CONTENTS
Thursday, October 10, 1996
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5331
Bill C-336. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5333
Motion for concurrence in 37th report agreed to 5333
Bill C-61. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 5334
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5343
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 5352
Bill C-5. Report stage 5352
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 5352
Division on motion deferred 5356
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5358
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 5363
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 5366
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5367
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5367
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5368
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5368
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5368
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5369
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5369
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5369
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5370
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5370
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5370
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5371
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5371
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5371
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5371
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5373
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5373
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5374
Bill C-60. Consideration resumed of motion 5376
Division on motion deferred 5384
Bill C-26. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 5384
Division on motion deferred 5386
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading and the amendment 5386
5331
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 10, 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 section 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official
languages the government's responses to three petitions.
* * *
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
recognition of national co-op week from October 13 to 19 and on
behalf of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, minister
responsible for co-operatives, I wish to pay tribute to all Canadian
who have left us the legacy of a strong co-operative sector and to
all those men and women who continue to build on that foundation.
The co-operative is a unique form of business where the best of
people and capital meet to address community needs in a
democratic fashion.
As community based and democratically controlled
organizations whose savings benefit and remain in their local
neighbourhoods, co-operatives have contributed to the
development of a strong Canadian economy for more than a
century.
Co-operatives and credit unions are well recognized for
combining economic and social objectives supported by strong
corporate citizen behaviour. They offer a proven development
model that can assist in our efforts to revitalize rural Canada.
While co-operatives have been historically strong in the
agri-food sector, I believe they can play an equally important role
in the broader rural economy.
The government has made rural economic renewal a priority. We
are committed to forging a renewed partnership with co-operatives
to assist them in this effort.
(1005)
[Translation]
The co-operative sector makes a tremendous contribution to
Canada's fabric, from building a strong sense of solidarity within a
community to becoming a leader for the processing and marketing
of many commodities; from breaking ground in financial
technology to maintaining a strong base of enthusiastic volunteers.
All together, co-operatives, caisses populaires and credit unions
have a membership of approximately 12 million Canadians,
provide jobs for 133,000 people, and represent assets of $143
billion. Over the course of the year, a number of co-operative
success stories were collected to demonstrate what can be achieved
when concerned and affected people control the identification of
priorities, the design of the business plan and the implementation
process of a project or program.
The Government of Canada has committed to modernizing its
co-operative legislation. The national co-operative associations
spent a number of years defining their legislative requirements. A
countrywide consultation process on their proposals is currently
underway. The Minister of Industry and the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food will be looking to the House to support the adoption
of a new Co-operatives Act before the end of this parliamentary
session. Our co-operatives deserve the best legislative environment
to address the new global economy and their need for expanded
sources of capital.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the millions of
Canadians who have made the co-operative sector a vital and
growing part of the Canadian economy.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour for me to speak about the national co-op week.
As you probably know, the co-op movement has existed in this
country since the beginning of the 19th century. The first co-op was
a mutual fire insurance company that had its roots in a rural area.
However, at the dawn of the 20th century, co-ops no longer
restricted their activities to this sector. Indeed, many co-ops were
active in sectors such as egg grading, cream processing and grain
marketing. The fact is that, in the agricultural supply and marketing
5332
sectors, co-ops were the primary promoters of the Canadian co-op
movement.
In Quebec, the biggest promoter was undoubtedly Alphonse
Desjardins who, in 1900, founded the first credit union, in Lévis.
As we know, the Mouvement Desjardins is now one of the largest
financial institutions in Quebec, with assets totalling several
billions of dollars. I would be remiss in not mentioning the base,
the foundation of the co-op movement, as well as the spirit that
guides it. Mutual help, democracy, fairness, solidarity, equality and
autonomy are all values that reflect the co-operative movement and
the people that are part of it.
In this national co-op week, I want to pay tribute to all those who
believe in the co-op movement, who support it, and who play an
active role in it. I simply want to thank them.
At the end of 1993, the number of co-ops in the country was
estimated at close to 10,000. Therefore, it makes sense to say that
the co-op movement plays an increasingly important role in terms
of shaping our society and our lifestyle. Whether it is marketing
and supply co-ops, production and service co-ops, or financial
co-ops, the economy benefits through co-operation.
(1010)
In 1993, the business transactions of marketing and supply
co-ops totalled over $8.8 billion. These co-ops had assets worth
about $3.1 billion, and close to $1.2 billion was financed
personally by the members. At the same time, the social solidarity
and co-operation generated close to 18,000 full-time jobs.
As a former member of the board of the Caisse populaire of
Garthby, and the Caisse populaire of Disraëli, and as former
chairman of the board of the Société mutuelle contre les incendies
du comté de Wolfe, I am aware of the importance and the strength
of the co-op movement.
I should also point out that it is in the riding of Frontenac, which
I have the honour of representing, that we find the largest co-op of
maple syrup producers in the world. I take this opportunity to pay
tribute to its members, on behalf of my voters.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is truly a
pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the Reform Party to pay
tribute and to recognize people involved in the co-operative
movements.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and
compliment the pioneers of the co-op movement. I know that many
of us in the Reform caucus, at least 15 involved in a farming
operation right now in western Canada and others who are just one
generation away from the farm, actually know some of the pioneers
who started and developed the co-op movement. This movement
has truly been an important part of western Canadian history as it
has been for the history of Quebec, Ontario and right across the
country.
Co-operatives are a vital economic component of many
communities and there are many examples of co-operatives that are
leaders in their field. Co-operatives have achieved success in large
part because their members and executives are active in the
business that the co-operative is involved in. For this reason the
boards of directors, so often usually made up of people involved in
that particular business, know the business well and make good
decisions because of that.
Agriculture co-operatives are as old as the west. I believe
because of the farmers directing the co-operative movement and
their co-operatives, they will always make the best decisions for
the industry. I wish the minister of agriculture would take note of
that.
In the presentation the parliamentary secretary did comment on
the very positive role of co-operatives, and that role has been
particularly positive in agriculture. I wish the minister of
agriculture would take his words to heart and apply that belief in
the value of a co-operative to the way he deals with the Canadian
Wheat Board.
If the Canadian Wheat Board were run much more like a
co-operative it would truly represent what farmers want much
better. In other words, it would be run by directors who are elected
by farmers themselves and the organization would become
accountable to farmers. That is really what farmers want with
regard to the Canadian Wheat Board more than anything else.
Make it more like a co-operative.
Co-ops and credit unions must be congratulated for helping
communities develop and improve. They must also be recognized
as a player in our economy that has proved competition and has
given people another choice, something that makes democracy
work very well.
(1015 )
It is with gratitude that on behalf of the Reform Party I
acknowledge the accomplishments of co-ops and credit unions. I
know all Canadians will encourage them to continue their
innovative example of leadership in their own particular business.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 37th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
5333
membership of some committees. If the House gives its consent, I
intend to move concurrence in the 37th report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-336, an act to amend the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the annual report of the RCMP public
complaints commission in 1989-90 for that financial year
recommended a number of changes to the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Act to improve procedural fairness.
I am happy to reintroduce a bill that I introduced in the last
Parliament on this subject which incorporates the changes
recommended by that commission. It was commended to
Parliament at that time and I am happy to have the opportunity to
have hon. members vote through these changes now.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 37th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented
earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition signed by some of
my constituents of Hamilton-Wentworth, who are requesting that,
in the event of a Quebec referendum in favour of separation,
Parliament partition the province of Quebec to allow Quebecers
living in regions where a majority of voters would have expressed
the wish to remain within Canada to do so.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two
petitions. The first is on taxation of the family. It comes from
Geraldton, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon
Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination
against families who choose to provide care in the home for
preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, concerns labelling of alcoholic beverages
and comes from Burlington, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and specifically, that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
(1020 )
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if with the
unanimous consent of the House we might revert to presenting
reports from committees. I understand there is another committee
report that would be available if the House gave its consent to
revert to presenting committee reports.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the House give its
unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from
committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development regarding Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada
Labour Code (minimum wage).
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
5334
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the House
that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will
be extended by 12 minutes.
_____________________________________________
5334
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-61, an act to implement the Canada-Israel free trade
agreement, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
seems to be a busy week for bills dealing with trade issues, unlike
the normal situation where about one bill in trade comes forward
per year. We happen to have had two this very week.
We are now debating Bill C-61 which implements Canada's free
trade agreement with Israel. I have to admit to being a little
surprised at seeing this bill because there certainly was not much
fanfare heralding its arrival. The Minister for International Trade
signed the free trade agreement with Israel in the dead of summer,
on July 31, when most people are about as far removed from what
is happening federally as they can get.
Other than a brief announcement, I do not recall any signs that
the free trade agreement was in the works. I do not recall any news
releases, any articles in the press or any calls for consultations with
industry groups that might have wanted some input in the process.
Let me be clear that we are not opposed to this bill. We believe
that each step made in the direction of trade liberalization is a good
one. I am only surprised at the low key, behind closed doors way in
which the deal was struck. There should have been more
opportunity for input from industry groups.
We are in favour of trade liberalization. I understand the Liberals
are now in favour of free trade as well. I compare them to a born
again crusade; all of a sudden they have discovered the virtues of
free trade and have embraced it with vigour. I do welcome that.
I recall in 1988 they were very much against free trade and
campaigned against free trade in the 1993 election, but here we
have the Liberals doing their famous flip-flop. They are becoming
free traders with all the will and might they can muster. I do think
we are going in the right direction and I am glad the Liberals finally
saw the light.
One out of three jobs in Canada is created as a result of our
exports. Thirty-seven per cent of our GDP is derived from trade.
Growth in the economy has virtually only occurred in the area of
exports in the last three years. The domestic side of our economy
has been very flat and we do have to credit the growth in our
exports as being one way we have been able to grow out of the
recession we were in in the early 1990s. I think we are on the right
track and I would like to see that continue.
As a matter of fact, I would like to see the next round of the
World Trade Organization talks concentrate on further trade
liberalization because Canada is in a good position to take
advantage of that. We can compete with the best in the world but
we have to have the trade rules that back us up and give us the clout
in case we have trade harassment.
We have heard a lot about the proposal for the free trade
agreement with Chile. There has been a lot of discussion about that
agreement being closely patterned after the NAFTA agreement and
the potential for that country to eventually enter NAFTA. I
welcome that. There has also been talk about the eventual
enlargement of NAFTA to join the Mercosur countries of the
southern hemisphere to form a free trade area of the Americas.
However, with Israel of course we did not hear a word until it
happened.
(1025 )
Officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade were kind enough to give us a briefing last Tuesday
regarding the free trade deal. They explained that this trade
agreement is fairly simple. There is really no point in building an
elaborate structure for dealing with a relatively small amount of
trade.
Our trade with Israel is really a drop in the bucket when
compared to our trade flows with other countries; nonetheless it is
important. Exports to Israel totalled $216 million last year, while
imports from Israel amounted to $240 million.
Although we are enjoying a big trade surplus now, essentially it
is only with one country, the United States, which is of course our
largest trading partner. It disturbs me that we continue to run trade
deficits with almost all of our other trading partners. The amount
we are talking about is almost the same amount as our trade with
Cuba.
It is my understanding that the benefits in this agreement will
also be extended to the Palestinians. Under normal circumstances
trade flows freely between the West Bank, Gaza and Israel. Even
with the present closure between Israel and the occupied territories,
one would hope this trade agreement would be extended to the
people living in the occupied territories as soon as possible.
I find this agreement interesting because it eliminates all tariffs
on almost all industrial goods immediately upon implementation
on January 1, 1997. Our free trade agreement with the United
5335
States called for a fairly lengthy phase out period, 10 years on some
goods. Fortunately we were going to be there by 1998. But with
this agreement we are going to zero tariffs overnight, which is
absolutely great.
There are only a couple of exceptions and I am not exactly sure
why. Ladies swimsuits at the request of a Canadian swimsuit
manufacturer and certain cotton fabrics at the request of Israeli
manufacturers will have tariffs for another two and a half years.
This will allow the affected companies to adjust to the competition
over that period of time.
It is interesting to note that non-tariff barriers for the most part
will not be allowed. This is following the lead that has been
established at the World Trade Organization.
The agriculture sector, because of sensitivities from both sides,
has been somewhat excluded from tariff elimination, although
Canada has gained an increase in market access for certain
commodities. These include grains, grain products, oilseeds, pulse
crops, beef and various processed fish products. I have not had a
chance to analyse what this might mean for farmers like myself
who grow canola, but I think that any opportunity for access into
these countries is a good one for us.
It disturbs me a little that Canada continues to protect our supply
management industries with tariffs that are as high as 350 per cent.
These tariffs are known around the world as Canada's dirty tariffs.
We simply must get into the 21st century and realize that it is not in
our best interest to continue to support these. A reasonable phase
out time to allow for that to happen is acceptable. We have to start
that process. I would like to see it done at the next round of the
World Trade Organization talks.
Further trade liberalization is good for Canada. We have been
one of the main proponents of trade liberalization. Yet right here at
home we continue to restrict access to part of our economy. On the
other side of the coin, the United States is using similar tactics to
restrict access to Canadian supply management producers that
compete head-on with the United States.
I understand that the impetus for concluding a trade agreement
with Israel at this time is that our largest competitors in that
country, the United States and Europe, have had free trade
agreements in place for some time. This will put us on a level
playing field.
The dispute settlement process in the agreement is fairly
straightforward and it is binding. One of my colleagues who will
speak later is quite interested in the whole dispute settlement
process and will be examining that in some detail. He is concerned
that dispute settlement procedures for international agreements are
much better than the procedure we have for disputes between the
provinces and Canada. It is very interesting that the Liberal
government, once it realized the benefits of free trade, aggressively
worked toward signing international agreements on trade.
(1030)
Where the government has fallen down is that it has not been
able to put the same processes in place for trade between our
provinces. That continues to cost Canadians somewhere in the area
of $8 billion a year. The fact that we are not able to trade freely
within our own country is a real contradiction. We have better trade
agreements with our international partners than we have at home.
My colleague from Vegreville will be speaking on this subject later
today.
Another colleague who is a well respected economist in his own
right will talk about bilateral agreements versus multilateral
agreements. I know there is a bit of controversy among trade
economists whether countries should enter into bilateral
agreements. The argument has to do with efficiency and
production. The concern is that the most efficient producer, given a
situation in which all tariffs are equal, loses business when his
competitor in another country moves to a zero tariff with a buyer.
Trade is then diverted from the most efficient producer who,
unfortunately, still has to add a tariff to his price. When he sells the
product to a foreign country he becomes a less efficient producer.
The industrialized world is moving toward free trade with the
World Trade Organization. The next round of trade talks will be
held in 1998-99. The process is fairly slow, but we are getting
there.
The last Uruguay round of the GATT declared there would be an
average 36 per cent drop in tariffs over a six-year period. We are
now halfway through that period. That is nothing compared to the
100 per cent drop in tariffs which has been achieved through the
signing of the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.
Even though these bilateral deals may divert trade from efficient
companies to less efficient ones, they also create new trade which
did not exist previously.
I believe that bilateral deals are useful in trying out different
rules and in testing different approaches. I suggest that the next
bilateral agreement which Canada signs should try to up the ante
beyond what we have been able to achieve at the World Trade
Organization. We should try to get a proper definition for subsidies,
countervail and some other things which were not achieved at the
last round of World Trade Organization talks.
We in the Reform Party welcome the bill. We believe that trade
liberalization is good for Canada. We are a trading country. We
have a relatively small population. Only about 10 per cent of the
GDP in the United States is derived from exports. In Canada, 37
per cent of our GDP is derived from exports. We need trade very
badly. We need further trade liberalization in order for us to
compete.
Canada should be a bit more proactive in the bilateral
agreements and at the next round of the World Trade Organization
talks. We could have used the opportunity with Israel to get an
agreement on subsidies. That is what we should be looking at in our
next move. Overall I support the bill. I am pleased that in just two
5336
months manufactured goods will travel between our countries on a
daily basis duty free.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now move to the
next stage of debate where member's interventions will be limited
to 20 minutes and subject to 10 minutes of questions or comments.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that my colleague
opposite is in complete agreement with the initiative put forward
by the Minister for International Trade. It shows great foresight.
I do not mean any disrespect by this, but the hon. member, who
sits on the international trade committee, has for the last three years
applauded all moves which liberalized trade and that increased
Canadian business opportunities abroad. Generally speaking, he
has been very supportive of the kinds of initiatives that the bill
presents. He is unlike many of his Reform colleagues in that
regard. We have actually seen eye to eye.
(1035)
[Translation]
I want to stress some aspects of the bilateral relationships
between Canada and Israel and remind members here in the House
of the speech the minister made last night.
For some time now, Canada and Israel have had an excellent
relationship based on shared values and strong bilateral and social
ties. Given the current critical situation, we are supporting the
efforts made by Israel and its neighbours to achieve a legitimate,
global and durable peace in the Middle East.
While Canada was negotiating NAFTA with the United States
and Mexico, Israel was increasing its commercial ties by signing
free trade agreements with the United States and, more recently,
with the European Union, Turkey, the Czech Republic and
Slovakia.
[English]
While that may have been a great idea for the Israelis, for the
Europeans, for the Americans, it put us and our businesses at a
slight disadvantage.
[Translation]
Trade between Canada and Israel was, however, stagnating. In
November 1994, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the late Prime
Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, decided to do something about it.
The leaders announced the beginning of negotiations that would
hopefully lead to a free trade agreement between their two
countries.
Last January, Canada and Israel reached a tentative agreement
that both governments kept trying to improve upon.
[English]
While it would be my intention to applaud not only the foresight
of the Prime Minister in this case and the diligent work of the
Minister for International Trade, I would be greatly remiss if I did
not acknowledge the focus of the individuals involved in the
genesis of this idea, the generation of energy that led to its fruition,
if I did not also underline the democratic process that led to this
deal.
As my colleagues on both sides of the opposition have indicated,
this trade deal is one to be lauded, not so much for of its grandeur
because it may have some limitations in relation to the kinds of
business we do with the United States and other countries, but it is
an important and crucial first step. Quite often many of us feel
dwarfed by the magnitude of government and by what appears to be
the inaccessibility of the decision making process.
If members will allow me a personal reflection, this trade deal
was really born out of a desire of entrepreneurs in Canada who saw
opportunities emerging in the Middle East, and Israel in particular.
They noticed that, notwithstanding all the difficulties that the area
was having, because of the enormous influx of immigrants into
Israel and because of the initiatives of the Israeli government to
reach out and make peace and at the same time establish economic
ties with its partners, there was a mini-economic boom.
The Europeans were the first to notice this. Their companies,
with the support of their governments, were able to develop a niche
market that had started initially with the growth of tourism. It may
come as a surprise to most members, but the tourism industry and
related industries are at their most potent right in the Middle East,
most particularly in and around Israel.
That boom in the tourism industry allowed for enormous
demand, much more than the area could supply for such things as
furniture, for example, or textiles and clothing but also in the
petrochemical and chemical industries.
Our entrepreneurs in the Toronto-Montreal area found that,
notwithstanding the competitiveness of their product and the
quality of their materials they could not compete with the
Europeans or the Americans because of the free trade agreements
they had struck with Israel. They asked the then leader of our party,
now the current Prime Minister of Canada, if he could address this
at a public meeting. The soon to be Prime Minister was asked if he
would address this vacuum in Canadian international trade policy.
Notwithstanding the dangers that address might put the party in, he
promised he would do it. This he did immediately on assuming the
5337
mantle of Prime Minister. We have seen the results. After two years
of negotiations we finally have a deal.
(1040)
As well, many of my constituents who were involved in the
initial genesis, the push toward getting government foreign policy
and international trade policy to respond to the interests of
entrepreneurs in Canada, took every opportunity to remind me as
their local member and other members from Toronto and Montreal
that this treaty needed to be signed. Not only would it benefit
Canadians economically, it would give us indirect access to the
European Union. I know my colleague from the Reform Party
would appreciate that.
It took a while for people to respond because obviously the
details of such a deal had to be worked out. It is a credit to the
people who were involved in this. I met them last July when the
Minister for International Trade signed with his counterpart, Natan
Sharansky in Toronto. Obviously there was some assiduous work to
ensure that the deal would take place so that the new bilateral
relations between Canada and Israel would work to the advantage
of both parties.
Statistics were related by the Minister for International Trade
yesterday and repeated by my colleagues from the Bloc and the
Reform Party this morning. Trade has already picked up in some
areas by as much as 37 per cent and in others by 49 per cent over
last year. Such is the impact of the discussions of such a deal. We
can anticipate that much more will happen as soon as the
agreement has been inked. I am hoping that the House will approve
this today following the debate.
In a crucial area like the Middle East, the presence of Canada
whose reputation for altruism as seen through its peacekeeping
efforts everywhere throughout the world would be a welcome
addition. It has no interest except as one that would introduce
expertise in the areas of the region that need it most. I pointed to
petrochemical industries. The minister pointed to the electronic
and agri-products industries.
When we speak of Israel we are speaking of relations with a
country which is not much larger than Prince Edward Island and
half of it is desert. Most people can develop policy by shouting
from one city to another, in the same way that we shout at each
other in the House. The place is intimate, the proximity of one
market to another is such that most of us would not appreciate the
impact for economic secrets.
However, the presence of Canada, not only as a peacekeeper but
as a nation of entrepreneurs, that is willing and ready to provide not
only its products but also its expertise will provide Canada, the
Middle East and particularly Israel an opportunity to see how
things can and should work.
Both opposition parties have indicated that they recognize the
import of Canada's initiative of strongly promoting that such a deal
also be made available to the Palestinians in the area. I think it is
marvellous that the Israelis saw an opportunity for a lasting peace
with a Canadian presence on an economic and political basis.
The bill is one that reflects not only what entrepreneurs wanted
because it was generated in part by entrepreneurs who saw an
opportunity and seized the chance to apprise their government of it
and then follow it through together with the bureaucracies of both
countries to ensure that legislation would come forward which
would cement the ties both were willing to establish.
(1045)
We have already seen some of the product of that. We have seen
some of the flower of that activity. I look forward to a greater, more
blossoming economic activity and political participation on both
sides.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and colleagues for their attention. I
thank them in particular for their support.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
question that we support free trade and we support bilateral trade
agreements that are negotiated by our representatives.
I find it interesting to listen to the hon. member from the
government side using such flowing and glowing eloquent
language when describing this trade deal, but I wonder about the
hypocrisy from the other side.
When the Liberals were in opposition and when they had a leader
by the name of John Turner, they ran a whole election campaign
which caused me a lot of grief. I had to hold my nose while I voted
for the Conservatives because I favoured free trade.
I did not want to vote them in for another session. I did not want
them to be here for another four years because they were
incompetent. They were running the government very poorly. They
were overspending. They promised tax cuts and did they give us tax
cuts? They gave us tax increases. They promised integrity in
government and what did they give us? They gave us nine cabinet
ministers who quit in the first four years.
In opposition they debated how free trade is not good and in the
best interests of Canada, and how North American free trade is no
good for Canada. We just have to go back into Hansard.
John Turner ran a campaign against Brian Mulroney on free
trade. That was the issue and the people over there, many who were
in that campaign, were against it. Now we have every one of them,
including the Prime Minister, saying free trade is great, quote the
trade statistics.
Thank goodness we have free trade because that is what is saving
their butt in terms of jobs and job creation. The only reason our
economy is growing is our trade agreements. That is what is
making it grow. Domestic growth is nil. It is next to nothing. There
are no jobs in Canada. There are 1.4 million people out of work.
5338
Thank God the jobs that are being created, those 600,000 jobs they
brag about, over half of them are probably due to the trade.
What I do not understand is the hypocrisy of politicians who say
one thing in opposition and then when they get on the government
side they flip-flop. I am not sure if this member has flip-flopped. I
am not accusing this member of flip-flopping. I am sure based on
his speech, I am positive based on his speech, that he believed in
free trade when he was in opposition. He believed in free trade
when John Turner was running against it. He believed in free trade
all the way. I am sure he did because you cannot use language like
that today, having argued against it yesterday.
The hon. member is anxious to get up and I will let him get up,
but I want to make a serious comment. I want to repeat it so that
everybody understands my point.
My point is why say that you are against something in
opposition, then go over to the government and be in favour of it
and in such a way that they always believed in it? It does not make
sense to me. Thank goodness for the wonderful rebirth of the
Liberal Party in terms of understanding the economy of the country
and I compliment it for flip-flopping.
