry and is very close to
other large gateways such as New York.
5282
I would also be surprised if refugees did not come to Montreal.
We should not forget, however, that other international ports such
as Toronto and Vancouver also attract a very large number of
refugees. In a lot of cases it is a question of geography. We should
not forget most refugees do not have the luxury of picking or
choosing their destinations. People fleeing persecution will go
wherever they can.
We have an international obligation to consider refugee claims
on our territory and we are living up to those responsibilities. We
are good global citizens and we take our obligations and
responsibilities seriously.
The hon. member suggested in the House that we should work
more closely with the Government of Quebec on these issues. We
agree and that is what we are doing. Our refugee policies are
formulated in consultations with many different interested parties.
These include the provinces.
The question of international immigration is one which affects
all of us and one we need to address as partners. Indeed it was with
this in mind that the minister met with her counterpart from
Quebec, André Boisclair, on September 6. At that meeting it was
confirmed that, as of this coming November 1, the Government of
Canada will be assuming responsibility under the interim health
program for the medical costs incurred by refugee claimants who
are living in Quebec and awaiting a decision by the Immigration
and Refugee Board.
As in other provinces, it is the responsibility of the Government
of Quebec and not the federal government to decide which services
are available to refugee claimants.
At that meeting Minister Boisclair was also assured that
measures to speed up the processing of refugee claims before the
IRB, such as the appointment of members, have already been put in
place or are being put in place. Since this minister assumed office,
more than 60 per cent of new IRB members have been assigned to
the Montreal regional office.
At present, both governments are working together in a sprit of
co-operation. Our respective teams are in close contact with a view
to promoting a greater exchange of information and better
understanding of the policies that affect refugee claimants.
Contrary to the hon. member's position, the minister is also
pleased with Minister Boisclair's strong support of the proposed
Canada-U.S. agreement on refugees.
Canada has a fair and just refugee system. It is one of the best in
the world. It is not perfect, no system is. We are continuously
working to improve it to weed out the few bad apples who abuse
the system. But we should never forget that the majority of those
who come to Canada for protection need that protection. Are we
going to close the doors on these people? Of course not.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The motion to adjourn the
House is deemed to have been adopted. The House stands
adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)