Mr. Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I am not accustomed to his phrase
flip-flop. It is not part of the thesaurus that I read.
I thank my colleague for pointing out why Canadians decided
very decisively in the last election that they could no longer brook
the kinds of people that were administering, in fact
misadministering, the country.
I am pleased that he realized that this government, this
administration, my party, has taken all the appropriate steps to
ensure that bad decisions were redimensioned, that adjustment
programs were provided, that the direction required for trade deals
be appropriately moved so that the benefits to Canada could accrue
in an accumulative fashion.
(1050 )
I am glad that he has noted that it has worked. He has pointed
already to the impact of increased trade on the domestic economy.
For that I thank him. He has pointed to the impact of this
administration's approach to world trade, liberalized trade and its
impact on the nation's finances. He has pointed to the importance
of this kind of growth to the fiscal policies and to the impact on the
interest rates which have accrued to Canadians, which is a very
immediate and very profound financial impact. For all of these
things I thank the member opposite.
I want to thank him as well for recognizing that the country is
run by an administration that realizes the importance of a changing
world, the dimensions of that kind of change, the impacts of
implementations of measures to deal with those changes and to
bring them to a point where Canadians are very much an integral
part of a globalized economy, of a globalized political economy,
one in which they can look forward to a future with prosperity and
growth.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the comments of the parliamentary secretary for health and
his recognition that indeed the Liberal Party has finally decided
that free trade is an attribute and one that has been very successful
in transforming the Canadian economy into one of growth.
As my colleague from Calgary centre has just stated, the
domestic economy has not recovered. There still is not the
confidence there with consumers but on the trade side, on the
export side we have been very aggressive. We have done a good job
and there has been tremendous growth.
I know the Liberal Party has done a major conversion here and
now they think that free trade is good. Canada generally has been a
leader in trying to put together the trade deals that are necessary. As
I said earlier, we can compete with anybody on a level playing field
but we cannot compete with subsidies from other countries and
high tariffs.
At the last round of the GATT talks which the Liberals took over
at the very end, they favoured supply management, article XI,
which would preserve border closures and stop any product from
coming into the country in terms of supply managed farm products.
Canada became isolated at those trade talks. We were the only
country that finally took that view and continued to take that view
although it was not one that was conducive to free trade and it still
is not.
We have moved to tariffs now, 350 per cent tariff on butter.
Surely for a country that espouses free trade, trade liberalization,
and has since after the second world war, are we not in a real
contradiction here that we want free trade in other countries, we
want access to their markets, but we will not provide it for the
supply managed farm industry here at home?
I would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on that
question.
Mr. Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member from
Peace River. He and I sat on the international trade committee and
on the foreign affairs committee for about two years. He has been
insistent and persistent in his approach in defending the interest he
feels he was elected to defend. I say that with no disrespect. It is
important that members keep their minds on the issues.
In the course of those debates in that committee he pointed to
this issue on more than one occasion. In fact, he was part of a series
of studies that the committees undertook and participated in to
bring just such issues forward.
5339
The question of adjustments is not one that is going to be
answered immediately in one debate in the House, nor dare I say,
as we both found, in one committee. He pointed to the fact that
Canada found itself isolated but that is part of the negotiating
process. We entered into GATT, we entered into the World Trade
Organization precisely because we wanted to ensure that the world
recognizes certain standards, certain rules for dealing, for trading.
We had to defend our own interests until we can find an alternative
way to defend those interests.
(1055)
In the context of those two organizations, we had to negotiate
and we continue to negotiate for the interests of Canadians. I do not
think we need to apologize for that, notwithstanding the
philosophical positions other people have.
If farmers in Canada feel unhappy about the fact that we have
defended their interests I would like them to say so. If what the
member is saying, that defending our interests runs counter to the
philosophical positions espoused by other countries and promoted
by other countries to their own interest, that is a discussion that we
can have a little later on. However, that is not what I am going to
apologize for.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find
the debate that has been going on between our colleagues for the
last minutes interesting. It illustrates quite well what my colleague
for Terrebonne referred to yesterday, that is, for almost the last
three years now, we have been amazed to hear the Liberal
government speak in favour of free trade in this House and on at
forums around the world, since it was so opposed to the Free Trade
Agreement with the United States and, later on, to the North
American Free Trade Agreement. Thus, like our colleagues of the
Reform Party, we are very happy to see this quite spectacular
conversion on the part of our Liberal colleagues.
This being said, I am happy to rise today in this House to speak
on Bill C-61, an Act to implement the Canada-Israel Free Trade
Agreement.
I must say at the outset that, even though we are critical of the
way in which the Liberal government singularly excluded the
official opposition from the negotiations along with all the other
players interested in expressing their points of view on this matter,
the government can be assured of the support of the Bloc
Quebecois because we are in favour of free trade and globalization
of markets, which anyway reflect an irreversible trend in world
trade.
After the United States and Mexico, here is a third state, which is
a lot farther from our frontiers, that will in all likelihood, in
January, 1997, enter the group of countries with which Canada will
remove all trade barriers.
The Bloc Quebecois favours the establishment of closer ties
between Israel and Canada. We think that Quebecers and
Canadians can only win from such an agreement, since the free
flow of goods and the increased competition promoted by free
trade will give our respective peoples access to a larger range of
products at better costs. For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is in
favour of this free trade agreement, which, as I said, will allow
Canadian businesses to increase their presence in Israel and
eventually in other countries in the Near or the Middle East.
This free trade agreement with Israel is designed to eliminate
practically all duties on products traded between the two countries.
Israel, with a population of 6 million-which, by the way, is just a
little smaller than the population of Quebec-will have closer ties
to Canada since tariff barriers that have restricted the free
movement of goods until now will soon be eliminated.
This bill, which is divided into three parts and includes 62
clauses, will provide, among other things, for the elimination of
duties on all industrial products as of January 1, 1997, except for
two products for which the elimination of duties will be done more
gradually, namely women's bathing suits and certain cotton fabrics.
In addition to those two products, the agreement also provides
for a reduction of duties on most agri-food products, except for
dairy products as well as egg and poultry products, as agreed by
both parties.
This agreement comes just at the right moment to promote trade
between Canada and Israel. In 1995, bilateral trade between the two
countries reached $450 million or so, a 37 per cent increase from
the previous year. As for Canadian exports to Israel, they stood at
$236 million in 1995, up practically 50 per cent from 1994.
Trade between Canada and Israel has been increasing constantly
over the last few years.
This is why the time has come to eliminate the trade barriers
between the two countries. As Quebec's Deputy Prime Minister
was saying, in October 1995, in a letter to the federal Minister of
International Trade, Quebec, and I quote: ``[-] has always been a
strong defender of freer trade between countries-he was referring
to the Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade
Agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the
World Trade Organization-and still supports freer trade as an
instrument of growth''. The Bloc Quebecois is in complete
agreement with this view.
(1100)
What is special about the State of Israel is that it is located in a
geopolitical context completely different from ours. The history of
the Jewish state has not been all peace and tranquillity, for most of
the neighbouring Arab countries have been in an official state of
war against it since its creation in 1948.
5340
Certain events in the recent history of Israel are more significant
than others. For example, the Six Day War that took place in 1967,
culminating in Israel's victory over its neighbours, resulted in the
occupation of territories that unfortunately has continued right up
until the present.
The names of these territories continue to be well known to us
today, because they are still at the centre of world news. Naturally,
this presence only adds to tensions between Jews and Arabs,
because even though Israel withdrew from the Sinai in 1982 and
from the Gaza Strip in 1994, it still occupies East Jerusalem, the
Golan Heights and the greater part of the West Bank.
However, in spite of the peace process set in motion in Madrid in
1991, followed by the signature of the 1994 accords between Israel
and the Palestine Liberation Organization, better known as the
PLO, the peace process still has a long way to go.
The tragic assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on
November 5, 1995, dealt a disastrous blow to the peace process.
This man, whose goal for many years had been to see the people of
Israel finally able to live free of conflict, said in his last speech, just
moments before being shot down by a young fanatic: ``I was a man
of war, but today we have a chance at peace. I believe we must take
this chance, so deep is our yearning for an end to the conflict''.
His assassination led to a deterioration in the situation. Last
spring, the repeated suicide bombings by the Hezbollah prompted
the Israeli army to carry out air raids and bombing attacks on
southern Lebanon. These attacks left over 150 Lebanese dead, most
of them civilians.
A few weeks ago, the decision by the new government of
Benjamin Netanyahu to reopen the underground gallery leading to
the site of the Al-Aqsar Mosque, the third most sacred Islamic
religious site, led to riots in which some fifty Palestinians and some
fifteen Israelis were killed. We sincerely hope that Prime Minister
Netanyahu will re-examine his current hard line with respect to
Palestinian autonomy.
It may be worthwhile to point out that the present Canadian
government constantly maintains that human rights are promoted
through trade links. Yet, the state of Israel has already signed a free
trade agreement with the United States, in 1985, followed by a
similar one with the European Union in 1988, and now with
Canada. But have we seen any improvement in the situation? No.
We believe that the Israeli government ought now to be seeking
solutions for reconciliation with the Palestinian authorities. After
all, is politics not the art of compromise? Speaking of compromise,
it would certainly be worth while to explore the possibility of
expanding this free trade agreement to the Palestinians living in the
occupied territories.
The first step would, of course, be to obtain the go-ahead from
the Palestinian authorities, in order to have the assurance that their
inclusion in an Israel-Canada treaty was indeed what they wanted.
It is possible that, expansion of the agreement to include the
Palestinians would result in increased employment in the occupied
territories, which might eventually contribute to stabilizing the
social climate.
The negotiations leading to the signature of this agreement were
held throughout this entire troubled period. They began in
November 1994, and ran until January 1996, and led to an
agreement signed by the Minister of International Trade for Canada
and the Israeli Minister of Trade and Industry, on July 31, 1996.
As the party forming the official opposition, we have difficulty
accepting that virtually the entire process leading to this agreement
was held in secret, with no public debate whatsoever. It is
understandable that the negotiating process itself needs to be
carried out behind closed doors, that is natural. We know that the
negotiators are faced with a tough job and have to negotiate many
pitfalls and obstacles, but we would appreciate progress reports on
the negotiations.
(1105)
Now we are not asking for parliamentarians to be present at the
negotiating table, but we do believe that in a democracy, it is
important to avoid any systematic exclusion of those who represent
the people.
Remember that the most important issue in the 1988 election
was the free trade agreement between Canada and the United
States, to which the Liberals were opposed. Many groups that knew
they would be affected by the agreement could therefore take part
in the debate.
It was by defending their points of view and by making
representations to the political authorities, that stakeholders,
company directors and spokespersons for community and
environmental groups were able to influence the tenor of the
clauses included in the agreement before it was signed.
During the negotiations leading up to the North American Free
Trade Agreement, the unions took a position on labour-related
issues and expressed their fears about NAFTA. Environmental
groups also expressed their concerns about environmental issues.
Although the results were not satisfactory to all stakeholders, the
fact remains that before the agreement was signed in December
1992, there had been had a major debate in the public arena.
The treaty dealt with in the bill before the House today has now
been signed. Negotiations have been finalized and nothing can be
changed. Without repeated interventions by the official opposition,
which managed to draw the government's attention to the problems
that such an agreement would represent for the lingerie and bathing
5341
suit industry in Quebec, decisions that would have had a disastrous
impact on this sector might have been made.
In fact, this industry would have been in serious jeopardy, since
the State of Israel imports its fabrics from the European Union duty
free, which it gives it a competitive edge on Quebec and Canadian
markets. If we had not raised this issue in the House in November
1995, it is not certain that the negotiators would have been aware of
the problem. And perhaps hundreds of jobs would have been lost in
the process, especially in Quebec.
Canada is now busy negotiating free trade treaties right and left.
We approve of the opening up of this country to various markets,
but it is absolutely necessary to review the process leading up to the
signing of these agreements.
The bathing suit issue is only one example of the potentially
negative consequences of an agreement negotiated without public
consultation. Although the agreement with Israel has already been
signed, there is still time to improve the process for future free
trade agreements being considered by this government. We are
thinking for instance of current negotiations taking place between
Canada and Chile, which are to lead to the signing of an agreement
on or about November 15 this year.
Officials at Foreign Affairs and International Trade have given
us the assurance that information on these negotiations will be
made available to us. We can only hope that the ministers
responsible for Foreign Affairs and International Trade are
prepared to give their approval for the release of such information.
It is imperative to prevent a recurrence of this kind of situation,
so that the opposition can do its job properly. Such a cavalier
attitude on the part of the government is troubling, especially
because the government knew quite well it could count on the
support of opposition parties. Why persist in infuriating opposition
parties when we could have presented the picture of a solid
consensus to our trading partners?
If the government really wants open and transparent debates, it
should practice openness and transparency itself. Otherwise, we
will have to conclude, as it is the case now, that it prefers secrecy
and obscurity. I plan to demonstrate the extent of this government's
pettiness and inordinate mysteriousness with the official opposition
on this whole issue.
Last April 25, during a special session of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on Israeli
bombardments in South Lebanon, I conveyed to department
representatives my reservations concerning the negotiations on free
trade with Israel when it was bombarding civilian populations and
openly crossing the internationally recognized borders of another
independent country.
One official of the department replied that negotiations were
interrupted pending the election of a new government in Israel.
That statement seemed confirmed later on by replies we received
from the Office of the Minister of International Trade. In fact, in
May and June, we called the office of the minister a few times to
find out when the negotiations would end and when the agreement
would be signed and we were always told that the agreement was to
be signed only in January 1997.
(1110)
And yet, a few weeks ago-on September 19, to be exact-the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
informed the committee members that the agreement had been
ready to be signed since March, and that the official signing, which
was to have taken place during a visit of the Prime Minister of
Israel in Canada, had been postponed because of the elections in
Israel. This is what we are criticizing.
It would appear that the agreement with Chile will be much more
exhaustive than the one before us today. The agreement with Chile
is supposed to be modelled on NAFTA. Since it will be more
encompassing, there are many issues which would have been
interesting to raise with Chile prior to promoting the agreement.
Cases in point are standards regarding the environment, labour in
general and child labour, in particular. The agreement with Israel is
limited to goods and, as such, does not include services or
investments.
Last week, we met with Oxfam Canada representatives who told
us how concerned they were with the lack of protection on social
issues negotiations seem to be leading to.
According to this organization, the agreement, the content of
which will be made public when it is signed, around November 15,
will undoubtedly not contain stringent enough rules on the
environment and labour.
Even though Chile is undergoing tremendous economic growth,
too many of its citizens still live in poverty as a result of the
polarization of wealth. Therefore, it would have been desirable,
both for Chile's sake and Canada's, that these issues be looked at
more carefully. This is why it would be important to know how the
negotiations are going prior to the House being presented with a
bill implementing the agreement.
At least Bill C-61 before us today has the merit of stimulating
exports and levelling the playing field for our companies
competing with American and European firms, which have
benefited from preferential access to the Israeli market for some
time now.
The Bloc Quebecois, therefore, will support this bill to
implement a free trade agreement with Israel, while condemning
the fact that the elected representatives in this House were kept in
the dark with regard to the negotiations and the issues raised during
the discussions. It is not by hiding each of the negotiating steps
leading to the conclusion of such important treaties that we will be
able to reasonably debate the themes and issues that will affect the
daily lives of our fellow contrymen.
5342
That is why, as I said earlier, the Departments of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade should keep the members of this House
informed of the status of negotiations, if we are to have an
informed and responsible debate. Our position regarding Bill C-61,
which goes in the same direction as the government's, shows once
again how serious our party is when it comes to the interests of our
constituents and their willingness to promote entrepreneurship.
In conclusion, let me quote a short excerpt from the dissenting
opinion the Bloc Quebecois gave in November 1994, during the
review of Canada's foreign policy: ``Quebecers are not
protectionists. They have shown it by strongly supporting the free
trade agreement, the North American free trade agreement and the
Uruguay round of GATT talks. Must we remind the House that
Quebec's determination was the spearhead of the free trade
movement in the 1980s? Far from seeing Quebec's sovereignist
movement as a withdrawal into itself in response to economic
globalization, we perceive it as an openness to the world''.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for some excellent
remarks.
I would like to draw his attention to something that was said by
the minister in his speech yesterday. I quote from Hansard. The
minister said in reference to the free trade agreement: ``Why
Israel? Israel and Canada have long enjoyed close relations. Our
relationship is rooted in common values and shared democratic
beliefs, the belief in freedom and the dignity of the individual''.
Yet we have a new regime in Israel under Mr. Netanyahu which
has taken a very hard line with respect to the peace process, a very
hard line with respect to the Palestinians. We have seen an outburst
of violence on the West Bank.
I would like to ask my colleague whether he thinks, in
supporting Bill C-61 which in essence ratifies the free trade
agreement, we also endorse the policies of Mr. Netanyahu with
respect to the Palestinians on the West Bank.
(1115)
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague has just
asked me a very important question. I touched on this matter in my
speech.
Last spring, we in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade had a special meeting on the Israeli
bombing in southern Lebanon. We were concerned at the time
about the Canadian government beginning or pursuing free trade
negotiations with the state of Israel, which was then bombing
civilian populations in southern Lebanon and openly violating the
internationally recognized borders of another sovereign state,
Lebanon. We asked officials in these departments if they intended
to suspend negotiations. All they said was that negotiations were
suspended anyway, since they were waiting for the results of the
Israeli election.
We then found out that negotiations had not been suspended, that
the agreement was in fact ready for signing as early as March. This
shows the government's contempt, if I may use this word, for the
members of this House and the committee, as we should never have
been told negotiations had been suspended when the agreement
was in fact ready to be signed.
We did express reservations about the signing of this free trade
agreement with Israel, given the Israeli government's somewhat
intransigent attitude toward the Arab populations both within and
beyond its borders.
This is why we ask that this agreement be extended to the
Palestinian populations of the occupied territories, in the hope that
this will eventually improve their economic situation. We also want
to improve the social climate in the Israeli occupied territories.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Bloc member.
[English]
I have been dying to ask this member a question because I have a
concern. This is a trade agreement and he knows full well that, as
my colleague mentioned earlier, there is a protective tariff system
in effect in this country, especially with subsidizing the dairy
industry in Quebec.
We pay over and above the next lowest price we could get our
dairy products for, 350 per cent supply management tariff. We
subsidize that product in Quebec. It is a huge component of
Quebec's economy.
The member was sent to this House by the people of his
constituency to break this country up. The people in his riding say
they want to go on their own and they want him to fight for that.
They also say they will be better off once they leave and that they
will not have to pay for this expensive overhead that Ottawa
generates. They will be able to do it better themselves and
economically they will be better off. The people his riding think
they will be better off if they separate. A large component of their
industry is the dairy industry which is subsidized by consumers
across Canada, including Quebecers.
Does he believe that if Quebec separates we are going to
continue to buy our product at a 350 per cent subsidized price from
the province of Quebec, from the new country of Quebec or
whatever it will be called?
5343
I feel that the issue of trade, of economics and of separation
can be reduced to a simple argument which may be a reality that
might sink in to the people of his riding as to the cost of
separation, to whether the burden of proof should be on the
separatists to prove to the people of Quebec that they will be better
off in trade after separation.
(1120)
The Liberal member earlier asked why Israel. I ask, after
separation why Quebec? We can get our product from ourselves.
We can be the dairy industry to the rest of Canada. We can get it
from the United States. They will become a competitor.
Competition creates the best marketplace. The competition will
reduce the revenue to the people in Quebec and Quebecers will
have to compete. They will no longer be subsidized. The reality is
they will be worse off. Would the hon. member like to comment on
that subsidy?
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the hon.
member would finally give me the opportunity to answer the
question which he has been dying to ask me for such a long time.
Since he had several minutes to keep repeating his question, I hope
you will give me a few minutes to keep repeating my answer.
First, I must point out that it is not proper to use the current
debate on the free trade agreement between Canada and Israel to
settle accounts relating to the constitutional issue. We will have
ample opportunity, during other debates in this House and in other
forums, to settle our accounts regarding the constitutional issue.
That being said, I am pleased to answer the hon. member's
question. His question is not only inappropriate, it is also insidious
and, in my opinion, it shows the member's lack of knowledge of
the supply management system, in Canada and in Quebec, for
agricultural products.
To be sure, Quebec's dairy industry is largely subsidized by the
federal government, but the member should also know that the egg
and poultry industries are also largely subsidized. And, while
Quebec is a major producer of dairy products, it is not one of the
major producers of eggs and poultry in Canada.
Therefore, should the supply management system be eliminated,
Quebec would lose, but so would Ontario and other Canadian
provinces.
Again, the member's question indicates a lack of knowledge of
Canada's supply management system, but I will say no more.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I do not fail
to grasp this issue. I do understand this issue. It is the consumers I
am talking about, the people who buy the product. They are the
losers right now and they would be the winners. I understand the
system.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I do not share this view, otherwise I
would not have spent the last three years praising the virtues of
sovereignty in this House. I feel that, in the middle and long term,
Quebec would benefit from being a sovereign state, and that
Canada and Quebec could mutually benefit from it.
Why continue to spend so much energy arguing on issues that
divide us, instead of trying to work together, in a new partnership,
on the issues that unite us? I put the question.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-61, the
Canada-Israeli free trade agreement.
We in the Reform Party approve of bilateral trade agreements on
the basis that they will strengthen the existing World Trade
Organization.
I know my colleague for Peace River has some very good ideas
on this and he would certainly be happy to advise the government
on various new initiatives it should undertake.
A larger issue with respect to the Middle East is the security
issue that threatens trade agreements and threatens the security not
only between Israel and Palestine but the regional security which
exists there which will have a huge impact on world economy.
(1125 )
Currently the peace process is in disarray. There is a possibility it
will fall apart. The Israelis and the Palestinians are polarized. We
have a very important window of opportunity to help build bridges
between the two groups.
After Mr. Netanyahu was elected it seemed that the Likud Party
was pulled away from the work which was done by Mr.
Netanyahu's predecessor, Mr. Shimon Peres.
On the other side, it did not take much for Mr. Arafat and the
Palestinian authority to pull away from the peace agreement.
Both groups have to realize that their fates are intimately
entwined. History, geography and the future will not separate them.
The conditions in the Palestinian autonomous areas are
absolutely appalling. It is no wonder that terrorism has stemmed
from these areas. It reflects the sheer frustration, anxiety and fear
of these people. For example, in the Gaza Strip unemployment is
over 70 per cent. That breeds desperate people and desperate
people often resort to violence.
5344
I would humbly suggest that economics is partly responsible
for this situation. We have an opportunity through the free trade
agreement with Israel to place conditions on how the Israelis will
engage with the Palestinians in Palestinian autonomous areas. It
should not be done in a heavy handed way, but in a coercive way
for the betterment of both groups. The outcome of that will be
improved chances for peace for all people.
If we can do that we will cut the legs out from the radical
elements of Hamas that are responsible for the bombings that took
place in Tel Aviv. It will cut the legs out from grassroots support for
Hezbollah. It will cut the grassroots support for the Islamic Jihad.
The only way to do that is to offer the Palestinian people in the
autonomous regions some element of economic emancipation.
Hamas has received support by providing schools, medical care
and economic opportunities for these desperate people who are
crying for improvement in their appalling situation.
I would encourage the government to find ways to work with the
Israeli and Palestinian authorities to improve their bilateral
economic agreements.
I would also suggest that the closure of the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip must end. It must end in conjunction with agreements
from Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian authority that they will make
swift, decisive and effective moves against terrorism in their areas.
They cannot have it both ways. If the Palestinian authority is going
to preach peace, it must act in a peaceful way. It will be painful, but
it will have to act with its own people. Only by doing that will the
Palestinians be able to achieve the respect and trust of the Likud
Party and Mr. Netanyahu.
On the other hand, Mr. Netanyahu has to stop closing down the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip so freely and, at times, unfairly. That
polarizes the Palestinian people and grassroot support wanes.
We must also pursue avenues to improve the education system in
the Palestinian autonomous areas, the economics and also the
infrastructure development which will be required. In order to do
this there has to be a radical shift. We cannot continue to have this
polarization between both groups.
(1130)
A few of the key players are going to have to be brought to the
table. A key in the Middle East peace process is Hafez al-Assad of
Syria. One of the great failings is that Mr. Assad has not been
brought to the table with Mr. Netanyahu or his predecessor and
with the King of Jordan and hopefully Mr. Mubarak of Egypt.
If these people can be brought to the table face to face then we
are going to see some action. Mr. Assad controls Syria. He also has
a huge sway in what happens on the northern border of Israel with
Hezbollah. Israel is only going to feel secure on her northern
boundary if the activities of Hezbollah are removed and the key to
that is Mr. Assad.
Mr. Assad's intermediaries are not going to call the shots. We are
not going to get any significant advancement in the peace process
without Mr. Assad himself sitting down face to face with Mr.
Netanyahu, King Hussein of Jordan, Mr. Mubarak and of course
Mr. Arafat.
Another aspect is Jerusalem, an extremely sore spot. It eludes
me as to why this area, the seat of so many religions of the world,
this exquisitely beautiful area which all of us in this House and
billions of people around the world have such a connection to, is
the seed of such rancour and animosity and the root provocation of
so much killing. It is completely opposed-I do not care whether
they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, that is not what Jerusalem
has ever been about or should be about. It is not what Jerusalem
stands for.
A possible solution, because the groups are actually polarizing
quite dramatically with Jerusalem, is to put it under UN protection.
If the groups are not willing to share in Jerusalem, as right now
they are not prepared to do, then the United Nations has to try to get
tacit support from them to make Jerusalem a protected zone for the
world, for all religions and for all people who follow those
religions and have a spiritual connection with that beautiful city.
My other point is on the whole aspect of the Palestinian
autonomous areas and settlements. It is an absolute provocation for
the Israeli government to continue to support settlements in the
Palestinian autonomous areas. It is a slap in the face to the
Palestinian authority and a slap in the face to the Palestinian
people. It polarizes them dramatically and is only an act of
provocation.
The first thing the Israelis ought to do, and Canada can take a
coercive role in this, is to: one, stop immediately all new building
of Israeli settlements in Palestinian autonomous regions; two,
remove some of those settlements out of the Palestinian
autonomous regions and there will be some kind of trust again from
the Palestinian people. The Palestinian authority must also provide
assurances to the Government of Israel that terrorist activities are
going to cease and desist. They will not but they must at least take
an active role with the Israeli defence forces to come down on these
extreme groups that are causing havoc in the whole peace process.
Another factor which not many people are talking about and
which in the long run overshadows much of what can take place in
the Middle East is water. There is very little potable water left in
the Middle East. Those water levels are going down dramatically. It
may not sound like very much but if human beings cannot drink
water, they will not live there. If there is no water, they cannot grow
crops. If crops cannot be grown in these areas, there are not going
to be settlements. This is a problem that affects not only Israel and
5345
the Palestinian people but it also affects Jordan and to a lesser
extent Syria.
Here is an opportunity for Canada to get groups of hydrologists
together with other hydrology specialists in the world to help the
Middle East try to maximize the water available and to improve the
conservation and the development of the water tables that exist
there. No matter what we do, if there is no water in the future, there
simply is not going to be any people who wish to live there.
(1135)
I will close by saying that historically we have had two sides in
the polarization. They have come together in a narrow window of
opportunity and with great hope for the world in the peace process
that took place in conjunction with the Americans.
Sadly, what has happened since the last election is that the two
groups are polarizing. They must realize that their fates again are
intimately entwined. Perhaps they cannot live together in the same
country. I think that is probably what is going to happen, but at
least let them live side by side in peace and then develop economic
co-operation between both groups. If those economic bridges
develop, then peace will develop and the decades of mistrust and
hatred are going to peel away, albeit slowly.
There is a saying in the Middle East that peace is when a son
buries his father and war is when a father buries his son. I hope for
all the people of the Middle East that there will be far fewer fathers
burying their sons. I also hope that Canada can take her role with
the other members of the international community to develop in
co-operation to bring peace to this much troubled area.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thought the member wandered a little bit off the mark in
the sense that the free trade agreement with Israel has already been
signed. All that is left is for this Parliament to endorse that deal. It
cannot be changed as it stands at the moment.
I am very proud of this country and especially this Parliament for
the way in which we exchange very differing ideas in a spirit of
tolerance of one another's views and a great respect for the dignity
and rights of others, regardless that perhaps some of the members
may even seek to break up the country. Yet, we respect the dignity
of one another.
My problem is that there is a new regime in Israel that has set a
new mark for Israel in terms of respect for human rights and human
dignity by embarking on a hard line approach to the Palestinians.
As the member has stated, it is a provocation and has led to deaths
in the Middle East, mainly of Palestinians.
I would like to repeat a question for the member which I had put
to the member for Verchères, who I did not feel answered it very
directly. Does the member feel that if this Parliament endorses this
free trade agreement, are we at the same time endorsing the hard
line attitude of Mr. Netanyahu toward the Palestinians? Are we
endorsing his view of human rights and respect for human dignity?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. friend from the Liberal Party for his very astute question.
Although we support this bill, I believe there is an inherent
danger in the bill's being perceived as an endorsement for Mr.
Netanyahu and the Likud party's hard line approach with the
Palestinian people. That is why it is imperative for us to make
clarifications.
We should through this bill strongly support and coerce the
Israeli government to engage in serious economic activities to
improve the health and welfare of the people who exist in the
Palestinian autonomous areas and in particular the terrible and
profoundly disgusting conditions that exist in the Palestinian
camps. If anyone were to visit them, they would be absolutely
shocked. Therein lies the danger and the opportunity.
(1140 )
That is why I would strongly encourage our government to make
it very clear to the Government of Israel that we as a country do not
support this hard line attitude; we do not support the prevention of
Palestinians from moving into Israel from the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip; and we do not support the continued atrocious and
appalling conditions that exist in the Palestinian camps and in the
Palestinian autonomous areas.
We strongly demand that, together with Mr. Arafat and the other
Middle East leaders, Prime Minister Netanyahu engage in
co-operative efforts to improve the economic situation that exists
in these areas. Therein lies the hope for peace.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-61, the bill which implements the
Canada-Israel free trade agreement.
This agreement should benefit many Canadian businesses and
many Canadians. It means job creation which must be a top priority
for anybody in this House. This agreement applies especially to the
areas of agriculture and grain products, high tech communications,
natural resources and the manufacturing sector. It is important for
Canada to promote more open and fair trade with all countries
around the world. We would not find much argument in this House
with regard to that statement.
5346
My concern lies in the fact that it seems like too much of this
government's energy on balance goes to seeking out trade with
other countries and too little energy goes to seeking free trade
within Canada.
Canada's international trade amounts to about $160 billion a
year. It is a large part of the Canadian economy, so it is important. I
want to make it clear that it is important to encourage free trade
with other countries. Since the Canada-U.S. trade deals have been
put in place, our trade surplus with the United States has increased
dramatically. It has been good for Canadians. Deals like the
Canada-Israeli agreement, though much smaller, are still
important.
My concern is the lack of balance in the government's policy.
While foreign trade amounts to about $160 billion a year, trade
between provinces amounts to $146 billion a year. How often have
we heard this government or the official opposition talk about the
importance of removing the barriers to interprovincial trade? The
balance is not there.
Our Prime Minister goes on world tours to places like China,
Chile and so on. He makes a big show of signing contracts in other
countries. When he does this it probably plays well to the folks
back home. I acknowledge it is important for the Prime Minister to
perform this function but again, where is the balance?
The Liberals in this government, in throne speeches, in budget
speeches, in reports from committees-I could mention many
different key documents which this government has presented in
the House and outside of the House-have stated that it is a top
priority to deal with the problem of internal trade barriers, barriers
in trade between provinces.
Last year the finance committee released a prebudget report on
interprovincial trade which stated: ``Trade in Canada must be
placed on an equal footing with Canada-U.S. trade in terms of the
free flow of goods and services''. I am sure the committee would
have expanded this statement to include deals between Israel and
Canada. Government members acknowledge that interprovincial
trade should at least be placed on an equal footing with
international trade. Unfortunately, their words do not coincide with
their actions.
There was only one action the government did take. In 1994 it
signed the agreement on internal trade. It was a start but many
different sections of that agreement were to be completed later by
set dates in the future. Not one of these targets has been met.
(1145)
While this government deals with agreements such as this to
some extent, it has completely failed to do anything substantial to
remove the barriers to interprovincial trade. Yet interprovincial
trade amounts to almost as much as international trade. Where is
the balance? It is important that that balance is restored.
The government, rather than follow the recommendations of its
own throne speeches, its own budget speeches, has not treated with
interprovincial trade with the kind of importance that it should
have. As a result, some very unsettling situations are building in
this country. We have, for example, the problem between Quebec
and Newfoundland with the Churchill Falls hydro deal.
If the section on energy in the agreement on internal trade had
been completed as was promised by the government, while it
would not deal with the current Churchill Falls hydro contract, it
certainly would allow the new lower Churchill Falls project, which
is critical to the future development of Labrador and
Newfoundland, to go through. I am not talking about renegotiating
a current contract, I am talking about allowing the development of
the lower Churchill Falls project, a brand new hydro contract,
which would really help in the development of Newfoundland. It
would provide much needed jobs not just from the development
project itself but from the development of Voisey's Bay, for
example, and other developments in Newfoundland down the road.
The neglect of this agreement has led to that kind of disaster.
Quebecers are fair people. They are people of integrity. When they
think of holding back Labrador and Newfoundland's development,
the people of Quebec would not feel kindly about that. They want
the best for Labrador and Newfoundland. That is just one of the
areas that has been neglected. The balance is not there between
internal trade and foreign trade.
Second is the dispute that has arisen between New Brunswick
and British Columbia with the United Parcel Service workers
moving to New Brunswick. If the agreement on internal trade had
been completed on schedule and if the proper degree of importance
had been placed on that deal, then this dispute would never have
arisen.
If this dispute or another one had come up and a proper dispute
settlement mechanism had been put in place then this dispute
settlement mechanism could have dealt with this very serious
problem, which actually threatens to take British Columbia out of
the internal trade agreement altogether. That would be a very sad
day for this country and for British Columbia.
The third major problem that has resulted from the lack of action
on the part of the government in removing internal trade barriers is
the dispute between Quebec and Ontario on moving labour and
contracting back and forth between the two provinces. This dispute
has been brewing and getting bigger and more threatening over the
last few months. We saw sand, manure, other things dumped on
bridges between Ontario and Quebec. Today, as I speak, a rally is
being planned by the construction workers in Ottawa at the Delta
Hotel-I am not sure about the location-and construction workers
are not going to let this issue die. Ontario construction workers are
concerned because while Quebec workers and contractors are
allowed to freely come to Ontario, Ontario workers and contractors
5347
are not allowed the same access to Quebec. I think it is very
important for Quebecers to think about this situation.
(1150)
The government of Ontario is threatening very serious trade
action which would restrict the movement of Quebec workers and
contractors into the Ontario market. The Ontario legislature is
seriously moving in the direction of putting up a wall so that trade
will not go freely either way. That means Quebecers, many of
whom are now working in Ontario, will be denied access to Ontario
jobs.
Why has this very serious situation arisen? It is because of the
lack of action on the part of the government to finish the agreement
on internal trade and remove the barriers to interprovincial trade.
There is no leadership from the government in this area.
What does this lack of leadership cost Canadians? According to
the Fraser Institute and other think tanks, it costs Canadians
between $6 billion and $10 billion a year in lost income. This is
very serious. According to the Fraser Institute it costs the average
Canadian family about $3,500 a year in lost income, all because the
government has not put the priority on interprovincial trade that it
has put on foreign trade.
Bills such as this one today are important. I acknowledge that.
But why on earth not have a bill tomorrow which will deal with the
barriers between provinces in a serious and substantial way? This is
very important. It is so important that the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce came out with a substantial report on this issue. It
estimated that a 10 per cent increase in interprovincial trade would
add 200,000 new jobs in Canada.
Instead of moving in that direction, within a couple of blocks of
the House of Commons a rally is being planned by construction
workers who are frustrated because the government has not taken
the action it should have to remove barriers to free labour
movement and to be able to conduct business openly and freely
between provinces. This is a serious situation.
It really surprises me that the industry minister who is in charge
of the agreement on internal trade has been completely silent while
right in his own constituency in Ottawa, Ontario workers are being
denied access to jobs across the river in Hull and Gatineau because
of the barriers thrown up by Quebec. It is a sad situation.
There are Liberal members in the government who represent
people in Hull and Gatineau. Why are they not speaking out on this
issue? If they do not act very quickly and very soon, the Ontario
government will close the border, build a wall and there will be no
free movement of labour or business between Ontario and Quebec
at all. It has come to the point where that decision could be made
very soon. Where is the government in dealing with the problem
right in its own backyard?
(1155)
The government should be ashamed. It has to focus on this. It has
to look at the balance and the importance between interprovincial
trade and international trade. It has to realize its importance to the
Canadian economy are very similar, speak out on this issue, solve
the problem that is being demonstrated very clearly right here in
this city and finish the agreement on internal trade. It has to put in
place a dispute settlement mechanism and at least give Canadians
the same kind of freedom in doing business with another province
as it has between Canada and other countries.
The sad reality for many business people in certain parts of the
country is that they actually have easier and more open access to
the United States than they do to other provinces. That is sad and
action must be taken on this. It is very urgent right now because of
the serious situations building across the country.
Pitting one province against another certainly does nothing to
help national unity. Pitting Ontario against Quebec does nothing to
help national unity. Pitting British Columbia against New
Brunswick does nothing to help national unity. Pitting Quebec
against Newfoundland and Labrador does nothing to help national
unity.
Why has this issue of removing interprovincial trade barrier not
been given the importance that it should be given? It is important to
people in every single province in this country. It could mean a 10
per cent increase in interprovincial trade. According to the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce it could mean 200,000 jobs or
more, $3,500 added to each family household income, a $6 billion
to $10 billion increase in income to Canadians. All of this could be
achieved if the same importance were given to interprovincial trade
as has been given to international trade and if these barriers are
removed as quickly as possible.
I would like to more than encourage the government, I would
like to push it, in particular the industry minister, to deal with the
issue and allow the free movement of people, goods and services
between provinces, and allow those 200,000 jobs to be added in
Canada.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
concur with the member that it is very important to deal with
interprovincial trade matters. There are certainly some
opportunities there but that is not the subject matter of the bill and
it is not a bilateral agreement that we have with the provinces. We
are talking here of a bilateral agreement and the speech was really
not much
5348
about the bill. If I may I would like to make a couple of comments
about what bill this is and ask the member a question.
We are speaking on Bill C-61 put forward by the Minister for
International Trade, an act to implement the Canada-Israel free
trade agreement. In brief the main elements are: first, tariffs will be
removed from industrial products of Canadian or Israeli origin
beginning January 1, 1997; second, duty free access or low duties
will be applied to a variety of agricultural and fisheries products
exported to both countries; finally, to resolve any disputes under
the agreement both countries have agreed to be governed by a
binding dispute settlement process.
This bilateral trade agreement is extremely important to Canada.
For many years Canada and Israel have had excellent relations
based on shared values and strong political and social bonds. To
give an idea of dimensions, in 1995 the two way trade exceeded
$450 million, an increase of 37 per cent over 1994. Canadian
exports totalled $216 million in 1995, up 49 per cent from 1994. In
terms of the trade the other way, Canadian imports from Israel were
worth $240.8 million in 1995, a 32 per cent increase on 1994.
These are very significant.
(1200)
Earlier this day the member from Peace River gave a speech in
which he developed a theme which has been coming along about
how the government has been slow and why is this such a secretive
process and how come this government has not made this an issue
and why is it not in the forefront of what is going on.
The facts are that in November 1994 the leaders of Canada and
Israel announced the opening of negotiations for this bilateral free
trade agreement. On January 12, 1996 Canadian and Israeli
officials reached a tentative agreement leading to the formal
signing of a free trade agreement in Toronto, during the visit of the
minister of industry and trade, of both the state of Israel and
Canada.
The facts are that the government has proactively pursued
bilateral trade agreements for the benefits of Canada. This
government has done its job in this regard.
Does the hon. member not believe that if interprovincial trade
within Canada is such an important issue that it would be more
important for us now rather than to deal with partisan issues and to
ignore the bill to move this bill forward quickly so this House
would have more time to talk about further important initiatives? It
is time to get the priorities straight. I ask the member, could he stop
wasting the House's time and start dealing with the legislation
before the House?
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the partisan
use of time. If that was not just as partisan a statement as we could
find, I would like to see the other one that comes close to matching
it.
The day he calls the removal of interprovincial trade barriers a
partisan issue it is a sad day in this House. It is an issue that affects
all Canadians. As I explained before, 200,000 jobs are lost because
action has not been taken, six billion to ten billion dollars lost,
$3,500 per family. In family week I would expect this member to
acknowledge that and to accept that and to say yes, this is an
important issue.
This agreement is an important agreement as well. We are
supporting it. We are doing everything we can to push it along, so
what he said is nonsense.
On the relative importance of this agreement, which involves $.5
billion in trade, to the agreement to internal trade, which involves
$146 billion in trade, the comparison is pretty lopsided. The
importance of removing the barriers through internal trade cannot
be overstated. It is not a partisan issue. This member should not
have presented it as that.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge the member on his
assertions. I did not comment or take away from the importance of
interprovincial trade and trade barriers. It is not a bilateral
situation, though. We have 10 provinces and 2 territories.
The member has twisted the facts. I reiterate my point to him.
This bill before the House is a bilateral deal which is good for
Canada. It provides a further model of how important bilateral
agreements are and it will provide the basis for further trade
opportunities for all Canadians.
I would again suggest to the member that the important thing to
happen now is let us deal with this bill quickly so that we can have
more time in this House to deal with very important matters like
interprovincial trade agreements.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member did
acknowledge the importance of removing these barriers to
interprovincial trade. I just hope he can put some pressure on his
industry minister and others in his government to deal with this
issue.
The member said rightly that this is not a bilateral issue. In fact,
interprovincial trade is a federal responsibility under sections 91,
92 and 121 of our Constitution. It is clearly the responsibility of the
federal government to never allow interprovincial trade barriers to
build in the first place and to remove them if they should.
(1205 )
This obligation has been put aside by Liberal and Tory
governments for over 125 years. We have all kinds of barriers to
trade between provinces which are causing the problem that is
developing in Ottawa and which are causing the problem between
British Columbia and New Brunswick. These kinds of problems are
threatening to tear our country apart.
If we are going to keep this country together we need economic
harmony between the provinces. That can only come if the federal
government stops neglecting its responsibility under the Canadian
5349
Constitution. It must show leadership in this issue and remove
barriers to interprovincial trade.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for my colleague from Vegreville.
During his presentation there were comments from the Liberal
side asking what his speech on internal trade barriers had to do with
the Canada-Israeli free trade agreement. I suggest that it has
everything to do with free trade agreements, bilateral and
multilateral.
Our Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade has done a study on why small and medium size businesses
are not exporting. As a point of reference, about 100 companies in
Canada are responsible for 80 per cent of our exports. It is a sad
commentary that we are not allowing opportunities for small and
medium size businesses to explore this very important growth area.
One of the biggest reasons which those businesses give for not
getting involved is they say they cannot build economies of scale in
Canada because of the restrictive trade barriers within Canada.
That is hurting their ability to get big enough to launch into the
international trade area.
I would like to ask my colleague from Vegreville if he sees this
as an important restriction on the ability of Canadian companies to
get into the export market.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, a very well known Canadian was
asked a few weeks ago what was the single largest problem in
dealing with international trade. This very prominent Canadian, the
hon. member for Peace River who just asked the question, said that
the single largest factor which is preventing Canadian business
from doing business around the world is the lack of interprovincial
free trade. The hon. member has already alluded to why that is.
Canadian companies, in some cases, need the ability to build.
They have to get the economics of scale so they can compete on the
world market. In many cases they cannot build when they are
operating within one province. There are so many barriers to doing
business in other provinces which prevent the growth that is needed
in order for Canadian business people to succeed in international
trade.
This is almost unbelievable. It has become so bad that I have had
business people tell me it is easier for them to do business with
some states in the United States than it is with other provinces.
Some of them say: ``We are moving out. We do not want to move
out. We love this country. But we are moving out of this country
because if we do business in the United States then we have free
access to all Canadian provinces and we do not have to jump
through all the hoops which we would be required to if we were
doing business with the provinces from within a Canadian
province''. That is a sad commentary, but it is the truth.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to support my colleagues and the government in
passing this bill. I believe it will increase trade between the two
countries and generally will serve the interests of both the people of
Israel and the people of Canada.
However, I wish to deal with two objections which are normally
raised whenever there are bilateral agreements between states or
when there are agreements for regional free trade.
(1210 )
The first of these objections is that it diverts resources away
from the pursuit of overall free trade. This is true enough. No
government has infinite availability of experts to engage in trade
negotiations. It would in my judgment be the best of all possible
worlds if all trade barriers between all countries were removed.
However, generally I believe that the two targets of pursuing
both bilateral trade barrier reductions and universal reductions in
trade are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, while I would in a
perfect world rather have completely free trade, I am satisfied that
the negotiations of the Israel-Canada free trade agreement have not
slowed down progress on obtaining completely free trade
throughout the world through negotiations at the World Trade
Organization.
However, there is a very interesting and important other
objection that is often raised to bilateral agreements. It arose in the
post-war years when the club of Rome led to the integration of the
European economies. It involved a very subtle but interesting
counter intuitive argument.
If free trade is good then is it possible that free trade between just
two countries or within a region might in fact be bad and reduce
world output and welfare? This is a strange puzzle, one when it was
first developed by Jacob Viner in the 1930s. It almost threatened to
paralyze all economic research. Here we have a world full of
regulations, tariffs, domestic regulations and taxes, all of which are
distorting the free allocation and the efficient allocation of
resources as they would be in a completely free economy. Yet
people thought for a long time that if we could go slowly in the
reduction of such barriers, one at a time, by ultimately moving
toward a completely free economy we would therefore be on a
progressive movement toward increasing the efficiency of
allocation of resources and therefore living standards of people in
the world.
However, as Viner pointed out, that is not necessarily so. This
was his argument. He framed it in the context of trade between two
European countries but I will do it for the case of Israel. Let us
assume for a moment that right now the tariffs facing imports into
Israel both from Morocco and from Canada are the same and as a
result, because Morocco is the cheapest producer of this product,
trade is now taking place from Morocco importing into Israel and
Canada is left out. Let us now consider that when the tariff barrier
on that product comes down only on trade between Canada and
5350
Israel, it is possible that the imports from Morocco are replaced by
imports from Canada into Israel.
By definition, if previously when they both faced the same tariff
barriers, the production of that product in Morocco was the least
cost production location, the one which served the world best
because Israel got its product at the lowest price, therefore shifting
the production to Canada would mean a loss in productive
efficiency for the world. This is called trade diversion. It is a
negative aspect of moving in this world the way Canada did with
Israel by reducing trade barriers through bilateral agreement.
(1215)
Of course, there is another side to it. It can also be that the
reduction in the tariff barrier means that now the production will be
taking place between Israel and Canada, whereas before only Israel
was producing the product. There were no imports at all.
To repeat, the alternative is the lowering of the tariff barrier and
will result in the creation of trade between Canada and Israel, trade
which previously did not exist. By definition again, the product that
used to be produced at high cost behind the tariff barriers in Israel
will now be produced at a much lower cost in Canada and shipped
to Israel. That is what the free market says is done.
We face an empirical question: Are the benefits from trade
creation greater or smaller than the benefits from trade diversion?
It is not clear on purely logical grounds which of these effects will
dominate.
We can see why in the presence of such a puzzle in the post war
years economists were very upset. Logically, they could not say
anything any more about the benefits of any form of deregulation,
like the removal of tariff barriers, unless they had the empirical
evidence on how much more trouble was created rather than the
benefits that were created.
It turns out in an examination of the experience of the European
Economic Community, trade creation by far outweighed trade
diversion.
One of my students at Simon Fraser University wrote his
doctoral dissertation on asking whether the Government of
Pakistan had a net benefit from the greater growth that took place
in Europe as a result of unification of the common market, the
removal of tariff barriers between Germany and France and Italy,
than it had because some of its exports to Germany were replaced
by exports that previously were taken from France.
A careful study of trade patterns has shown that typically, trade
creation outweighs trade diversion. I am personally convinced that
this will be the case with Israel as it has been in Europe and almost
any other country that has been studied.
This effect is especially strong if at the same time the removal of
the barriers takes place, trade is created and wealth increases. As
countries get richer because of the more efficient allocation of
resources, they will trade more. This dynamic effect, as it is called,
of trade creation provides benefits that empirically have far
outweighed the effects of trade diversion.
Nevertheless, in my own mind there remain some problems. I
raised them with the people from the Department of Foreign
Affairs when they briefed us on this bill. There have to be very
tedious provisions for certification of the origin of goods that are
being traded.
For example, since there is free trade between Israel and Canada
but not between Pakistan and Canada, it is possible that Israel could
lend itself simply to taking products produced in Pakistan that are
transshipped through Israel and then, as a result of that, are moved
into Canada without having to face trade restrictions that we as a
country have imposed on Pakistan. Personally I think we are so rich
that we should remove them all.
(1220)
We have to face the fact that in the wisdom of this House many
years ago, some barriers were put up to trade with Pakistan. We
must somehow ensure they are maintained and are not
circumvented in a surreptitious way through the use of Israel as a
base to ship. As a result, there needs to be a bureaucratic
mechanism to assure Canada that all the products exported from
Israel to Canada are Israeli products.
That sounds fairly easy but the question is: What if a shirt comes
from Pakistan but it has no buttons and no buttonholes and an
Israeli factory makes the buttonholes, attaches the buttons and
packages the shirt? Is it now a Pakistani product, or is it an Israeli
product? This is one of the issues. Strict rules have to be put in
place, which are thought through, codified and enforced, as to what
level of value added in a country makes it okay to call the shirt an
Israeli product rather than a Pakistani product.
We can see how complex all of this is. Some products may be
coming from Europe. Complicated products may contain not just
Pakistani input but German input, and we have free trade with
Germany. There are all of those issues. One of the fears of people
who oppose bilateral free trade is that the amount of bureaucracy
with enforcement mechanisms and dispute resolution mechanisms
is very costly indeed.
What we really need is to remove these discriminatory tariffs as
they now exist where we give concessions to Israel but not to
5351
Pakistan. If we had given our benefit of free trade on these products
to Pakistan as well, this problem never would have arisen.
After looking at the evidence on all of those matters, I have
concerns over the growth of bureaucratic enforcement mechanisms
throughout the world, as Canada has bilateral agreements not just
with Israel but also with the European Community and Latin
American countries such as Chile and with NAFTA. It is becoming
a bureaucratic nightmare.
There are certain influential professions which have very good
lobbyists that benefit from all of this. They are the lawyers. They
are the organizations that certify this is the right kind of origin, that
this is okay. They will completely oppose free trade and say to go
ahead with bilateral free trade.
I will discount arguments of this sort and suggest that we should
continue to push along with as many bilateral free trade agreements
as we can obtain. When we are through and have a bilateral
agreement with every country, maybe then the time will come to
say: Why maintain anything at all? Let us move to total free trade.
That is my hope and this agreement is a step in that direction.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask my colleague from Capilano-Howe Sound since he is
an economist, what would some of the economic benefits be of
applying the global model on free trade to interprovincial trade? In
his speech, the hon. member for Vegreville mentioned
protectionism from province to province, job creation and the value
of eliminating barriers to interprovincial trade. Could the member
enlighten me on this issue?
(1225 )
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question. It is
absolutely ludicrous that it is advantageous for a Canadian
producer to set up shop abroad in order to have more ready, cheaper
access to the complete Canadian market than it is if the same
producer were located in Ontario or British Columbia. It is a
scandal. I do not see where it is in the interests of anyone in Canada
to encourage companies to do that.
We must get together and realize that everyone is losing. If a
company in Ontario which specializes in the production of a good
and can produce it really cheaply and sell it at a low price to a
government in Quebec, we are all better off when this takes place
rather than when a producer in Quebec which produces at a much
higher cost gets to supply the government with that product. Why?
Because we know there are also producers of specialized products
in Quebec that can produce more cheaply than anybody in Ontario.
So when the Ontario government wishes to buy that product, it too
will then be required to buy the cheapest, not just from the local
producer in Ontario.
Both Ontario and Quebec residents would be better off because
the products consumed by the government of those regions in most
cases would get the product at a lower cost. The employment
effects in one province would be matched by the employment
effects in the other province.
Why this simple idea has not penetrated the minds of politicians
in Canada is beyond me, even though I have sat here now for three
years and talked to politicians.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has magical powers that
only an economist has.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, does the member for Capilano-Howe Sound think that
another country's current track record on human rights violations
should have any bearing on the timing of Canada's signing of a free
trade agreement?
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, my training is in economics. I must
say that many other arguments are always advanced on why the
principle of free trade should be violated. It is not just human
rights. There are all kinds of other considerations. We hear in this
Chamber all the time that we must protect our culture. The list is
very long. I have always been very, very skeptical of the merit of
such arguments.
We heard this same government say that we should trade with
Cuba because the only way to stop its dictator, its gross violator of
human rights from carrying out his crimes is to open up the society
through trade, increased exchanges.
(1230)
The Americans of course are criticized heavily for saying it has
not worked and it will not work. The only thing that Castro will
understand is if he gets hurt in the pocketbook. Who is right? I do
not know. I have sat listening to American senators and
congressmen for hours on either side making very telling
arguments. And because of my difficulty of being able to make
these judgments and quantify them, I would say let us go for free
trade and let the chips fall on the other issues.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is always
with great pleasure and interest that I listen to economic statements
by my hon. colleague for Capilano-Howe Sound. A moment ago,
I appreciated the way he explained that trade should be based on
the most attractive price for the consumer. He said: ``If the price is
lower in Quebec, the Ontario government should buy from Quebec,
and vice versa''.
The question I want to ask him is: With the advent of a sovereign
Quebec, would he maintain the same position?
5352
[English]
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, I may not be right all the time but I
am consistent. On issues like that I like to be consistent, of course.
In my own judgment the best thing that Quebec can do is move
from its rather socialist current program to where the role of
government in Quebec is much smaller. If I were asked I would say
if Quebec tomorrow turned itself into the Hong Kong of North
America, welfare would shoot up enormously.
Imagine having a much lower tax rate because your services are
much smaller. Imagine having the lowest corporate tax rate in
North America. You would have so much capital flowing in
wanting to pay these low tax rates you would have higher revenue
than you have at the current rate. On top of that you would have
huge employment effects from all of them.
My problem is that I am not worried about Canada erecting trade
barriers to Quebec if it chose to be stupid enough to choose
sovereignty; what worries me is from the evidence that I have seen
coming from the French tradition of dirigisme from the French
tradition of big government, everything can be engineered to the
perfect world.
I am not optimistic that Quebec will choose to move in the
direction of being the Hong Kong of North America. I am worried
that Quebec will choose to be more like the Albania of North
America, and that saddens and worries me a great deal.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, coming
from Calgary, I believe in a market driven economy. I believe in
free enterprise. I believe in the law of supply and demand.
However, there are a lot of provinces in our confederation that
appear to favour supply management and supply management
tariffs. Would the member please outline for me what the argument
is by these provinces that believe in supply management tariffs and
supply management in protecting and preserving these rather than
eliminating these. What is the argument in keeping it and is it
hurting or helping Canadians?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Capilano-Howe
Sound, briefly.
Mr. Grubel: I have only a minute?
The Deputy Speaker: The member is a good economist and I
am sure he can do this in a minute and a half.
Mr. Grubel I have one choice. I can just refer my distinguished
colleagues to a little booklet I have published on this subject which
I was told has been used in undergraduate courses in this country. It
has put me in a lot of trouble with those interest groups that believe
that marketing boards are good for the consumer. That is, at any
rate, their line.
(1235)
I just cannot believe that a system increases the value of farms
and quotas to such an extent that it is now more costly to buy the
right to sell milk at an inflated price than it costs to buy the land,
the farm and the animals. There is something very wrong.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, an act to
amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act, as reported
with amendments from a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There is one motion in amendment listed
in the
Notice Paper at report stage of Bill C-5, an act to amend the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on.
I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-5, in Clause 104, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 39 on page 62
with the following:
``104. Section 177 of the Act is repealed.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on this
piece of legislation to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act,
and specifically on the clause relating to student loans. In fact, this
is why I decided to wear the crest of the university closest to my
riding, the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, which is located in
the riding of my colleague from Chicoutimi.
When an individual declares bankruptcy, the court usually
makes an order of discharge, which releases the individual from all
claims or, in other words, from his or her debts. However, section
178, appendix I, provides for six claims that are not released from
5353
by an order of discharge. The bankrupt is thus required to pay off
his or her debts in spite of his or her bankruptcy.
Clause 105 of the bill adds a paragraph to section 178 of the Act
that stipulates that any debt or obligation in respect of a loan made
under a federal or provincial student loans act cannot be discharged
if the bankruptcy occurred before the date on which the bankrupt
ceased to be a student or within two years after the date on which
the bankrupt ceased to be a student.
Everybody knows that it costs a lot of money to go to college or
university. The costs are constantly going up, year after year.
Students have to work and get a summer job. That is fine, except
that some students have trouble making both ends meet, and, at
times, this is almost impossible. They cannot repay their student
loans, which may reach around $30,000, or even higher for the
students who are from remote areas and have to move to Montreal,
for instance, to study and have to pay for an apartment, over and
above their tuition fees. All of this costs a lot of money.
(1240)
When there is no other way out, a student has the right, like any
individual or small business in this country, to go bankrupt.
However, this new bill says that they will no longer be able to do
so.
Some people may say: ``Of course, students go to university,
spend years studying and then, when the time comes to pay back
their student loans, they can look at all their debts and decide to go
bankrupt. And then, the government has to foot the bill''.
Of course, some may think that, but I have personally met with
members of student associations from Quebec, who told me this is
not so. Going bankrupt is not an option for them. You cannot think
that you can snap your fingers and all your student loans will have
disappeared. This is a very sensitive issue. Yes, there may have
some abuse in some areas, like anywhere else, but I think this is a
sensitive issue, because what we are talking about here is education
and that, to me, is not an expense for our country, or should I say
for both our countries, but rather an investment. But I do agree that
it is expensive.
This bill raises some concerns. Could it lead some students to be
afraid of attending post-secondary institutions? One has to wonder
about that, especially since ten years ago students had the right to
go bankrupt, that is obvious. But then, the situation back then was
different. After graduating from university, it was much easier for
students to find a job and therefore to repay their loans.
According to the government, there are much too many
bankruptcies today. These are not voluntary; people have no
choice. Most of the time, young people go bankrupt because they
cannot make both ends meet. Thus, it is rather a pity to look at the
situation this way.
Furthermore, we know there was some disagreement in the task
force, in particular concerning the special immunity for student
debts and its possible effect on access to higher education, as I
mentioned earlier.
So, why am I against the government's proposal? Clearly, the
government went along with the task force's proposal without
asking itself what really was behind this change. For the
government, mere fiscal considerations took precedence over the
logic of the proposal.
Is education an expense or an investment? Sure, when we
promise to cut the deficit, we have to make all kinds of cuts, I
agree, but cutting funding for education may not necessarily have a
negative impact now and allow us to boast, a couple of years from
now, that we have reduced the deficit. However, I worry-and this
is quite legitimate at my age-about possible negative effects in
the long run, since education is a long term investment.
Moreover, I think this proposal is discriminatory. The
government gives special treatment to student debts, which it does
not do for other similar categories of debts owed to the
government. Section 178 of the act lists other categories of debts
that cannot be released by an order of discharge.
However, these other categories apply to people such as
defrauders, convicted offenders who have to pay a fine, people who
default on their alimony payments, people who obtained property
under false pretences, and now the government is adding students
to that list. Wow! This is putting students who, I think, are the
future of our nation in the same boat with convicted offenders and
people who default on their alimony payments.
The government is including students in the same category as
these people who break the law and who do not respect court
orders. Treating students like this is totally unacceptable and
discriminatory.
(1245)
Moreover, this proposal was made without a careful study of the
situation. All the government did was look at the figures and say:
``The student bankruptcy rate is increasing and it must be because
of abuse. Therefore, we will take away their right to declare
bankruptcy''. It did not take a close look at what is really going on
and did not take the economic climate into account.
Some blamed students, saying that they party a lot, they travel,
etc. Not all students do that. Yes, some students are well off, they
use their parents' car to go to school and have no problem at all
going to university. But what concerns me is those who are not in
that situation and who will be affected by this bill. It is thought that
there are abuses, so it is decided to cut assistance to students, but
there has been no study or survey to look at what prompts students
or graduates to declare bankruptcy.
5354
Given the rate of unemployment and the economic difficulties
facing young people, it is somewhat cynical to claim that students
are deliberately declaring bankruptcy. Therefore, in the absence
of a serious study of the reasons why students or those who have
just completed their studies declare bankruptcy, it is completely
irresponsible to introduce a discriminatory, unfair and inequitable
measure on the mere strength of an increase in the number of
bankruptcies among those with student loans.
Furthermore, this increase is probably due to the poor economic
situation in which young people find themselves, to the high rate of
unemployment they are experiencing and to increases in tuition
fees that are not unrelated to federal government cuts. Members
will recall the Axworthy reform. I took part in a march to protest
these measures. All this is having the repercussions we see.
I could also speak about the last question I put to the Minister of
Human Resources Development about the Young Canada Works
Program. There were $60 million remaining and the government
did not seem to know where, to spend them is not how I should put
it, but to invest them. This is what makes me wonder today.
It is in light of these facts that we have moved the amendment to
eliminate this paragraph. I hope that the government will not turn a
deaf ear and that it will keep one foot in reality. We have been told
that a university education is an investment in our future that will
lead to a job. I would agree that that is still the case and I
recommend it. But the good old days are gone, and now that the
economic situation is worse, we are making it harder for students.
We will therefore vote against this bill, unless our amendment is
carried.
[English]
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, the hon. member raised some interesting points
on this motion. In particular, he spoke about the bankruptcy of
students and the problems that arise in the student population. The
government is well aware of the financing which students get
during the time it takes them to get a university degree. Many times
students spend large sums of money to get university degrees.
However, once a student gets the degree, that is not the time for
the student to automatically declare bankruptcy to wipe out the
loan. There is a grace period for the first six months after the
student leaves university. No payment has to be made. After that
first six months, if the student is not in a financial position to make
payments and meets the criteria of the legislation, the student can
get an extension of that grace period for another 18 months, making
it a full two years that a student does not have to make payments on
the student loan.
Statistics show that 70 per cent of students who go bankrupt do
so during that first two-year period. They are going bankrupt
during a period when there is no financial pressure on students to
pay back. They have a six-month period of grace and they can get a
further 18-month extension.
(1250)
The argument of the hon. member is quite fallacious. He is
saying that students are having difficulties in the first two years
after completing studies or leaving university. It is not a wilful
abuse by the students. However one has to question declaring
bankruptcy during a period of time when there is not a requirement
for making payments. It is for that reason we have a two-year
period that is required before a student can go through bankruptcy.
That is why it has been structured as such in the legislation.
The hon. member stated that the government must remain
connected to reality. That is exactly what we have done. The reality
is that students should not be going through bankruptcy and
declaring their student loans in a bankruptcy if there is no financial
pressure on students to do this. There is no requirement for them to
make the payments during the first two-year period. Their going
through bankruptcy is really not reality. We are bringing this matter
back into reality.
It is interesting to note that the opposition to this portion of the
bill has not been raised by the students, it has been raised by the
hon. member opposite. The students have not been opposed to the
two-year period and have not raised opposition at the committee
level to this requirement.
I believe many students realize that there is reality. Students
realize they have obligations. Many of them who graduate from
university have one of the finest assets that can be had. The asset is
a degree. It is a ticket to other employment. Allowing them to
automatically be able to wipe out such a debt when there is not
pressure on them would be grossly unfair.
As well, the amendment would repeal section 177 of the act. It
deals with fraudulent marriage contract settlements as being
grounds where the court can refuse to discharge a bankrupt
individual. Let me read a portion of section 177: ``If the debtor
becomes bankrupt and it appears to the court that the settlement, et
cetera, was made in order to defeat or delay his creditors, the court
may refuse or suspend an order of discharge or grant an order
subject to conditions in like manner as in cases where the bankrupt
has been guilty of fraud''.
Surely the hon. member does not want this portion of the
legislation to be wiped out. Surely the courts should be allowed,
when there are such fraudulent actions, to be able to defeat such
5355
individuals from trying to take this action and prevent them from
defeating or delaying creditors who have legitimate claims.
The hon. member's motion would repeal this condition. It would
be grossly unfair if a debtor could become bankrupt but has made a
fraudulent arrangement in a marriage settlement just to defeat
creditors. This is not what we want to see in bankruptcy legislation.
This is not what we want to see in our laws.
This legislation will prevent that from happening. It will prevent
fraudulent actions such as this. As well, the bankruptcy legislation
will prevent students who are not under financial pressure from
going into bankruptcy during the first two years.
I should not put it that broadly because students can go into
bankruptcy within the first two years. They would just not be able
to declare the student loan as part of the bankruptcy. They may
have other debts, and that is fine. They can deal with those but not
with the student loan itself.
(1255 )
For the reasons I have indicated in dealing with the fraudulent
marriage contract settlements and the provision in section 177 that
would allow courts to not allow such settlements and for the
reasons dealing with the student loans which I have indicated to the
House, the government is opposed to this motion. It is the
government position that this motion is fallacious and should not
be passed.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I believe I am in need of a reality check here this morning.
The Bloc Quebecois brings in an amendment to deal with
fraudulent use of marriage and then the first speech is on student
loans and student bankruptcies. The amendment tabled dealing
with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Creditors
Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act, as the hon.
parliamentary secretary mentioned, deals with the fraudulent
representation of marriage. The amendment proposes that Bill C-5
repeal section 177 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Reform opposes this Bloc amendment. Before I discuss why we
oppose it, I believe it is important for the House to understand the
purpose of section 177 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Section 177 sets out two situations that could result in a court
refusing, suspending or granting a conditional discharge from
bankruptcy.
These situations are: first, where the bankrupt made a settlement
before or in consideration of marriage and at the time of making the
settlement he or she was unable to pay all of his or her debts
without the use of the property involved in the settlement; second,
where the bankrupt made a covenant or a contract in consideration
of marriage for the future settlement of property that would and
should be available as security for creditors.
Where it appears to the court that this type of settlement,
covenant or contract was made to defeat or delay creditors or was
unjustifiable at the time it was made because of the poor financial
state of the debtor, the court can refuse, suspend or order a
conditional discharge.
This seems entirely appropriate to me. If section 177 is repealed,
the door is left open for people to commit fraud, to play fast and
loose with their creditors. In fact, are we not saying if section 177 is
repealed that fraudulent behaviour is okay, that our society accepts
this kind of behaviour.
I do not think anyone would agree that tolerating this kind of
behaviour is a good idea. Fraud is a crime. I believe that the
legislation should more and more point to the open and
straightforward method of doing business that all people
understand, appreciate and can live with.
Prevention of fraud can be insured through deterrence.
Deterrence keeps this kind of activity from occurring when
potential offenders, considering the consequences, decide that to
honour their obligations is the best course of action to follow.
Section 177 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provides a
deterrence against those who would unfairly short change their
creditors under the circumstances outlined in this section of the act.
People should not be using marriage as a means to avoid creditors.
Section 177 is consistent with other sections of the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act dealing with transactions that take place prior to
bankruptcy.
For example, section 91(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act provides that any settlement of property that takes place within
a year before a bankruptcy is still open to the trustee. Section 91(2)
provides that any settlement that takes place within five years
before a bankruptcy is void if the trustee can prove that the settler
required the property included in the settlement to pay his or her
debts at the time of making that settlement.
(1300)
These measures along with section 177 are designed to deal with
situations where debtors transfer property to defeat or delay or
defraud their creditors.
If we eliminate section 177 of the BIA, what does it say about
these other sections of the act as well? It really creates a double
standard. It seems to me that what we are saying here is use
marriage as a means to unfairly shelter assets from bankruptcy. But
it cannot be done under the circumstances outlined in sections
91(1) or 91(2).
Section 177 is needed to safeguard against people using
marriage inappropriately to commit fraud. It is also needed to
protect
5356
the standard that says no fraud under any circumstances will be
tolerated. Section 177, however, does leave the court discretion.
The courts may decide.
As members of the House and particularly of the Industry
committee will know, I am one of the people who believe that our
legislation should not always leave discretion to the minister, to the
superintendent of bankruptcies. I would like to see these sections
tightened up. But the committee of the House has decided against
that. However, I am in favour of this discretionary aspect of section
177.
There are circumstances where the court may decide that what
the debtor has done is entirely fair, but this discretion should be left
with the courts and section 177 should remain.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until
Monday when the House returns at the end of Government Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote is deferred until Monday when
the House returns after the expiry of government business.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we agree, except that it cannot be
deferred until two days later; I believe it needs to be quite simply
deferred until the next sitting of the House.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: If the member discusses this with his
colleague, I am sure there will not be a problem.
[Translation]
It can be done promptly.
[English]
For the record, I believe it is agreeable to one and all that this
matter be deferred until Monday, October 21, when the House
resumes.
* * *
On the Order: Government Orders:
September 19, 1996-The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food-Second
reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food of
Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian food inspection agency and to repeal and
amend other acts as a consequence.
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian food inspection agency and to
repeal certain and amend other acts as a consequence, be referred forthwith to the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
(1305 )
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased
to speak on Bill C-60, the Canadian food inspection agency act.
The creation of this agency is a good example of the
government's commitment to better service for Canadians, food
safety and that quality remains a top priority for Canadians.
An integrated approach at the federal level, as provided by this
new bill, will improve our overall efficiency and effectiveness.
Canada enjoys the enviable international reputation for excellence
in producing and supplying some of the safest and highest quality
food products in the world. A major pillar of that reputation is our
stringent world class inspection and quarantine service.
However, mounting pressures including increased imports,
changing export markets, new technologies, higher rates of
production and continuing fiscal restraints are demanding new
ways of delivering food inspection and animal and plant health
programs that are more efficient, more scientific and more
internationally compatible.
Today one-quarter of Canada's food production goes for export
while one-fifth of the food we eat is imported. As part of our
responsibility for ensuring a safe food supply for Canadians, we are
involved in more than 1,000 inspection and quarantine agreements
worldwide.
Here in Canada an integral network of responsibilities has
developed over the years covering food production, manufacturing,
distribution, retail, import and export and involving industry at all
levels and government.
At the federal level, three different departments have roles to
play, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada and
5357
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The introduction of this bill
represents an innovative step forward by the Canadian government
in its desire to get things right.
As the Minister of Finance announced in the 1996 budget, Bill
C-60 proposes the creation of a Canadian food inspection agency to
be responsible for delivering and enforcing all federally mandated
inspection and quarantine services and animal and plant health
programs.
The agency, which could be up and running by early 1997, will
be a stand alone organization reporting to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food. At the same time, responsibility for
setting food safety standards and auditing the enforcement of food
safety regulations will be consolidated and enhanced within Health
Canada. This re-organization will have many benefits for all
stakeholders in the food sector, consumers, industry and
governments.
It will reduce overlap and duplication between the federal
departments and set the stage for a more integrated Canadian food
inspection and quarantine service. It will provide a single focal
point for food inspection and quarantine services and help make the
government more responsive to the needs of its clients. It will
ensure the continued safety of Canada's food supply and help
maintain our international reputation for safety and quality. It will
facilitate the use of more efficient and up to date food inspection
and quarantine technologies, and it will help lay the foundation for
enhanced Canadian access to critical import international
marketplace.
Federal food inspection services and animal and plant health
programs currently involve over 5,000 people and cost more than
$400 million a year. Consolidating these services in a single agency
will allow us to achieve savings of $44 million annually and will
make it easier for the industry, the provinces and the consumers to
deal with the Government of Canada on food inspect and
quarantine matters.
Let me underline that food safety will continue to be our top
priority. In fact, the fundamental principle of this re-organization is
that food safety cannot and will not be compromised. This means
that Canadians will be assured of continuing high safety standards
and stringent enforcement of our food safety regulations.
At the same time, the new agency will bring a more unified
approach to enforcement of federal food inspection and quarantine
regulations across this country. The agency will also help Canadian
food firms implement a hazard analysis and a critical control point
for the HACCP system.
(1310)
Canada is a world leader in the implementation of HACCP
which is internationally recognized as the best system available to
ensure the safety of food products. Our department has $11 million
in adaptation funding to help small and medium size businesses
adapt to the system.
By continuing under the new agency to move to more scientific
and updated systems such as HACCP we will achieve greater
assurance of food safety for Canadians and improve international
market access for Canadian businesses. That market access is
another very important benefit of the new agency.
With more liberal trading agreements such as NAFTA and the
World Trade Organization as well as rapid population and income
growth in developing regions like Asia Pacific, international trade
in all food products is booming. The Canadian food inspection
agency will ensure that exporters of different types of food
products will be able to deal with one contact for inspection and
quarantine services.
By moving forward with harmonization of international
standards the agency will help improve the compatibility of food
inspection and quarantine requirements and reduce the possibility
of artificial trade barriers based on sanitary and phyto-sanitary
measures, an increasing problem for Canadian exporters.
These changes in the federal food inspection and quarantine
services are the result of two years of extensive consultations with
industry and the provinces. Over 60,000 newsletters and fact sheets
have been distributed to stakeholders around the country. The
proposed agency has received widespread support from the private
sector and provinces.
At our annual meeting in July, federal, provincial and territorial
agriculture ministers not only offered unanimous support for the
Canadian food inspection agency, they also endorsed further
development of a more comprehensive Canadian food inspection
system that would involve all levels of government and which
would respect appropriate governmental jurisdictions.
A Canadian food inspection system implementation group of
federal, provincial, territorial and municipal representatives is now
working with the industry in a variety of other areas which include
the national dairy code, a food retail established code, a meat,
poultry and fish code, and a transportation practices protocol.
The drive toward a Canadian food inspection system, one of
eight initiatives to improve and strengthen the efficiency of our
Canadian federation, was highlighted by the first ministers last
June as the leading example of how we are renewing the Canadian
federation and improving the way that provinces and the Canadian
government work together in the best interests of all citizens.
As we continue to move forward on the long overdue
reorganization of Canada's food inspection and quarantine
services, our challenge and our commitment is to ensure that
Canada maintains
5358
its high standards of food safety and quality while improving the
efficiency and reducing the cost to the taxpayer.
I believe the creation of the Canadian food inspection agency
will be a major step in that direction.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
are certain positive elements in Bill C-60, an act to establish the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other
Acts as a consequence, which we are looking at this afternoon.
The idea of creating a national agency is a good one in itself.
Reducing the duplication in services of the three departments,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada and Fisheries
and Oceans Canada will bring about savings.
We in the Bloc have long been calling for elimination of the
duplication between the various departments. However, the
Liberals' strategy of referring this bill to a committee before
second reading prevents us from making any constructive
amendments to Bill C-60 at this point.
(1315)
For instance, there seems to be some latent patronage with
respect to the appointment of agency executives. Under clause 5,
the president and the executive vice-president shall be appointed by
the governor in council.
We all know what it means when someone is appointed by the
governor in council. These are friends of the government, like
former minister André Ouellet, for instance, and we can refer to
him by name since he has left the House, who was appointed to an
executive position with a fantastic salary. The process is not
exactly transparent.
Appointments should be made in accordance with the rules of
the House and should be examined before the Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food. Staff should be hired on the basis of
competence, not on a partisan basis. Just because someone is a
card-carrying member of the Liberal Party does not mean he is
competent. Of course, just because someone is a card-carrying
member does not mean he is incompetent, but being a member of
the party should not be a conditio sine qua non.
So the Bloc Quebecois cannot give its approval to what is, in
fact, an opportunity for patronage, because it would also mean
approving of government interference in areas under provincial
jurisdiction.
Still on the subject of political appointments, we can read the
following in clause 10 of Bill C-60:
10.(1) The Minister shall appoint an advisory board of not more than twelve
members to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years.
Again, this is unacceptable, for two reasons. First, here again it
is the minister who appoints those who will sit on the advisory
board. Second, this means that Quebec has no guarantees as to its
representation on this board.
A little further we read in clauses 12 and 13:
12. The Agency is a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations
Act.
However, in clause 13, it says:
13.(1) The President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.
Now, the president is appointed on a partisan basis, and he is
supposed to appoint the employees of the agency. We will have to
see how these appointments are made and whether the process is
politically proper.
In clause 16, we read that the agency may procure goods and
services from outside the public service, including legal services.
Of course these bills are drafted by lawyers, and a good lawyer
looks after his own. So the agency will be able to procure legal
services as it sees fit.
In clauses 20 and 21 there are two more issues we could raise.
First, if federal agreements are entered into, we must ensure that
Quebec does not end up in a position where it indirectly subsidizes
the food inspection services obtained from the federal government
by a province or provinces.
If a service is provided to another province by the federal
government, it will be necessary to ensure that the work done in
this province is not done with federal money. Otherwise, Quebec
taxpayers will be paying for services in other provinces.
(1320)
Two examples come to mind, including the RCMP. Everyone
knows that, in Canada, two provinces-Quebec and Ontario-have
their own police force: the OPP in Ontario and the SQ in Quebec,
while the federal government, through the RCMP, provides police
services to municipalities and also to other provinces. Well, do you
know, dear colleagues, that Quebec foots part of the bill for the
services rendered by the RCMP in the maritimes and in the western
provinces? Ontario does also.
The federal government recovers only about 75 per cent of the
real costs of the services provided, through the RCMP, to provinces
and municipalities. The other 25 per cent are paid by all the
provinces, including, of course, Quebec and Ontario. Since Quebec
pays 24 per cent of federal taxes, it can be assumed that, we are
subsidizing 24 per cent of that 25 per cent for RCMP services in
provinces and territories other than Quebec and Ontario. This is an
example of unfair treatment.
Similarly, Quebec, which harmonized its sales tax with the
federal GST four years ago, must again pay 24 per cent of the $960
million which the federal government gave to the maritimes so
they could harmonize their provincial sales tax with the GST, while
we got nothing. We did not get a cent to harmonize our sales tax
with the GST.
5359
Those are two examples of unfair treatment. This agency should
not be a further source of unfairness.
Secondly, care must be taken to ensure that clause 71 does not
open the door to any other form of federal interference in areas
under provincial jurisdiction. The Canadian Federation of
Agriculture said, and I quote: ``Bill C-60 states that the
compensation to be paid to cattle owners following the destruction
of their animals or things under the Health of Animals Act must be
taken from the Consolidated Revenue Fund''.
For example, if your herd is hit by brucellosis and a decision is
made to destroy the whole herd, the Consolidated Revenue Fund
must compensate the loss. The CFA goes even farther, considering
that the cost incurred for cure, quarantine, cleaning and
replacement of damaged or destroyed goods, restocking, etc.,
should be included and mentioned in the bill, and included in
clause 71. Such a clause will guarantee that farmers will not be
disadvantaged because they reported their cattle to be ill.
As agriculture critic, I worked with a farmer living near
Rivière-du-Loup whose flock developed scrapie. The quarantine
imposed was not 40 days, as most Canadians probably think, but
five years. During this time, the farmer could not sell, kill, eat or
make money in any way with his sheep. Most farmers must
withdraw from business when confronted to that situation.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois will propose a series of
amendments to Bill C-60 to try to improve it. We will also invite
the government party to co-operate so this bill will benefit the
general public.
(1325)
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to make a few comments on this bill.
This is a bill which if passed will implement a food inspection
agency that should be streamlined somewhat. What really scares
me is that the agriculture minister is going to be in control of this
agency. When I see that it has taken three years for the agriculture
minister to decide that we are going to have a referendum on barley
marketing and within those three years he still has not been able to
come up with a proper question on what to ask farmers, I am just
wondering how he is going to regulate this big agency and how cost
effective it will be.
When the new agency comes into effect in 1997 it will become
one of Ottawa's largest bureaucracies with 4,500 employees and a
budget of $300 million. That is a lot of peanuts, $300 million for a
regulatory body. When we look at deficit reduction and we look at
the total debt in this country of $600 billion I guess it is the
Liberals' idea that another $300 million is not that significant.
Federal officials contend that ending the interdepartmental
overlap and duplication in such areas as enforcement, risk
management, laboratory services, informatic systems and
communications will save taxpayers $44 million annually starting
in 1998-99. It always astounds me that whenever we see
projections and they are somewhat down the road we can usually
expect that somehow the manipulation of the system will be there
so that they can come within that figure even when it means
transferring costs to other agencies. However the detailed
breakdown of this estimate has not yet been provided by the
government. That is interesting.
Also, no decisions have been made on the staff reductions or
details given on the new agency's surplus laboratories. There is a
lot of money involved in those laboratories. What is going to
happen to them is a big question. I hope the government finally
realizes that if there is going to be disposable assets that it gets a
fair market value for them.
Although the Reform Party supports consolidating and
downsizing the operations of the federal government, we fear that
this bill will accomplish little except to shuffle names and titles.
Instead the government should be considering the advantages of
privatizing a significant portion of Canada's food, plant and animal
inspection services.
This is one of the big issues we have been debating for the last
three years, harmonizing and privatizing. We know that each
province has its own inspection services and there is always
conflict between the two agencies. It is time we realized that
harmonization has to happen or the conflict will increase and we
will spend more dollars instead of less.
Only $40 million or 13.3 per cent of the agency's $300 million
budget is currently cost recovered. The agency already plans to
dramatically increase this amount to more than $70 million. We
know who is going to bear these costs. It is going to be the
taxpayer, the processor or the primary producer. It is tremendously
important that we start downsizing and becoming more efficient
and productive in these agencies as well as in our food processing
and primary production.
Where the Reform Party supports user pay and cost recovery, the
cost of the service must reflect the true costs of providing the
service and not the added expense of maintaining the government
bureaucracy. The bill should ensure that a greater priority is placed
on cost avoidance and cost reduction. This is important as the
agency created by this bill will be responsible for enforcing and
administrating several federal statutes which regulate food, animal
and plant health and related products. These include the Feed Act,
5360
the Fertilizer Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat Inspection
Act, the Plant Breeders Rights Act and the Seeds Act.
(1330)
This bill will also continue to centralize authority for food
inspection in the hands of the federal government. The Reform
Party believes the government should acknowledge that since the
provinces already provide many of these same inspection services,
the emphasis should be on decentralization and encouraging
common inspection standards.
For these reasons the Reform Party opposes the bill.
Turning to the bill itself, we have specific concerns. Provisions
in the bill seem to create an environment for empire building.
Clause 5 of the bill states that the governor in council shall
appoint a president and an executive vice-president to the new
agency. These individuals will be responsible for the day to day
operations of the agency and will provide advice to the minister on
matters relating to the mandate of the agency. There is no mention
of the qualifications which will be required by these people. This
type of situation opens itself up to pork barrel politics.
Clause 8 of the bill states that the president and the executive
vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as is fixed by the
governor in council. We do not even know the salary amounts for
these two positions.
Clause 10 states that each member of the advisory board shall be
paid such fees for his or her services as are fixed by the minister.
Again, we cannot tell Canadian taxpayers how much they will be
paying for these salaries.
This is a very good example of what we are experiencing with
the Canadian Wheat Board. We have appointed commissioners
who have received severance packages. We do not know what those
severance packages are. There are positions which have pension
plans and nobody really knows what the cost is. When I look at this
regulatory agency which is being set up very much like the
Canadian Wheat Board, I find it to be scary.
I know also that the Manitoba food inspection agency is always
in conflict with the federal agency. It is costing us jobs. It is costing
us exports. For example, there is a small sausage manufacturing
plant in my constituency. The manufacturer is allowed to sell his
product all across Manitoba; however, he cannot sell it to federal
agencies, such as CN or the military. I do not know why it would
pose a health risk to the federal agencies; Manitobans eat the
sausage and it is delicious. I am told that we could save almost a
dollar a kilogram if people in the federal agencies ate the Manitoba
sausage instead of importing sausages from federal agencies in a
different province.
If we want to become efficient and if we want to harmonize, we
do not have to harmonize just with foreign countries, we have to
harmonize within our own boundaries. We have to make sure it is
cost effective and that the taxpayer as well as the primary producer
gets the benefit. We should also give a break to the processors.
They are the people who are creating the jobs. It is the small
businessmen and the entrepreneurs who really make this industrial
machine work.
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to rise today, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, to speak to the motion requesting that Bill C-60, an act to
establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, be referred to the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food before second
reading.
(1335)
This bill is the starting point of a very important journey. The
plans for the trip began in March 1996, when we were preparing the
budget speech; at that moment, our government stated for the first
time its commitment to establish an agenda aimed at finding
alternative solutions for the delivery of programmes, at finding the
most efficient and least expensive way to carry out programs and
provide services.
This journey is an important part of that agenda and it will lead
us to the creation of a unique food inspection agency, gathering
under one roof all the activities previously performed by three
different federal departments. Our government knows some of the
important port of calls where it will have to stop along the way.
[English]
The Canadian fishery is an important contributor to national
import and export activities. In addition to considerable domestic
consumption of Canadian fish and fish products, substantial
markets exist for Canadian products abroad. Fully 84 per cent of
fish and seafood caught by Canadians is destined for foreign
markets.
Similarly, markets exist within Canada for fish species that are
not indigenous to Canadian waters. Some 50 per cent of the fish
and seafood consumed in Canada is imported. To support these
high import and export figures and to promote confidence both at
home and overseas in fish destined for human consumption, this
government is committed to ensuring that fish inspection policies
within this new agency retain the prominence and the high
standards that they now have as part of fisheries and oceans.
In order for any food inspection service to meet the needs of its
many client groups not the least of which are consumers, ensuring
food safety for all Canadians must be the first priority. A new
agency must uphold the excellent reputation of existing inspection
5361
services to ensure the safety of products consumed by the Canadian
public whether these products originate in Canada or elsewhere.
[Translation]
As we know, since at least 84 per cent of all fish caught in
Canada is destined for foreign consumers, a new inspection agency
will also have to improve and guarantee access to foreign markets
for our products.
We must assure our foreign trading partners that Canadian sea
products are of good quality and meet the requirements of strict
regulations. That means we will have to keep up the excellent work
that Fisheries and Oceans is doing now in the area of fish
inspection.
Finally, to reach these goals in a period of budgetary cuts, we
will, of course, have to maintain a certain form of cost recovery so
that those benefitting from the inspection services will pay part of
the costs.
The new single food inspection agency, which will become a
reality if the bill is passed, stops in each one of these ports of call,
that is to say that it takes into account all these needs while drawing
on new approaches for the delivery of inspection services, many of
them initiated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and
creating new opportunities for the future.
We all know that the Canadian fish inspection program is world
renowned. We must keep this reputation, and we will, since the new
agency will be operating from such a solid foundation.
The bill enshrines the quality management program and the new
importer quality management program, which are based on the
premise that food safety is the main concern.
(1340)
The new agency will rely on highly specialized fish inspectors,
who are currently controlling the industry's quality management
systems, ensuring their efficiency.
[English]
The new single food inspection agency will also be forward
looking. It will create a food inspection regime that consolidates
inspection activities at the federal level. It will enhance ease of
access for products to foreign markets. It will facilitate greater
collaboration between the various levels of government in Canada,
providing the basis for equivalency of standards and programs. It
will simultaneously reduce overlap and duplication while
promoting a more efficient and effective service delivery system.
This government is fully cognizant of the necessity of maintaining
open and frequent dialogue with the new agency's many clients.
This we will do.
As Canadians grow and their needs change, the government also
evolves to continue to meet their needs. We are committed to doing
things differently and the Canadian food inspection agency
represents a significant step in this direction.
We all recognize that this is an opportunity whose time has
come. As Secretary of State for Fisheries and Oceans as well as for
Agriculture and Agri-Food, I remain certain that the fish inspection
system will be enhanced within this new agency.
[Translation]
Our journey is starting now with the passing of this important
bill establishing a canadian food inspection agency. I believe it will
result in the setting up of a agency, which will see to the efficient
and effective implementation of a world class food inspection
program.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise and talk about Bill C-60, an Act to establish the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other
Acts as a consequence.
The need for a federal food inspection agency comes from
pressure exerted by municipal and provincial governments, the
agricultural sector, fisheries and even consumers. The setting up of
a single unit in the area of food inspection was therefore awaited
anxiously.
Very often those who must deal with the federal system of food
inspection do not know to which agency they should refer. Indeed,
the present system of federal inspection is such that they must deal
with several departments or agencies including Agriculture
Canada, Fisheries and Oceans as well as Health Canada. These
three departments account for more than $340 million annually in
expenditures by the Consolidated Revenue Fund for food
inspection.
The creation of a public agency responsible for all federal
inspection services was announced in the 1996-97 Budget. This
announcement has raised great expectations, and Bill C-60 should
now answer them. Unfortunately, the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency the federal government is proposing is rather disappointing
if you consider its structure, its make up and its mandate.
According to senior officials responsible for setting up the
project, the proposed agency is a model of originality. There is no
similar agency in the world. However, originality is not necessarily
what provinces, municipalities and the agricultural and fishery
sectors hoped to get in answer to their requests. These people
wanted an end to duplication and in particular they did not want to
assume the cost of an agency whose efficiency has yet to be proven.
Bill C-60 says that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is
established ``in order to consolidate and enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of federal inspection services related to food and
5362
animal and plant health and to increase collaboration with
provincial governments in this area''. All this is hot air, good
intentions and window dressing.
(1345)
In reality, the future agency will be a patronage haven created to
reward the friends of the government of the day. The evidence is in
clause 5 of the bill which provides that: ``The Governor in Council
shall appoint a President and an Executive Vice-president of the
Agency to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding five
years, which term may be renewed for one or more further terms''.
We see clearly this appointment procedure is designed to ensure the
executive power's political loyalty to the government. This
procedure is arbitrary, unfair and highly partisan. It calls into
question the objectivity of decisions and actions that will be taken
by the future federal food inspection agency. That is what must be
expected from the agency.
That is not all. The agency will also have an advisory board of
not more than twelve members who this time will be appointed by
the minister responsible for the agency. This absolute discretionary
power will probably be given to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, since it is he who gave us Bill C-60.
What we must understand in all this is that the choice of policies
relating to the agency's mandate will thus be determined by the
minister's friends. Once again, this appointment procedure is
totally unacceptable. It does not respond in any way to the
expectations of provincial and municipal governments and of the
people in the farming sector and fisheries.
Furthermore, the membership of this famous advisory board
does not provide any guarantee as to the representation of the
farming and fisheries sectors on the committee, and even less about
the involvement of the provinces and municipalities.
How will the agency be able, as is mentioned in Bill C-60, to
pursue a greater degree of collaboration between federal and
provincial departments in the area of federal food inspection if the
provinces are not permanently represented on the agency? The
provinces have their say in this future agency.
At this time, there is no guarantee that they will have a forum
where they may heard, and most of all, there is no guarantee that
they will be able to actively participate in decisions that will be
taken. These decisions affect them directly and we should not
ignore the total lack of judgment the government is showing in this
issue.
When we look at the mission of the agency, it is not more
reassuring. It says that the Minister of Health is responsible, among
other things, for establishing policies and standards relating to the
safety and the nutritional quality of food sold in Canada. This
prerogative given to the Minister of Health allows him to interfere
directly in fields of provincial jurisdiction by setting standards and
regulations, which will be applied all across Canada. These powers
belong rightfully to the provinces and not to the federal
government. This situation must be strongly condemned.
Much was expected from the creation of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency. Once again, the federal government is
disappointing us. What we are offered today is obviously, another
example of patronage. Once again, the provinces are being pushed
aside and, moreover, the government is making sure that it controls
everything by exercising provincial powers.
Nobody in the agriculture and fishing sectors, including the
provinces and the municipalities, was expecting such a
disappointment. They expected at least to be true partners in the
decision-making process. This is not the case. Bill C-60 introduced
by the Minister of Agriculture has every possible flaw and we must
scrap it.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a lifelong farmer and
a member of Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River, it is a pleasure
to have this chance to speak on Bill C-60, the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency Act.
Food inspection and quarantine services have always been a
priority in Canada. Canada has one of the most effective food
inspection and quarantine systems in the world. In fact, Canadian
confidence in quality and safety-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member,
but the Chair has made an error. It should not have been the
parliamentary secretary who spoke but it should have been the
member for Vegreville. Forgive me.
(1350 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
few comments on Bill C-60, the act that would put in place the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
The stated purpose of this bill is to establish the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency in order to consolidate and enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of the federal inspection services
related to food, animal and plant health and to increase
collaboration with provincial governments in this area.
Specifically, the bill sets out the new agency's framework in
terms of responsibilities, accountability, organization, human and
financial resources, powers and reporting. The bill also amends
some of the enforcement provisions and penalties in federal
statutes that the agency will enforce or administer in relation to
food, plants and animal health.
When the new Canadian Food Inspection Agency begins
operation in 1997 it will become one of Ottawa's largest
bureaucratic entities with 4,500 civil servants and a budget of $300
million. Federal officials contend that ending interdepartmental
overlap and duplication in such areas as enforcement, risk
management,
5363
laboratory services, informatic systems and communications will
save taxpayers $44 million annually beginning in 1998-99.
However, a detailed breakdown of this estimate has not been
provided by the government. No decision has been made on staff
reductions or the new agency's surplus laboratories. We have a
broad statement of cost, a broad statement of savings and no
specifics whatsoever.
When we are working with legislation that creates a new
bureaucracy of 4,500 employees with an estimated budget of $300
million we should have a lot more detail. I am not talking about
minute detail, but about a statement that really explains how the
money will be spent and how money will be saved. That has clearly
not been offered in this legislation.
The government departmental estimates on cost are $300 million
but we should know from history that departmental estimates are
rarely accurate. It would be a rare occasion indeed. I have seen
many new agencies created and I do not know if I have seen one
that has come in on budget. I would feel much more comfortable
that this agency would come in on budget if some information were
given to show how the money would be spent.
I want to make it clear that the Reform Party supports the
consolidation and downsizing of federal government operations but
this bill will accomplish little except for the shuffling of names and
titles. Instead, the government should be considering the
advantages of privatizing a significant portion of Canada's food,
plant and animal inspection services. The Reform Party has been
calling for this since the day we came here.
We should consider how much of this service can be privatized
so the service can be provided at a lower cost to the people who
need the services. At the same time I acknowledge it is very
important to ensure the services that are privatized can be done
more efficiently, in a less expensive way and safely.
With a saving of $40 million or 13 per cent of the agency's $300
million budget, that 13 per cent is currently cost recovered. The
concept of cost recovery that the Reform Party proposes, and that I
personally heard being recommended by many processors,
particularly processors of agricultural products, is quite different
from what this government proposes.
(1355 )
Reform proposes that cost recovery should reflect the lowest
cost at which the service can be provided, whether it is in the hands
of the private sector or the government. I believe that in some
cases, the private sector can provide very high quality service for
less money than government can. In other cases, it may be found
that the department can provide the service at a lower cost. It is not
clear which services could be provided better by the private sector
or by the department. I do not know of any study or any work
having been done on this.
The government's idea of cost recovery is totally different than
the Reform idea. The Reform idea is cost recovery at the lowest
price. If it can be done for less money with high quality then give it
to that group or person to do.
The second major issue I would like to touch on in this
legislation concerns the authority of the provincial governments
versus the federal government. The federal government has
decided that the way to end overlap between the federal and
provincial governments is to centralize the complete service in the
hands of the federal government. This is certainly in line with what
Liberal governments have done over the years.
Liberal MPs have generally accepted that Canadians like big
government. Along with big government comes high taxes. I
contend that Canadians want a much smaller government, lower
taxes, more take home pay and therefore a much better job
situation in the country. There are two visions of Canada. There is
the vision held by the Liberals and Conservatives which has been
demonstrated over the years. They believe in big government, high
taxes, low take home pay. Then there is the Reform vision which I
believe is shared by many Canadians: a much smaller federal
government with much lower taxes and higher take home pay,
therefore, a better take home pay.
Unfortunately, with this legislation the government has chosen
the large government, high tax route. The legislation will place a
great burden on the taxpayer and on processors who are paying cost
recovery.
The Speaker: My colleague, I see that you are right in the
middle of your speech. Rather than cut you off in about a minute
and a half, I thought I would let you take up right after question
period. You will have a full three minutes then.
It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
5363
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Fanshawe College is an excellent community college located in my
riding of London-Middlesex.
In September a team of their student chefs represented Canada at
the 1996 International Culinary Olympics in Berlin. They
competed against 30 teams from around the world and won a silver
medal for Canada.
Congratulations to the six student chefs: Nicholas Burrell, Julie
de Vroomen, Chris Haynes, Brad Hirtzel, Adrien Melillo and
5364
Ashley Millis. Congratulations to their coaches, Peter Greuel and
Steven Evetts and to the project manager, Kirk Patterson.
These young people are a credit to themselves, to Fanshawe
College, to the city of London and to Canada. Well done. We are
very proud of you and we look forward to sampling your cooking in
the near future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
municipality of Laterrière has just celebrated the 150th anniversary
of its founding.
This celebration provided a great opportunity to showcase its
natural, cultural and historical assets. Designed as a series of
historical vignettes set in various locations throughout the
municipality, the original play ``La tournée folle du grand brûlé''
brought part of its history back to life.
The celebrations ended October 6 with the blessing of a statue in
honour of Laterrière's founder, Father Jean-Baptiste Honorat.
The municipality of Laterrière was hard hit by the Saguenay
floods. Remembering its history reassures us about this courageous
community's ability to meet this new challenge.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister has yet again demonstrated that
he has absolutely no direction for western Canadian grain farmers.
On the one hand he demonstrates solid support for the single
desk monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board by closing loopholes
in the Customs Act while on the other allowing it to self-destruct
by its lack of accountability and transparency.
This minister has shown he is prepared to prosecute farmers in
order to prevent them from accessing niche markets that the board
will not service. At the same time he allows the board to
circumvent its own act by directing selected farmers to end users
who pay huge bonuses outside the pooling system.
In my opinion, if a violation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is
punishable by jail for farmers, then so should the same punishment
apply to wheat board officials.
But then, we have a Liberal government that protects criminals
while ignoring the rights of its victims.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday while appearing before the finance committee
the finance minister announced that the deficit for 1995-96 is $4.1
billion below the government's target of $32.7 billion.
The reason given for this is that government spending and
interest charges were lower than expected, but the figures the
minister released for employment insurance show another reason
the deficit is lower than expected.
While the government has cut benefits for unemployed workers
by $1.3 billion in 1995-96, the government is collecting $9 billion
more than it is paying out in benefits. Most of this surplus will go
to reducing the deficit.
This is not the government's money. It rightfully belongs to the
13 million workers who contributed to it. At a time when the
unemployed are having a difficult time trying to make ends meet
with reduced benefits it is cruel and unfair to make the deficit
numbers look better by gouging unemployed workers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Tuesday marked the beginning of the first month-long Brome Lake
duck festival in my riding of Brome-Missisquoi. Modelled after
the great public fairs in southwestern France, this event attracts
tourists at a traditionally quieter time of year.
This international gastronomic event, a local initiative, is a fine
example of co-operation between France and Canada. It involves
not only culinary exchanges between chefs from Gascony and
Quebec, but also the promotion of Canada's excellent products
overseas.
I wish to congratulate the festival president, Jacques Ouimette,
for putting his heart and soul into creating an event of this
magnitude around one of Brome-Missisquoi's main assets: its
local products. I join with the people of Brome-Missisquoi in
inviting Canadians to come to the Eastern Townships to attend the
Brome Lake duck festival.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Jeanette Dean of Saskatoon has been selected to receive
the Canada Volunteer Award Certificate of Merit presented in
5365
recognition of valuable voluntary contributions toward improving
the health and social well-being of her fellow Canadians.
In 1987 Mrs. Dean retired from teaching at the Saskatoon School
for the Deaf. She did not stop working, however. She joined the
Saskatoon UNICEF chairing two committees. She was involved
with no less than three Canadian Federation of University Women
clubs, did volunteer teaching for the deaf, was national director of
Educators of the Hearing Impaired, and helped set up the
Saskatchewan hearing aid plan.
She now teaches speech reading in low cost housing projects,
works with immigrants and children at the Saskatoon Open Door
Society. She works with refugees and is involved with amateur
theatre, seniors and the library.
What I wonder is what does this woman do with her spare time?
* * *
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Sunday, October 6, I had the pleasure and the honour to be in
West St. Paul, a rural municipality of my riding of Selkirk-Red
River, to participate in the celebration of the 50th anniversary of
Rivercrest.
Rivercrest is an area settled under the Veterans' Land Act. All of
the original 56 residents were veterans of World War II and they
were given the option to buy a home in Rivercrest with a small
down payment and a government loan.
I would like to say a special thank you to the rural municipality
of West St. Paul and the Rivercrest Community Club executive for
recognizing our veterans by renaming Rivercrest Park to Veterans
Park.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, community
groups that provide assistance to the unemployed in my riding of
Bourassa are upset at the funding cutbacks by the Department of
Human Resources Development. In the greater Montreal area, the
unemployment rate continues to climb.
The groups hardest hit are women, young people and
immigrants. Growing numbers of clients and ever decreasing
funding are forcing many organizations to close their doors, and
leaving others in serious financial difficulty.
Organizations like Impulsion-Travail, Carrefour Jeunesse,
Emploi Bourassa et Sauvé, L'Ouverture, a youth centre, and the
Association des travailleurs haïtiens du Canada do some
exceptional work.
The Department of Human Resources Development must
provide adequate funding to these groups in order to end the
continual uncertainty and promote their stability and viability.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Finance told Canadians that the federal
government will not be borrowing any new money in the markets
and the process of restoring policy sovereignty to Canada has
begun.
He failed to remind Canadians that the roll-over of the still
massive existing public debt will require foreign investor
participation. Neither did he recognize that Canadian investors will
tend to use the same benchmarks as investors do in any
sophisticated market to judge the risk and return on Canadian
instruments relative to other markets. If these investors perceive
that Canada's fiscal consolidation is missing the mark, they may
well opt for foreign instruments, leading to higher borrowing costs
in Canada.
The Minister of Finance has used illusion and carefully chosen
words to bamboozle Canadians into thinking that Canada's debt is
in great shape. It is not.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
president of the Canada-Portugal Friendship Group I welcome to
Canada the Secretary of State for Portuguese Communities, Mr.
José Lello.
Portuguese explorers arrived in North America nearly 500 years
ago. Since the establishment of their community, which numbers
500,000 today, Canadians of Portuguese origin have and continue
to make a great contribution to the social, political and economic
fabric of Canada's mosaic.
Our common membership in the United Nations, NATO, the
OSCE and the OECD as well as recent commercial and
technological links have strengthened Canada-Portugal relations.
[Translation]
This morning, with the member for Hull and the President of the
Treasury Board, I attended the inauguration of a monument to all
people of Portuguese origin in Hull. I will, if I may, cite the extract
5366
from a poem by Jorge de Sena that is inscribed on the plaque. It
reads: ``I can only be from the land where I was born. Even though
I belong to the world-''.
I invite all my colleagues to come and meet the minister of state
in the Commonwealth Room after Question Period this afternoon.
Benvidou ao Canada!
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October 15 to 19 is Mental Illness Awareness Week in Canada. One
out of five Canadians, six million people, will suffer from mental
illness at some time in their lives.
In recognition of Mental Illness Awareness Week the Canadian
Psychiatric Association and several other associations have joined
together in an effort to remove stereotypes and misconceptions
related to mental illness. They have initiated a national education
campaign to help people identify the symptoms of mental illness
and to better understand them.
The impact of mental illness extends beyond the sufferers,
affecting friends, family members and society at large. Mental
illness is the second leading cause of admissions to hospitals of
those 20 to 44 years of age.
With proper care including medication, psychotherapy, self-help
and support groups, most cases can be successfully treated. I ask
that hon. members join me in supporting Mental Illness Awareness
Week.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, October 10, has been designated world mental health day. In
Canada, the Canadian Mental Health Association has decided to
dedicate this day to the prevention and detection of nervous
breakdowns.
Fifty-four early detection centres and a 1-800 number have been
set up in order to give those at risk or wishing to know more about
this illness direct access to the services of professionals.
(1410)
A recently published report by the World Health Organization
predicts that, by 2020, nervous breakdowns will be the second
largest health problem on the planet.
Given the extent of the anticipated phenomenon, it is fortunate
that such initiatives are being taken to identify those already
suffering from nervous breakdowns and to make us aware of the
associated problems.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week is family week, and the government has
forgotten families.
First, the government pays lip service to family concerns and
throws money into short term job creation programs for youth to
look good on paper. To make matters worse, that money is drawn
on the country's battered credit, already at nearly $600 billion in
taxpayer dollars.
Now, after saying there would be no GST on books in its election
promises, the government is still going ahead with a new 15 per
cent tax on reading materials which will take effect April 1 unless
the Atlantic provinces are prepared to bite the bullet and swallow
the 8 per cent additional tax as premier of Nova Scotia, John
Savage, said he is prepared to do.
The Prime Minister wants credit for this? When is the
government going to keep its word and remove the GST on reading
materials? I remind the Prime Minister of his promise to remove
GST on reading materials. I remind the Deputy Prime Minister,
who said that books are a necessity.
This is family week. Remove the GST on books.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I remind you from time to time the
microphones are on at the desk near the person who is speaking and
sometimes inadvertently your words are heard by Hansard.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since Parliament resumed nearly four weeks ago, the
official opposition has vigorously defended the interests of the
citizens of Quebec and Canada. The same cannot, unfortunately, be
said for the Liberal MPs from Quebec.
Since we started back this fall, the federal Liberals have been
making shameless use of the period allocated for statements by
members to denigrate the policies of the Quebec government, the
Quebec premier, and all of the sovereignist spokespersons. Liberal
members are resorting to these dodgy tactics at the rate of about
two statements a day under Standing Order 31, about 20 per cent of
their speaking time.
The federal Liberals are so obsessed with dumping on Quebec
that they are no longer fulfilling their role as members of the
government party. No doubt their antics are explainable by the
5367
suggestion by Quebec opposition party leader Daniel Johnson that
they might want to make political hay-
The Speaker: I must now give the floor to the hon. member for
Kent.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it
is to rise today to announce the groundbreaking of the world class
Chatham ethanol plant next Friday. Ethanol will provide new
prosperity for corn growers and it will boost Ontario's economy.
The first phase of the ethanol plant will start next week, through
the efforts of many, especially our minister of agriculture.
Ethanol is a win-win proposal for our environment, farmers and
long term economic growth.
I am equally proud of this government's intestinal fortitude and
determination to ban MMT, the nasty American fuel additive.
Alternative fuels are the wave of the future. I urge all hon.
members to fill their vehicles with MMT free ethanol.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Minister of Finance has announced that the deficit for the
fiscal year which ended on March 31 of this year was $4.1 billion
less than projected. Apparently, if conditions continue unchanged,
the Canadian deficit will be completely eliminated by the year
2000.
In reaction to this, the Bloc Quebecois has chosen to continue to
spread half-truths, saying, and I quote: ``Once again you are going
to hit the least well-off and go after the unemployment insurance
fund''.
On the other hand, Quebec minister Bernard Landry is delighted
with the news, and has been quoted as saying: ``Having said that, it
is positive overall and the trend must continue''.
How can the Bloc Quebecois continue its unfair criticism of our
strategy to tackle the deficit, when its boss, the PQ, is
congratulating us on our work and offering us public support. If
things continue in this vein, their presence in Ottawa will be hard to
justify, particularly when the next election comes around.
5367
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although
the Minister of Finance has forecast a $7.3 billion drop in the
deficit for 1996-97, if we take a good look at his figures, we see
that the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces are responsible
for at least 25 per cent of this reduction, and that the minister is
using the surplus in the employment insurance fund, which, in
itself, is responsible for 70 per cent of this deficit reduction.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this: Will he admit that
95 per cent of his deficit reduction is financed by the employment
insurance fund and cuts in transfer payments to the provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, transfers to the provinces represent between 20 and 25
per cent of our spending. Therefore it stands to reason that when we
make cuts, we cannot cut 25 per cent just like that. We have to cut
fairly across the board.
Now, we gave the provinces two years notice to give them time
to adjust, while we made cuts immediately. I also want to say that
the cuts we made in our operations were far more numerous than
the cuts in provincial spending.
As far as the employment insurance fund is concerned, first of
all, we must create a reserve to protect ourselves against a possible
decline in the economy, and second, as the auditor general said in
1986, it is part of our consolidated revenue fund, so it is treated as
such.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the Minister of Finance. This is the first time we have had a
clear statement from the government that the surplus in the
employment insurance fund-the premiums paid by workers and
employers-has been taken by the government to finance its
expenditures. At last we have the confirmation we tried so many
times to obtain in the past, but to no avail.
Since the Minister of Finance seems so willing to give me the
right answers, I would like to ask him whether he is prepared to
admit that if he had not cut transfer payments to the provinces,
today a province like Quebec would have no deficit at all, so that
Quebec's deficit is what Ottawa has downloaded on Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
may well be that when the Bloc finance critics ask questions, the
Leader of the Opposition is not always listening. I have often
5368
quoted in the House the auditor general's report for 1986 in which
he insisted that the government return what was known then as the
unemployment insurance fund-now we say employment
insurance-to the consolidated revenue fund. So this is not news.
Second, as far as Quebec is concerned, thanks to the drop in
interest rates, Quebec got $625 million more over the past two
years than it expected, and this year, I gave Bernard Landry $600
million more than Jean Campeau had counted on, so that adds up to
$1.2 billion.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, members
on the government side should not get so excited. The figures are
there in the budgets. Everybody knows that transfer payments to
the provinces have been cut. Ask the Minister of Finance, let the
backbenchers ask the Minister of Finance and he will confirm this
is true. It is all there in the budgets: Transfers, including those to
Quebec, were cut substantially with the implementation of the
Canada social transfer. So think about it, before you celebrate.
Look at your budgets.
And now for our question. Since 95 per cent of the deficit
reduction announced by the Minister of Finance came out of the
employment insurance fund and transfers to the provinces, as he
confirmed in his answer to the first question-the minister made no
attempt to hide the fact-and since 95 per cent of this attempt to
reduce the deficit is paid for by the provinces, by the unemployed,
by workers and employers, what was the government's
contribution, other than a meagre 5 per cent of this reduction, in
other words, between 350 and 400 million dollars?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Unfortunately,
Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition starts talking about
figures, he makes a few mistakes. It is quite clear that the federal
government has borne the largest share of these cuts.
Let me give you an example. For 1994-97, although transfers to
the provinces dropped by a total of $4.1 billion, we cut twice as
much in our own operations, in other words, $8.3 billion.
Second, I think that as far as Quebec is concerned, it is quite
clear that in 1996-97, transfer payments to Quebec will total $10.9
billion, more than for any other province. Quebec, which accounts
for 25 per cent of the Canadian population, will receive 31 per cent
of the transfer payments. Equalization payments alone will give
Quebec $3.9 billion, which is 45 per cent of the total amount of
equalization payments.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the opposition makes small mistakes, the government
and its finance minister in particular make big ones.
The finance minister's deficit reduction efforts are more than
timid. And his job creation efforts are non-existent. After the
recession in 1982, it took only three years to restore employment
and labour force participation to their prerecession levels. Today,
six years after the last recession, the Canadian labour market is still
879,000 jobs short. This is a disaster. Yesterday, while recognizing
this is a disaster, the minister still replied that his government will
not do anything about it.
How can the Minister of Finance admit that the job market is in a
disastrous situation and refuse at the same time to put in place real
measures to improve the employment situation in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this was discussed yesterday. The government has put in place
several measures that have had a very positive effect in terms of job
creation, be it the funds allocated by the former Minister of Human
Resources Development to create jobs, summer jobs for young
people or funding for research and development or for foreign
trade.
Also, it should be pointed out that the vast majority of
economists in Canada agree that lower interest rates have had a
huge positive impact on the private sector's capacity to create three
quarters of a million new jobs in Canada since we came to office.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Conference Board itself recently declared that the job
situation in Canada was a disaster, that the real unemployment rate
in Canada was not 9.4 per cent but rather 12.5, when one includes
those who have given up looking for work. The Chamber of
Commerce of Canada shares the view that this is a disaster.
Something can be done to help, which leads me to ask the
following.
(1425)
Will the Minister of Finance undertake before this House to
substantially lower the contributions of employers and employees
to the unemployment insurance fund and call an emergency
meeting with the provinces to discuss the implementation of real
job creation measures? In case he has forgotten, I remind the
minister that employment is a national emergency.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since coming to office, we have reduced the burden of
unemployment insurance, now called employment insurance, by
$1.8 billion. This is a huge amount and possibly also one of the
reasons why job creation has taken off.
That said, there is no doubt that the employment situation across
Canada is of concern to us, as it is to the Government of Quebec.
We have great hopes that the summit scheduled for the end of the
month will be a success.
5369
We have a problem, and I do not mean only the federal and
provincial governments. All industrialized states have this
problem. We must look into it. I, too, am concerned.
The hon. member referred to the recession. Clearly, Canada has
suffered greatly from the 1989-92 recession being so intense and so
long. In fact, its impact is still being felt. It will have to be looked
into. I welcome the hon. member's questions because I think we
should work together. The issue was raised at the finance ministers'
meeting. This is one of the reasons why the infrastructure program
is being extended.
Having said that, I would like to ask the finance critic for the
Bloc Quebecois, if you will allow it, Mr. Speaker-
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday a number of us sat patiently through the
presentation by the Minister of Finance but his economic statement
failed completely to address the principal concerns of Canadians.
The finance minister failed to address the needs of the 1.4 million
unemployed, the two to three million underemployed, and the one
out of four Canadians who are worried about their jobs. He failed to
address tax relief, the principal route to job creation.
Why has the finance minister failed to deliver what Canadians
really want: lower taxes and more and better jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of all of us in the House, I would first like to welcome the
leader of the Reform Party to the debate.
The fact is that had the leader of the Reform Party been paying
attention, he would have noticed that right from the beginning
when we took office we had a two track approach on the whole
question of cleaning up the balance sheet. The first was certainly to
get Canadians back to work. As a result of that, the Prime Minister
embarked on several trips abroad with Team Canada which brought
a great number of new jobs to this country. He would have also
noticed that we extended concessional financing. We have invested
in R and D. Through the Department of Human Resources
Development we put money into summer jobs for students and
re-entry jobs for students.
The fact is, in addition to the substantial interest rate decreases
which have occurred as a result of this government's action,
750,000 new private sector jobs have been created since we took
office. That indeed is something for Canadians to be proud of.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the finance minister wants to debate, he has to face
unpleasant facts.
The unpleasant facts are the Liberals have cut transfer payments
by 40 per cent. They have cut health care payments by $3 billion.
They have cut benefits to seniors. They are dismantling social
programs to pay the interest on the ballooning $600 billion federal
debt. The finance minister has gone through all of this without
being able to translate it into benefits of lower taxes and more jobs
for Canadians.
My question again is: Why has the finance minister failed to give
Canadians lower taxes and more and better jobs?
(1430 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would simply ask the leader of the Reform Party to hark back to
Reform's first budget. When he does so, he will see that what
Reform recommended in terms of health care, what it
recommended in terms of transfers to the provinces, and what it
recommended in terms of old age pensions was to simply kill the
patient.
It really is the height of something that would be
unparliamentary in terms of language for the Reform Party leader
to stand up now and talk about what we would do. I would simply
ask him to carry his thought one step further. The leader of the
Reform Party has said that we should cut taxes. Fine. Let him now
stand up and tell us where he would cut in our programs. What
social programs would he cut in order to justify a cut in taxes?
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in this House we ask the questions and the finance
minister can bluster all he wants. He can avoid the question all that
he wants, but he cannot escape the fact that he has failed to deliver
on the government's promise for jobs. The reason he has failed is
that he cannot deliver on tax relief.
I will ask him one more time. Why has the finance minister
failed to deliver tax relief to Canadians and the more and better
jobs that tax relief would bring?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
every one of our budgets we have brought forth tax relief for
specific areas. In terms of unemployment insurance, we cut the
costs over the last two years by $1.8 billion. We have provided tax
credits for poor families with children. We have provided tax
credits for people in school.
The leader of the Reform Party says that they ask the questions
in this House. In terms of the basic question of what social
programs would you gut to pay for your tax programs, the
Canadian people will insist that you answer that question.
The Speaker: I remind you my colleagues to address your
statements to the Chair.
5370
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
If the federal government can prove it has the deficit under
control, it is because it is reducing it mostly on the backs of UI
contributors by accumulating a surplus of at least $5 billion a year
through payroll taxes, which, as we know, are paid mainly by
workers and discourage job creation.
Will the minister admit that, by asking lower and middle income
workers, the unemployed and businesses-especially small
businesses-to build up this surplus and pay for the deficit, he is
dangerously and unfairly taxing employment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we came to office, there was a $6 billion plus deficit in the
unemployment insurance fund. We had to make it up and we did.
This year, we have a $5 billion surplus.
According to Human Resources Development Canada's chief
actuary, we need a surplus of $10 billion to $15 billion so the fund
can sustain another economic downturn or recession. Second, it is
clear that if we lower premiums, every five-cent reduction would
cost us $350 million, and we would have to find this money
somewhere else.
(1435)
There is a question I sincerely want to ask the hon. member.
There are several kinds of payroll taxes, not only employment
insurance, but also taxes for health care, training, the CSST. If this
is true, I hope the hon. member will also ask the provinces to lower
their own payroll taxes.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
commission's chief actuary said, the accumulated surplus will
amount to at least $5 billion a year, whereas during the worst of the
recession, when benefits were higher and more unemployed people
had access to unemployment insurance, it was close to $6 billion.
This increase makes no sense at all.
Since what really matters is employment, will the minister admit
that, beyond his fine-sounding words, Canada's citizens are in fact
poorer according to Statistics Canada, as the real disposable
income per person has dropped by more than $1,000 since 1989?
Will he admit that Canadians have become poorer?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, if the hon. member looks at her figures, she will see that,
according to Statistics Canada, Canadians did get poorer-she is
right about that-but it happened before we came to office. Since
we came to office, the situation has stabilized, which means we
made significant progress. We would like to increase Canadians'
income, but before we could do so, we had to stabilize it.
Second, yes, there will be a $5 billion surplus at the end of the
year. This does not mean that the surplus will keep growing
forever. But we do need a surplus to protect ourselves against a
recession.
As I said earlier, according to the auditor general, this money is
included in our figures. When we lower premiums as we did last
year and as we intend to do this year and hope to do in the years to
come, it certainly costs us money.
Having said that, I want to ask the hon. member, because I
myself cannot ask my provincial counterpart, Mr. Landry: Will she
ask Mr. Landry, will she thank Mr. Landry, who said yesterday-
The Speaker: Your time has expired. The hon. member for
Capilano-Howe Sound.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday's fiscal update needs a critical update. Only in
the never never land of Ottawa is there celebration over a deficit of
$29 billion. Only in the never never land of Ottawa is there
celebration over deficit reduction by downloading on the
provinces.
Why has the Minister of Finance burdened provincial health,
education and welfare programs with cuts of $6 billion while he
lets his own government get away with cuts of less than $2 billion a
year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was made very clear in the presentation yesterday that while we
were very proud of having bettered our targets for the second year,
and while I think all Canadians can take great pride in the control
which we now have over the nation's finances, we made it very
clear that victory was not yet won. The fight ahead of us is going to
be very tough, and we are going to stick with it. I think the hon.
member should understand, and I would hope that he would join
with this side of the House and with all Canadians as we stick to
what is going to be a very difficult fight.
I would also hope that perhaps he would get his numbers just a
little more correct. The fact is that in the period 1994-95 to 1997-98
in terms of our own spending as opposed to transfers to provinces,
we have cut by $8.3 billion, and total entitlements to the provinces
have only been cut by $4.1 billion.
5371
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I guess we will have to look at the record of what his
deputy minister said yesterday. As of yesterday it was $6.3 billion.
(1440 )
I wonder how this works out. Coming from British Columbia,
creative accounting in federal fiscal updates scares me. Creatively,
last year's fictitious deficit was improved by a fictitiously large
windfall. By a very mysterious coincidence, projected declines in
revenues, exactly dollar for dollar, match projected declines in
interest costs.
How many more such fictitious numbers and creative accounting
are behind the minister's assurance that he is hitting his unchanged
and unchanging targets?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows there is no fictitious accounting. Our
books are certified by the auditor general. The auditor general goes
through them and it is according to generally accepted accounting
principles. I do not think that it behoves the hon. member to cast
aspersions on the federal government's numbers because he knows
the implications of what he is saying.
I would like to go to the member's question of transfers. We all
have to understand something. When we cut, whether it is
transfers, which we do not want to do, or in our own backyard, it
impacts on the provinces. It really is slightly bogus to talk about
cutting this way and cutting in our own backyard as if it does not
cut the provinces.
If military spending is cut and a base is cut in a province it is a
cut in that province. Is the hon. member saying that we should cut
old age pensions? We will not do it. However, if we ever did, it
would impact on welfare in the provinces. Is he saying we should
cut R and D? If we did, it would affect the universities.
There is nothing the federal government does that does not
impact on the country. That is why we will not cut old age
pensions, why we will not cut research and development and why
we will not savage this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the army is
being rocked by one scandal after another.
Today, we learned with disgust that pictures were taken of
several members of a regiment based in Chilliwack clowning
around the body of an Iraqi civilian blown to pieces by a mine in
the desert, in Kuwait. No less than 24 pictures have apparently been
taken showing this dead body from all angles.
Could the minister tell us if he too was informed just this
morning of what these soldiers did or if his predecessor had known
about it for a long time and, in the latter case, could he advise us of
the sanctions taken to ensure such unbecoming conduct never
recurs?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I totally agree
with my hon. colleague that this kind of situation is absolutely
unacceptable. I learned of the picture's release yesterday. I have
asked General Baril to look into this matter and I can assure my
hon. colleague that, as soon as General Baril's conclusions are
available, I will gladly convey this information to him.
I would like to emphasize the fact, however, that this is another
example of situations, of things that happen and that will not be
tolerated. I would like to be able to tell my hon. colleague that any
risk of the public being exposed to such things again has been
eliminated, but there is no point in having him believe something
like that when I cannot deliver the goods.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
minister justify the statement made by the army spokesperson for
the western region to the effect that there is nothing seriously
wrong about this and that such a minor incident does not even
warrant sanctions?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I realize that it
is often difficult to prepare for the supplementary and that, in many
cases, the answer gives us a lead.
In this case, my answer to the hon. member was that the situation
could not be tolerated. This is something that happened a while
back. I asked the general in command of the land forces to try to
find out why and how this happen and to make sure that proper
sanctions are taken.
* * *
(1445)
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the finance minister tried to get Canadians to believe that
there is no difference in how single income families are treated
compared to dual income families under the tax system. I truly
cannot believe that he really thinks that.
The fact is that on a $60,000 income the single income family
pays $7,000 more in taxes than the dual income family.
Why is the finance minister and the government maintaining tax
policies that force single income families to pay higher taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my answer to the question is the same as it was yesterday.
5372
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
explains why the finance minister has trouble balancing the books.
I quote from a recent book: ``You have a lawyer and he is paid a
lot of money. He has to pay a sizeable chunk in income tax so the
lawyer gets the firm to put his wife down as an employee and part
of his salary goes to her except that she never works at the firm''.
That is called income splitting and the lawyer who took advantage
of this scheme is now the Prime Minister of Canada.
Why does the finance minister support a tax system that
encourages crafty arrangements for clever lawyers and wealthy
shipping magnates, yet discriminates against the average single
income earner family?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The
minister used the letterhead of the Privy Council Office, which is
his department, but also the department of the Prime Minister, to
call a party fundraiser in his riding.
Are we to understand that, with the election approaching, we will
be seeing more and more of these ethical lapses on the part of
Cabinet members, and that the government's moral code will be
taking an increasingly elastic turn?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, do my colleagues wish to know the truth? The office of
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs issued a release to the
media saying that on such a date and at such a place the minister
would be speaking and that he would be accompanied by another
minister and two colleagues.
It is a release like those issued by the Prime Minister, the
minister and even the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of
the third party each time they attend activities or travel. I do not see
why the member is so upset.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the Minister of Labour attempt to justify the unacceptable
conduct of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs by making
light of the error he committed?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that there was no breach of the code of ethics or of
the guidelines. This is a practice common to all parliamentarians.
But perhaps I should remind the member about what they say about
people who live in glass houses.
I would like to remind the member that the member for
Québec-Est used the House of Commons E-Mail to invite members
to call a House of Commons telephone number, 996-4151, and pay
$20 to buy a book written by his own wife.
She should perhaps think twice before casting the first stone, as I
was saying.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
Unaddressed ad mail is a major irritant not only in my riding of
Bramalea-Gore-Malton but across Canada. What results will
the minister's announcement have for Canadians who are tired of
receiving what they call junk mail, and what impact will the
announcement have on those whose job it is to deliver ad mail?
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for his question and his
interest.
(1450 )
I would like to reiterate what the minister said yesterday, which
is that Canada Post will be withdrawing from so-called economy ad
mail. However, I want to assure the hon. member that this
withdrawal will be staged in a very orderly fashion with as little
disruption as possible. It will be done only where alternate
facilities exist.
I would also like to point out to the hon. member that we expect
this delivery service to be transferred directly to the private sector.
With respect to premium ad mail, Canada Post will not be
withdrawing from that service right now. That carries with it some
financial implications and Canada Post will be studying those
implications before a decision is made.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the press is reporting a few wispy details of the nearly
invisible, ever elusive ethical guidelines of the Prime Minister. It
appears that the government thinks that ethics is a little bit like the
game ``pin the tail on the donkey''. The public is blindfolded and if
they are lucky they get to pin a cabinet minister with a lucky guess.
No one can figure out why the Prime Minister has not tabled the
guidelines so all Canadians know what we are talking about.
5373
My question is for any government minister. Will one of them
please rise in the House and if such guidelines actually exist will
he or she table them so we can have a look?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question was properly answered yesterday by the
Prime Minister. He said that there are direct communications
between the Prime Minister and his ministers on a cabinet
confidential basis which set out certain rules of conduct.
The reports that were printed in the papers today are simply
briefing notes that the ethics commissioner uses to brief various
ministerial staff. They are not the same documents. They are two
very different things. I think the hon. member should recognize a
difference when he sees one.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
public has a desire to know to what standard of ethics the
government is trying to adhere.
I have with me the British parliamentary guidelines for
ministers. They are 130 pages long and are publicly available. I got
these from the British High Commission earlier today.
We have another incident. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs has been seen sending out notification of his Liberal
fundraising events. We are not sure if that contradicts the ethics
code of the government because we are not sure it even has an
ethics code.
Would somebody please let the Canadian people know what this
ethics code is? Will he or she table them in the House so the
Canadian public is aware what ethical standard, whatever it might
be, government ministers live up to?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it may come as a surprise to the hon. member but anyone
who takes an oath of office, either as a member of Parliament or as
member of the cabinet, immediately accepts a basic code of
conduct.
It might be helpful for the hon. member to examine his own code
of behaviour. Frankly, the code of behaviour exercised in the House
every day by members of the third party is quite deplorable.
If the hon. member wants a real test of the code of ethics of
members of the cabinet he only has to look at the various
honourable decisions taken by ministers. When they have breached
the code they have made the honourable decision and resigned, as
did the former Minister of National Defence last week.
The best test is the test of practical outcome. I believe the
Canadian people respect that.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
members of this government, particularly cabinet members, have
problems with ethics.
Last week, it was the former defence minister, regarding the
incidents that we know; yesterday, it was the intergovernmental
affairs minister, who used the Privy Council-the Prime Minister's
department-letterhead for partisan announcements; now, it is the
turn of the indian affairs minister.
How can the minister explain that, in a document released in
August 1996 by his department and entitled Pride in Partnership,
he directly refers to the commitments the Liberal Party of Canada
made to aboriginal people in the red book? Since when does the
minister of indian affairs promote the red book by using taxpayers'
money?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I promote the Liberal red book
every time I get a chance to speak or write.
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find it
unacceptable that the minister would try to downplay the incident.
The indian affairs minister promotes the red book and says there is
no problem, adding that he will seize every opportunity to promote
it.
The minister should realize that it is inappropriate for the
government to use public money for political purposes, namely to
boast about his government's performance. He should pledge to
repay the federal treasury for such abuse, with money taken from
the Liberal Party fund. Will the minister repay the federal treasury
for this abuse?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if that is the only question I am
going to get from the Bloc in two months, I am in pretty good
shape.
The red book happened to be our policy. It was a promise to the
electorate, which eventually became cabinet policy. We were
telling the public: ``This is our policy. This is what we promised
you. This is what we delivered''. Short and simple.
5374
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture. The minister announced
last Friday that he will hold a plebiscite on the future of barley
marketing in western Canada.
I need some clarification from the minister. Western farmers
really want to know, as they go into marketing this year's barley
crops, will farmers be given the option to choose dual marketing in
the plebiscite?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to
answer this question in the House before.
It is very clear in the policy statement that was delivered, both on
Friday of last week and Monday of this week, that we will be
asking a very clear cut question about whether farmers wish to put
all barley, that is, both feed and malting barley, on the completely
open market for all sales or would they prefer to retain the current
system through which the Canadian Wheat Board, as modernized
by the various changes that we are making, remains the single desk
seller for all barley exports and domestic barley sales for human
consumption. That is very clear.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has answered the question. He has said that dual
marketing will not be an option.
This option is accepted by many western Canadian farmers. Will
the minister promise today that he will change his mind on this
issue and put dual marketing as an option on the ballot?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party does not like it
when I do change my mind and they do not like it when I do not
change my mind. I find it very difficult to understand their
position.
What it is important for the Reform Party to explain to their
supporters so that this issue can be fully understood is that the
concept of dual marketing would dilute the price pooling system. It
would make it untenable for there to be guarantees of initial
payments.
It would make it impossible for the quantity of supply, the
security of supply, to be guaranteed in world markets by Canadian
marketing and there would be no ability, under a dual marketing
system, to safeguard Canadian quality.
Those are some of the flaws that the Reform Party should draw
to the attention of those who make this argument.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
For over 100 years, Banff national park has served as the
flagship of Canada's national parks system. It is a symbol of
Canadian heritage. Its protection is a value shared by all Canadians
coast to coast.
How will the minister implement the recommendations of the
Bow Valley study? How will she balance the environmental
protection with the long-term sustainability of Alberta's tourism
industry?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for an
extremely well thought out and well articulated question.
As the hon. member knows, on October 7 the Minister of
Canadian Heritage announced that she would take immediate steps
to implement some of those recommendations. She has put a stop
to any new commercial use of lands in Banff National Park. She
has actually removed the air strip, she has removed the buffalo
paddock and the cadet camp. She has also set up a corridor north of
the city that will be for wildlife. She has set up clear wilderness
areas within the park.
As for the remainder of the recommendations, the assistant
deputy minister of parks will be setting up an advisory committee
that will work out an implementation strategy that the minister will
announce in April.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns
proposed changes to the Canada pension plan. The minister has
said that some provinces have proposed to cut benefits to seniors
by taking away full inflation protection.
My question to the minister is straightforward. What is the
federal position on this issue? Will the minister clearly state
whether he supports this change or whether he is prepared to stand
with the NDP governments of Saskatchewan and British Columbia
in rejecting this regressive proposal which would betray the trust of
Canadian seniors?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first it is by no means clear that the description of any
government's position is as described by the member. However, I
would tell him that all of the provinces have come together and
quite clearly there is going to have to be a package. When the
package is put together it will imply trade-offs and we will have to
see.
5375
I can also say that the federal government is going to have to
come to a compromise with the provinces. The federal government
cannot act alone in this particular instance. However, the hon.
member ought to know, in instances where the federal government
could act alone, which is in the creation of a new seniors benefit,
we not only maintained but we enhanced indexation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie.
Trân Trieû Quân has just been transferred to a labour camp,
somewhere in the Vietnamese jungle, without any advance notice
to Canadian consular authorities.
Since the new Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie will go to Hanoi in the
coming days, will he pledge to make, on behalf of the Canadian
government, an official request for the patriation of Trân Trieû
Quân, and will he inform the House of the result of his efforts, as
soon as he comes back here?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Co-operation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to confirm to this House and to the hon. member opposite
that I will be going to Hanoi tomorrow and that I fully intend to
make representations to top Vietnamese officials.
It goes without saying that I cannot negotiate on the floor of the
House, and the House does not expect that, but I do intend to raise
the issue and to ask for the patriation of Trân Trieû Quân, for
humanitarian reasons.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just
a few weeks ago in my riding of Calgary North, it was parents
themselves who spotted a sexual predator stalking the
neighbourhood children and had him apprehended. This man, a
convicted pedophile, was out on bail thanks to the Liberals' lenient
approach to justice.
The justice minister is well aware that the anxiety Canadian
parents feel about the safety of their children has just received
another horrific jolt after yesterday's brutal abduction and violation
of a four year old child near the minister's own home.
When will the Minister of Justice give parents even the most
basic tools, like a national pedophile registry to protect their
children?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was last year that the solicitor
general introduced the child sex offender registry which has now
been in operation for some months. I believe it has contributed
directly to an increase in public safety.
The hon. member will know as well that in recent weeks the
government has introduced in Bill C-55 specific and practical
measures by which we can have sentencing judges impose on sex
offenders and particularly sex offenders who offend against
children, not only a period of imprisonment that is appropriate to
the offence, but after their release from prison a regime of controls
and supervision to minimize the high risk that they will reoffend.
I urge the hon. member and her colleagues to support that
legislation which we believe strongly will enhance the safety of the
community in the face of such unacceptable risks.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I would like to draw to your attention the presence
in the gallery of members of the French group of the
Canada-France interparliamentary association, led by Senator Jean
Delaneau.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505 )
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would also like to draw to your
attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency José Lello,
Secretary of State for the Portuguese Communities.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to find out from the government what is in
store for two weeks from now, since we will not be here next week.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Today and tomorrow, we are going to continue with the schedule
we have already begun. After this debate, we will return to Bill
C-60, on food inspection agencies, and will also try to finish up the
debate on Bills C-26 and C-29.
5376
[English]
This will be followed by Bill C-6, the Yukon mining bill; Bill
C-51, the Nunavut waters bill; Bill C-49, the administrative
tribunals bill; Bill C-47, the reproductive technologies legislation;
Bill C-59, the water passengers legislation; Bill C-57, the Bell
Canada bill; and Bill C-35, the labour code amendment.
Early in the week we return, the government expects to introduce
a bill concerning an electors registry. As soon as procedurally
possible, we will seek to refer the bill to committee before second
reading.
A few weeks ago I expressed some concern about the pace of
business in the House. I want to thank the House for addressing this
question effectively. Now I have to give a little push to committees.
There are now 18 bills in committee and more on the way. I trust
that committees will attend to this business with the same dispatch
demonstrated toward legislation by the House itself.
I wish the House a good Thanksgiving week off from this place. I
hope to see everyone in good health when we come back.
_____________________________________________
5376
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as a lifelong farmer
and a member of parliament who represents the people of
Dauphin-Swan River, it is a pleasure to have this chance to speak
on Bill C-60, the Canadian food inspection agency act.
Food inspection and quarantine services have always been a
priority in Canada. Canada has one of the most effective food
inspection and quarantine systems in the world. The confidence of
Canadians in the quality and safety of their food is among the
highest anywhere. However, our food inspection and quarantine
system is facing many new pressures. How effectively Canada
meets those challenges will have a major impact on the food
industry and on all Canadians.
Agriculture and agri-food accounts for 8 per cent of our gross
domestic product and directly and indirectly employs some 1.9
million people. In addition, Canada has one of the largest
commercial fisheries in the world with fisheries and aquaculture
valued at about $4 billion a year and employing some 120,000
workers.
In our cities and in rural areas like the constituency of
Dauphin-Swan River, the food industry is an integral part of our
day to day lives and forms the backbone of many communities.
These contributions cannot be taken for granted. The future growth
and success of the food industry from fishing and farming to food
service and retail depends on the continued high quality of our
products and strong consumer confidence in the safety of our food
supply. In the face of today's many pressures, that requires
changes, less duplication and overlap, and greater responsiveness
to changing ways of doing business.
(1510)
In 1994 federal, provincial and territorial agricultural ministers
committed themselves to addressing those challenges by endorsing
a blueprint document for the Canadian food inspection system,
CFIS. CFIS involves all levels of government in looking at
harmonizing food standards, inspection and quarantine services
into a single integrated system for all of Canada. The CFIS
objectives are: to protect the health and safety of Canadian
consumers; to sustain our international reputation for safe high
quality food; and to maintain an efficient and effective food
inspection and quarantine system.
In May the office of food inspection systems, OFIS, was
established to assess the feasibility of setting up a single food
inspection and quarantine system at the federal level, a first step
toward a Canadian food inspection system.
In July 1995, OFIS issued a discussion paper entitled: ``Federal
Food Inspection System-Organizational Options'', and it
presented four possibilities. The discussion paper was widely
distributed to industry stakeholders who further dialogued on the
proposed changes. These discussions were fundamental to the
decision making process that led to the announcement of the
Canadian food inspection agency in the 1996 budget.
The legislation we are introducing today is widely supported by
the provinces and the industry. The agency will reduce costs and
ensure greater consistency in inspection and quarantine methods
and standards. Under the legislation, the Canadian food inspection
agency's responsibilities are clearly defined. They will be centred
in six key areas: animal and plant health programs; trade and
commerce and economic fraud; inspection and quarantine policy;
assessment, evaluation and verification of inspection and related
activities; registration, certification and approval; and enforcement
and compliance actions.
The new agency will also be responsible for enforcing food
safety standards and regulations. It will play a lead role in the risk
management options dealing with food related health issues.
As stated in the 1996 budget, Health Canada will retain
responsibility for food safety policy and setting standards. It will
also be responsible for auditing the agency's inspection and
quarantine activities.
With the creation of the Canadian food inspection agency, roles
and accountability will be more clearly defined, strengthening the
decision making process. The agency will maintain close links
5377
with the OFIS to ensure that work toward a Canadian food
inspection system is continued and expanded.
The agency will improve government responsiveness with a
more private sector type financial framework. This framework
incorporates multiyear flexibility and a simplified vote structure;
reconciles the information requirements of Parliament and other
client groups; and minimizes administration and financial systems
costs. In order to encourage efficiency, the agency will have the
option of selecting service providers in areas such as payroll and
accommodation services.
Removing food inspection and quarantine services from the
departmental system will also have many other benefits. A stand
alone agency will encourage a new corporate culture which will
help transcend old approaches and build new partnerships with the
private sector. Staff will work in a more flexible, client focused
environment and will deliver more uniform procedures whether for
bread, chocolate, canned salmon or beef stew.
In addition, the new agency will have the flexibility to build on
existing federal-provincial agreements by streamlining and
negotiating new ways of delivering services such as delivering
provincial inspection and quarantine functions by federal
inspectors and vice versa, and establishing federal-provincial
corporations for joint delivery of federal and provincial inspection
and quarantine programs.
(1515 )
Federal and provincial ministers would, however, remain
accountable for their respective statutory responsibilities. Clearly,
this more streamlined, efficient and responsive approach to food
inspection and quarantine is an important avenue to ensure
continued confidence in the safety and in the quality of our food
supply.
This new agency will not only benefit rural constituencies like
Dauphin-Swan River. It will help all Canadians. I would like to
call on all members to lend their support for this important
legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill C-60
proposes the creation of a public agency called the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency. As its name indicates, this agency will be
responsible for providing federal food inspection services, and
related services, such as recalls and food poisoning investigations,
as well as managing food safety-related emergencies.
In the government documentation, we are told that this new
agency will ``make it possible to eliminate duplication and overlap
and to consolidate resources, while increasing efficiency and
decreasing by approximately 10 per cent the overall federal costs
relating to food inspection''.
What is, in fact, involved is consolidation and rationalization.
The overall objective of this measure is to create a more efficient
and more effective inspection system.
The fusion of federal activities will facilitate implementation of
an inspection system that conforms to the HACCP-hazard
analysis at critical control points-approach to food inspection.
The motto of the new agency would be ``protecting the Canadian
consumer''.
Already, a sizeable number of Canadian food processing firms
have adopted some elements of the HACCP approach. While, at
present, this represents a preventive approach, it has some obvious
advantages: first, a guarantee of exceptional safety for the
consumer; second, an internationally accepted standard for export
sales; third, an economical means of reducing recalls and waste.
The HACCP approach involves a hazard analysis at critical
control points. In other words, we must identify risks, list
preventive measures and express criticism as the situation unfolds.
To get back to the idea of creating the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency, we agree there should be a single federal food inspection
authority in the future. On the other hand, we cannot support this
bill in its current form, and I will tell you why.
Note that there are 94 clauses in this bill. As presented by the
government, this bill might become a real patronage haven. Since
clause 5 allows the governor in council to appoint a president and
an executive vice-president of the agency to hold office during
pleasure for a term not exceeding five years, the minister might be
tempted to appoint a friend.
And if that were not enough, clause 10 enables the governor to
appoint an advisory board of 12 members.
Worse yet, clause 22 allows the minister to approve the agency's
corporate or five-year business plan. As we know, as soon as
possible after it is established and at least once every five years
after that, the agency must submit a corporate business plan.
In fact, if we let the minister choose the president and
vice-president of the agency as well as the 12 members of the
advisory board, he can also control the agency by directing its key
policies. All this does not put the government's transparency in a
very good light.
That is not all. Under clause 17 in the bill, the government gives
the agency and its executives the power to license, sell or otherwise
make available any patent, copyright, industrial design, and so on.
In this regard, I did not see any sales or allocation criteria. Would
the cost be lower to a contributor to the Liberal campaign fund? As
5378
I said earlier, the government is trying to control the agency and
turn it into quite the patronage haven.
(1520)
With Bill C-60, the government is looking to consolidate
inspection activities relating to food as well as animal and plant
health, and related activities including food recalls, the
investigation of instances of food poisoning and the management
of emergency situations related to food safety. To fulfil its
mandate, the agency will have a staff of approximately 4,500 and
an initial budget of $300 million. It should be operational early
next year, in 1997.
Its 4,500 employees will come from three departments: some
3,900 from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; 400 from Fisheries
and Oceans Canada; and 200 from Health Canada. The jobs of
these 4,500 employees will be secured for two years. One wonders
now what will happen to them after. And where it says that the new
agency will look into the need to introduce voluntary leave
incentives, I hope the agency will reduce its staff through attrition
only, that is to say, as people retire.
At present, the federal government spends approximately $340
million per year to fulfil its duties and responsibilities regarding
food inspection across the country. This figure is taken from
schedule B to the working paper on the federal food inspection
system-organizational choices of July 1995. This expenditure is
shared three ways between Health Canada, Agriculture Canada and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Under Bill C-60, total costs will be reduced by approximately 10
per cent or $44 million annually as of 1998-1999. With such a
reduction of the food inspection budget, the status quo is not in the
least guaranteed as regards cost recovery.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture supports the
establishment of one food inspection agency, as proposed by the
Minister of Agriculture in this bill. It did express some
reservations, however.
It gives its support on the condition that this reorganization not
lead to new cost recovery measures. Moreover, it expresses the
strong desire to see producers represented on the advisory council.
In this regard, I think the proposal is excellent.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture also strongly hopes that,
as far as compensation to be paid for costs incurred with respect to
treatment is concerned, clause 71 will include ``and for other
measures''. Thus, additional costs will be included, such as with
respect to quarantine, cleaning, replacement of damaged or ruined
property, restocking, etc.
The impact of such an addition to the legislation would ensure
farmers do not lose out because they have reported a disease. As we
all know, the riding of Lotbinière, which I am honoured to
represent, is Quebec's largest agricultural riding.
Quebec supports the establishment of the agency because it
amalgamates the inspection services. From now on, there will be
only one interlocutor. But it would be contrary to Quebec's position
if the federal government, through this agency, unilaterally
established national standards. It would be a very good thing to
have a new sharing of administrative responsibilities in the food
inspection sector, while making sure no one has to give up its own
fields of jurisdiction, and no change is made to the division of
powers provided in the Constitution.
The Union des producteurs agricoles, the UPA, agrees with the
Quebec government. It does not want the provinces, particularly
Quebec, to have a say regarding the activities of the future agency.
The Bloc asks that the provinces, including Quebec of course, be
consulted and listened to regarding the agency's activities in the
coming years. It makes sense and it is only normal for the federal
government to act with the agreement of the provinces in the food
inspection sector, since consumers' health and interests are at
stake. However, the federal government must respect the existing
fields of jurisdiction.
(1525)
Costly overlap must be reduced. Grouping together the
inspection services of the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-food, Health Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada is a
step in the right direction. We must promote harmonization and
streamline standards so as to reduce the burden of regulatory
requirements and promote the competitiveness of our businesses.
In closing, we must, I repeat, promote joint action, but according
to the partners' respective fields of jurisdiction. In this regard, I
refer government members to sections 91 to 95 of the Constitution
Act of 1867.
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of
this legislation along with my other colleagues.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, as members know,
has tabled a bill which is a fine example of the government's
commitment to protect the health of Canadians. That bill
introduces a new food inspection system. It is one that is built on
the same overriding priority that we have always held high, good
health for Canadians through the safest possible food sources.
Mr. Pickard: That is right.
Mr. Volpe: My colleague who comes from the agricultural area
of Essex-Kent will bear me out.
5379
This new system keeps that goal front and centre while
achieving efficiencies, savings and increased effectiveness for
everyone with a stake in the process and most especially,
consumers and taxpayers. The minister has introduced legislation
that creates the foundation for a Canadian system, one with greater
harmonization of both standards and inspection.
As the speech from the throne noted, the government is prepared
to work with interested provinces so that the new food inspection
system co-ordinates these activities at the federal and provincial
levels.
In my comments today I want to speak about the role of Health
Canada in the new food inspection system. Hon. colleagues should
know that Health Canada has a strong and firm role in protecting
the health of Canadians and this bill fits that role. It draws on the
unique strengths of the department.
The legislation will first of all eliminate the overlap that has
existed among Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada and Health Canada regarding food inspection. This
is not a trivial matter. The agency will be solely responsible for the
delivery of food inspection and related services.
Health Canada will focus its attention on the food safety policy,
standard setting and research necessary to support the system. It
will assess the effectiveness of the agency's food safety activities.
In short, Health Canada will focus on the science that is the
foundation of a credible and effective inspection system.
You will forgive me if I applaud the initiative because this new
approach makes sense. It fits with the government's emphasis on
addressing the key determinants of health and few things are more
important than good, healthy and nutritious food. It also fits with
the other health protection functions of Health Canada has and the
scientific resources it uses to carry out those functions.
These policy development and standard setting functions will
draw on the strengths and resources that the department has built
up over the years. We are going to apply both experience and
expertise.
(1530)
It will continue to use an approach that is based on good science.
It will continue to use risk assessment as a framework for our
activities so that our food inspection priorities are right.
These functions will continue to draw on the substantial
laboratory infrastructure of Health Canada. Our national network
of facilities and experts will allow the food system to identify
hazards and assess them effectively through toxicology, disease
surveillance and human health impact investigations. These
facilities will form the practical basis of the department's abilities
to set standards and create appropriate policies. This kind of work
is the foundation of any modern, credible food inspection system.
Health Canada's staff deals with a wide range of food health
hazards. Its scientists and analysts track chemical risks as a threat
of allergens. They go after biological threats such as salmonella
and they deal with physical issues such as the occasional presence
of metal fragments in food products. That is not a very pleasant
thought.
These experts are connected to Canada's broader public health
intelligence system. They are linked to a network of people and
places such as the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control. They are
linked to physicians and public health specialists across Canada.
That means that our national disease surveillance system includes
the capacity to quickly assess and check if an emerging health
problem is food related.
As Health Canada's scientists and researchers work in their labs,
they are not working in isolation. In this new model they will be in
constant touch with the agency. They will work in a way that
recognizes industries' interests in sound standards that earn the
trust of Canadian and international consumers alike.
Health Canada brings together another advantage to the new
food inspection system, its international contributions and
contacts. In a world where trade is increasingly open and where our
food products find buyers around the world we need consistent and
fair standards, as identified in our debate earlier this morning on
the bilateral agreement with Israel. My colleague, who comes from
a very vibrant farming community in southwestern Ontario,
Essex-Kent, will affirm that.
The department will see that Canada plays a full role in this
process. Health Canada has a long and respected tradition of results
in helping Canadians to enjoy one of the safest, healthiest food
supplies in the world. Under this legislation that tradition will
continue. Canadians will have a strong, credible team of medical,
scientific and research professionals at work in labs and in the field
to ensure solid standards and sound policies backed by the very
best of research.
With this bill Canadians will get food of the highest possible
quality and an inspection system which will be efficient and well
organized. I believe that is has the support of the provinces and the
stakeholders. I believe it deserves the support of all members of the
House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill
C-60 is entitled an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency and to repeal and amend other Acts as a consequence. It
sets up the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in order to
consolidate and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of federal
inspection services related to food and animal and plant health as
well as to increase co-operation between the federal and provincial
governments in this area.
5380
(1535)
This agency will take over from the old Interdepartmental
Committee on Food Regulation established in 1986. Thus there
will be only one body in this area at the federal level.
The bill also sets out the responsibilities, accountability regime,
organization, human and financial resources regime, powers and
reporting framework of the agency. It also amends some of the
enforcement provisions and penalties in federal statutes that the
agency will enforce or administer, with regard to food and animal
and plant health.
Simplifying the food inspection system in order to eliminate
duplication, to enhance trade and improve enforcement of
regulations relating to food safety is a very commendable
objective. It has been set forth in the last federal budget and
relatively well accepted by Quebec as well as other provincial
governments.
I should mention that the auditor general, in his 1994 report,
strongly recommended that the food safety assurance system be
reviewed in order to deal with its numerous flaws. More
specifically, he singled out the Interdepartmental Committee on
Food Regulation for its lack of consistency. This committee, made
up of representatives from Health Canada, Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans and Revenue Canada, has not
always fulfilled its mandate of bringing specific changes to the
food safety assurance system and of enhancing innovation and
efficiency in relation to inspection methods.
Moreover, the committee has failed to report the results of its
investigation as required in its mandate. The auditor general has
also emphasized the inability of Health Canada to guarantee
complete and effective enforcement. In a nutshell, the auditor
general and most stakeholders think our food inspection system
should be reviewed.
The goal of having in the federal government a single window
for food inspection is commendable, but the way the federal
government wants to go about it is totally unacceptable and is just
one more example of federal intrusion into areas of provincial
jurisdiction. In a way, Bill C-60 flies directly in the face of the
repeatedly expressed will of Quebec to take on all its
responsibilities under the Constitution.
Even if this bill did recognize the existing areas of jurisdiction,
the present wording of several clauses still makes Bill C-60 a bad
bill that would not meet the goals expressed therein, and it would
still incur the official opposition's condemnation.
For example, the government maintains it is looking for a more
efficient federal service for food, animal and plant inspection. In a
system such as ours, with elected representatives, efficiency and
openness often go hand in hand. When things are done behind
closed doors, the interests of people behind the door are often well
looked after at the expense of the public left outside.
In Bill C-60, the government had many opportunities to show it
cares for openness. For example, clause 5 stipulates:
The Governor in Council shall appoint a President and an Executive
Vice-President of the Agency to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding
five years, which term may be renewed for one or more further terms.
There is no consultation, no consideration in committee, nothing
of the kind. Only unilateral appointments made at the whim of the
government.
Of course, the official opposition cannot support that section the
way it is drafted. It would open the door to discrimination and
patronage. If the federal government really wanted to be
transparent, it would have ensured that these appointments could
be examined by Parliament. These appointments should be
submitted to the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food at least for consideration, if not for final approval.
The same thing goes for clause 10, which deals with the advisory
board and reads as follows:
(1) The Minister shall appoint an advisory board of not more than twelve
members to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years, which
term may be renewed for one or more further terms.
(1540)
Again, it is unacceptable for a minister to act alone in appointing
the members of the advisory board. Since this board is responsible
for helping the minister choose the policies he has to implement, it
is important that all the appointments referred to in this clause be
reviewed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food. Therefore, the minister will not be able to yield to
temptation and appoint his buddies or people who share his
philosophy.
Another bit of lip service on the part of the government is
co-operation with the government of Quebec and of all the other
provinces. However, there is absolutely no mention of this in Bill
C-60. Yet, this was a great opportunity. When appointing a board to
advise the minister, the government could have guaranteed
representation for Quebec, which accounts for 25 per cent of the
Canadian population, and ensured that at least one member of the
advisory board out of four is from Quebec so that the Quebec's
point of view would be well represented on the board. Moreover,
these appointments could have been approved by the provinces.
But, once more, the lip service expressed loud and long does not
translate into government action. Subclause 4 of this clause
provides that the minister shall appoint one of the members as
chairperson of the advisory board. Again, the minister wants to
5381
control the agency by appointing himself the chairperson of the
advisory board.
Instead of letting competent people in the field who have to work
with the food inspection staff choose a chairperson themselves, the
minister will probably appoint one of his friends or one of his
devotees who will defend his point of view at all times. This lack of
transparency is apparent in the phrasing of several of Bill C-60's
clauses: clause 22-corporate business plan, clause 23-annual
report, clause 26-consultation, clause 32-annual audit, or any
other clause concerning appointments or reports.
These actions must be examined and approved by the standing
committee. Then, these appointments and changes could be
submitted to the House, to all hon. members. This is not
unreasonable. In a democratic system, there is never enough
transparency, and prevention is better than cure.
Finally, clause 11 deals with the responsibilities of the new
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This agency would be
responsible for the administration and enforcement of various
existing federal statutes. So far, so good.
However, subclause 4 of this section reads as follows: ``The
Minister of Health is responsible for establishing policies and
standards relating to the safety and nutritional quality of food sold
in Canada.'' In this regard, the position of the Quebec government
and of the official opposition is crystal clear.
I do not know how many times in the last three years I have
quoted this section, which is part of the Constitution: ``Under
section 92, subsections 7 and 5 of the Constitution Act of 1867, and
pursuant to the interpretation of many courts, health and social
services are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces''.
In closing, the Bloc Quebecois has always demanded that the
federal government respect the jurisdiction of the provinces
regarding health care and we intend to call upon the Liberals to
withdraw from this field and to transfer to the province of Quebec
all federal moneys regarding Quebec's health care. I think that the
Bloc Quebecois will not support Bill C-60 in its present form.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, first, allow
me to note the lack of interest shown by the government party and
the third party on this bill since the Bloc Quebevois-
Mr. Volpe: Why do you say that? Where are the members of the
Bloc? We are here.
Mr. Dubé: Only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health seems to be interested.
I note also that the Liberal government is proceeding in a rather
unusual way. It did the same thing in the case of employment
insurance, that is it resorted to the pre-examination process in order
to skip second reading, which is essential in a democracy, under
our parliamentary procedure, as we could have suggested
amendments at this stage.
(1545)
But no, once again, the government is trying to ram things
through Parliament and flouts democracy. Like my colleagues, I
am in favour of the establishment, by the federal government, of a
single food inspection agency.
Members may find it strange that a sovereignist is supporting the
establishment of a Canadian agency in the health sector. Let me
explain. Between 1980 and 1985, I worked for the former Minister
of Agriculture of Québec.
Mr. Crête: The best.
Mr. Dubé: Yes, at the time, everything was working fine in the
agriculture sector. You will recall that, since 1978 at least, Quebec
has been combining, various services in the agri-food sector.
Quebec's agriculture department is called Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, and is also responsible for fishing and
marketing.
Being bigger, the federal government was slower to react.
Finally, in 1996, almost 18 years later, it realized that it had to
combine three food inspection services from three different
departments. Not so long ago, Industry Canada also had its own
inspection service.
We have been told that this ought to be done because it
represents savings of $40 million. If the figures are right, and if we
add them all together over a period of, let us say, 10 years, it means
that because of its lack of efficiency and of duplication in three of
its own departments, the government lost $400 million. It now
recognizes that it has been inefficient for 18 years. That is
unacceptable.
Yes, we want the federal government to put its house in order
but, as usual, a number of clauses in this bill will make it possible,
through the Department of Agriculture and other departments, for
the government to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. The bill
reads in part that the federal government may enter into agreements
with the provinces, but I doubt that it will because most of the time
it does not.
The Quebec government gave its approval to the spirit of the bill,
but last summer, at a meeting of agriculture ministers, the Quebec
minister, speaking for his government, said: ``The premiers urge
the ministers concerned to ask that the Canadian food inspection
system's implementation group recommend before the end of the
year ways to set up a Canadian food inspection system. That is true.
At the annual agriculture ministers' conference held in Victoria
on July 3 and 4, the ministers adopted the wording proposed by the
Quebec minister, which reminded the federal government that the
5382
Quebec government intended to co-operate in eliminating overlap
and duplication, but asked that Quebec's jurisdiction be respected.
Since I am familiar with agriculture, I know that Quebec has
about 495 officials working in food inspection and that in the three
federal departments mentioned in the bill there are at least 600
officials involved in food inspection in Quebec. I talk about
Quebec because it is the province I know best.
So, there is a total of 1,100 federal and provincial employees to
inspect food in Quebec. I can understand that the federal
government wanted to streamline its services. But it should go a
step further and respect provincial jurisdiction.
(1550)
If the federal government is sincere in its willingness to work
with the provinces, it should negotiate with the Quebec agriculture
department a way for the provinces to apply the required standards
because food products do not only travel from province to
province, but also to other countries. So the federal government
would set common standards that would be accepted by the
provincial agriculture ministers and by the federal minister, and
Quebec, which has already integrated its services and which acted a
long time ago to eliminate overlap, would apply these standards.
One food inspection service, with responsibilities for
municipalities with regard to the third market is the one for
distribution in Montreal, Quebec City, Sherbrooke and
Trois-Rivières. We have already made arrangements with these
municipalities so they can enforce the regulations in restaurants
because it is more easily done at the municipal level.
The federal government should do the same thing as Quebec did
with its large cities and work out an integrated action plan with
Quebec so we no longer have two kinds of food inspectors: type A,
B and C laboratories. This system often causes confusion, and
some agricultural producers, depending on the region, are affected
by this conflict between two jurisdictions.
Yes, this bill is an improvement, or it would be more accurate to
describe it as policy of the not so bad, because the federal
government has been inefficient in the area of food inspection for
at least 20 years. We hope it will be more efficient in the future, and
the ideal situation would be a co-operative arrangement between
the federal government and the Quebec government to eliminate
overlap and create a fully integrated and coherent network.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the bill establishing the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency for a number of reasons. The
first is that it is a fine example of the good faith shown by Quebec's
sovereignists in their belief in the importance of having a free and
open economic association in Canada for the future.
With the federal government, we have a situation where three
departments, Health Canada, Agriculture Canada and Fisheries and
Oceans, have, for many years now, in the course of their activities,
been stepping on each other's feet. We also have horror stories to
tell, which, I hope, will no longer be the case with the new
legislation. In any event, let us hope that these changes will help to
improve matters. I will give you an example.
It concerns a farmer in my riding, a producer of pure-bred sheep,
who, last year, was the victim of a completely inexplicable change
in behaviour from the Canadian bureaucracy.
In the past, when there were signs of illness in his flock, or in the
flock of any other producer, the exposed animals were put down,
and the producer was compensated accordingly.
Last year, the regulation was changed, and we spent a long time
looking for an explanation. Now, the affected animals are placed in
quarantine. That is all very fine and well when you have large
flocks, like they do out west, where there are some very large
operations. But, when you are looking at small operations, such as
in Quebec right now, this jeopardizes the producer's reputation and
it does so for several years. There could have been an error at a
given time, but small operations must not be shut down and,
because of one error, producers prevented from continuing to
operate. This was an example of too many cooks spoiling the broth.
Certain policies do not necessarily apply in the same way, say as
between Quebec and western Canada, but it could be the
Maritimes. It could be different between large and small centres.
We must continue to have latitude.
Therefore, we are in favour, if the food inspection issue can be
simplified, and if there can be harmonization so that our operations
can be as competitive as possible
(1555)
The other horror story I would like to tell you is about a small
abattoir in my riding, which slaughters a number of different types
of animal. It has been systematically hit hard by the department,
almost picked on, with a demand that it comply overnight, or
nearly, with exactly the same standards as a multinational meat
packing plant would have to meet. This causes problems, for it can
mean the death of small businesses. Solutions to problems of this
kind must be found.
So, if creation of a federal food inspection agency enables us to
do away with these picky standards, and to have more appropriate
behaviour by inspectors, as well as fewer rules to make problems
for organizations, all the better.
There is no question of doing away with food safety standards.
Everyone agrees that we need topnotch safety standards, which are
exactly what is required for consumer satisfaction, but at the same
5383
time, we must not place businesses in situations that cannot be
remedied in the short term. They must be given time to make
adjustments, and the type of market they are in also needs to be
take into account, so as to not necessarily apply the same standards
to a multinational as to a small business.
This is where Bill C-60 falls down. It is a bill which will return
management of food inspection once again into the hands of people
who are not necessarily experts in the field-which seems to be a
trend with this government. There is a good deal of latitude
concerning partisan appointments to the board which will
administer the act, and corrections are therefore required in this
aspect of it.
Indeed, we intend to work on this. I would like to quote the
position taken by the Quebec government at a conference of the
ministers concerned by the creation of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency. Quebec, in a show of good faith, said the
following: ``The Premier urges the ministers concerned to ask that
the Canadian food inspection system's implementation group
recommend ways to set up a Canadian food inspection system that
respects the jurisdictions of all governments''. So this was an
honest gesture.
In other words, we were saying: At last you are streamlining
your operations by having only one agency instead of three. So if
you do that properly and respect the jurisdictions of all
governments as reflected in a future agreement, we are showing our
good faith and are prepared to sit down at the table with
representatives of the federal, provincial and territorial
governments.
Interestingly, this attitude is inspired by the European Union
model, a kind of common legislative basis. If it works, it will be an
example of how partnership, for instance, could work between a
sovereign Quebec and Canada. It could be a very interesting
exercise, and we have already had an example of this-although
Diane Francis and the Financial Post may not agree-in the dairy
production sector, where Canada's major dairy provinces, with the
exception of British Columbia, have created an open market.
Irrespective of the status of the Quebec government, there would be
this open market, which would continue to develop now and in the
future, so that the system would work effectively.
The same option is on the table now. When we say that the
sovereignists want to help build a satisfactory economic market in
Canada, this is a concrete example.
So we agree with creating only one agency, provided it respects
the jurisdictions of each sector. I think that if the federal
government does its streamlining but on the other hand continues
to infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions, we will not have solved a
thing. It will then be up to the federal government to deal with this.
However, if creating the agency helps to clarify the situation, if it
helps make our businesses more competitive and allows for the fact
that the local slaughterhouse in Saint-Pascal-de-Kamouraska
cannot be expected to meet the same stringent standards one would
apply to a multinational, it could be an interesting development.
But in that case, it will be necessary to respect the various
jurisdictions. If the federal government says it is wall to wall from
Vancouver to Halifax and the same standards apply everywhere, we
will be stuck with the same problems. However, if the government
streamlines its operations by creating an agency that will respect
the jurisdictions of all concerned and apply standards that are
satisfactory to this province within the provincial context, we may
get some interesting results.
In concluding, to achieve this the federal government will have
to eliminate the partisan aspect of the way it appoints the people
who will manage the system.
(1600)
The commission which will be responsible for management will
probably be strongly influenced by the position of the government.
People appointed by a province and, within the agency, people
coming from a province but appointed by the federal government
and provincial authorities could still work at cross purposes.
Jurisdictions will have to be clearly respected.
We have an opportunity before us. Sovereignists from Quebec
are open to trade with the rest of Canada, they trust Canada and
showing their good faith. If the federal government changed some
aspects of its act and reviewed its operation, we would have before
us an interesting model which could be exported and which would
bring Canadians to understand that sovereignty and partnership are
the way of future not only of Quebec but of Canada as a whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Some hon. Members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. Members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
5384
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76, the division on the motion stands deferred until
Monday, October 21.
* * *
The House resumed from October 9, 1996, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-26, an act respecting the Oceans of Canada, be
read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, after
trying unsuccessfully to amend the bill, after attempting to be
heard in committee, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill
for several reasons, some of which I am going to mention.
This bill, which is entitled an Act respecting the oceans of
Canada, is prefaced by some rather surprising ``whereases''. This is
indeed surprising in a bill that is supposed to outline the way things
will be done; these ``whereases'' are statements of intent, the kind
one would expect in the preamble of a policy paper rather than a
bill.
I will read a couple of them to give you an idea of what I mean.
The first one states:
Whereas Parliament wishes to reaffirm Canada's role as a world leader in oceans
and marine resources management;
This bill might have been coloured by the minister who initiated
it, but the, not a policy statement, states:
Whereas Parliament wishes to reaffirm Canada's role as a world leader in oceans
and marine resources management;
In our opinion, this is not only pompous, but in view of the
resources not provided for the implementation of such a policy,
rather misleading.
(1605)
I will read another one:
Whereas Parliament wishes to affirm in Canadian domestic law Canada's
sovereign rights, jurisdiction and responsibilities in the exclusive economic zone of
Canada;
What is interesting, in this instance, is that Parliament wishes to
affirm its sovereignty or Canada's sovereign rights over its
exclusive economic zone when, in the first whereas, it was said that
Parliament wishes to reaffirm Canada's role.
In committee, the Bloc Quebecois proposed an amendment to
clarify that ``Whereas'' so that this paragraph would not mean we
are changing the respective roles of the provinces and the federal
government in the control of the territory.
Yes, as Quebecers, we are concerned by this provision and no,
the government did not follow-up on our propositions.
Let me quote the bill again:
Whereas the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in collaboration with other
ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and
territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal
communities and other persons and bodies,-is encouraging the development and
implementation of a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and
marine ecosystems.
That statement, which appears in various other places in the bill,
is quite clear on the role of the provinces in the distribution of
powers and responsibilities as the government sees it. Even if it
comes from one department, that bill is presumably endorsed by
government as a whole.
It is odd that, at this time in the history of Canada, the federal
government would present a new bill where it treats provinces as
private individuals or corporate bodies with whom it could
eventually co-operate if it sees fit to do so, considering that, during
the recent Jasper conference, in the absence of Quebec, provincial
premiers examined their respective powers, agreed to follow-up on
that point and talked about their eventual shared management of
canadian federalism in areas like social programs and such, and at a
time when there is, all over Canada, and not counting Quebec once
again, a great determination to review the dynamics of Canadian
powers and responsibilities.
I am talking about this issue because, in Canada, Quebec has
been too often identified as the spoilsport, the one making it
impossible to come to an agreement, while what we find out is that,
on many issues, aside from Quebec which has its partnership
project, Canadian provinces or at least a number of them say they
want to take part in the management of this country. It is true in the
social sector and in many others.
(1610)
This bill is totally unacceptable to us because it divides the
Department of the Environment who is already conflicting with the
provinces in some areas of jurisdiction. It seems to divide the
department into sectoral components. Thus there would be a sector
for fisheries, oceans and ecosystems, which is very surprising and
worrisome because it is obvious that, when dealing with
ecosystems, even though it says in chapter 2 that this part does not
deal with rivers, the department can also meddle throughout the
territory.
Since the Department of the Environment is announcing 30 per
cent cuts over three years, how can we increase its activities if it
does not get any means to do so?
Finally, it has been said time and again that the department's
power to impose user fees for the coast guard and the minister's
authority to impose registration even on pleasure craft constitute an
5385
outrageous abuse that leads us to foresee further centralization that
makes no sense at this time, not only in Quebec, but throughout
Canada.
We asked that this bill be postponed; it is definitely in no shape
to be passed by this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Order. It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-nuclear test
ban treaty.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the bill on Canada's
oceans, because this is an important strategic tool of which Quebec
will be deprived. We have a very good case in point. This bill will
regulate the setting of fees for services including ice breaking and
navigational aids like buoys on the St. Lawrence. There is already a
unanimous consensus in Quebec against the measures proposed in
this bill. Since this is a federal jurisdiction, we must express
Quebec's views and let the House know that this bill will reduce the
competitiveness of all the industries along the St. Lawrence.
The government made an important, deliberate choice in
deciding to reduce by 50 per cent its involvement in the area of
transportation. Transport Canada is in the process of divesting
itself of its port facilities. It is proposing that local authorities take
responsibility for the future of port facilities. This could be an
interesting proposal, because it has done such a terrible job for so
long that, if it gives these facilities back to the local authorities,
they will at least have control over the decisions affecting them.
I think it was malicious on the part of the government to, at the
same time, make the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
responsible for setting the fees to be charged for services on the
river. On one hand, they are asking local authorities to take over the
facilities and telling them: ``Make them viable so we can do
something interesting with them in the future. On the other hand,
we will continue to set fees for services on the river and impose
significant increases''. As a result, boats, stevedores and transport
management workers will face new choices in the future and
wonder whether they would be better off going through New
England, through U.S. ports on the Atlantic side rather than
through the St. Lawrence.
(1615)
One might say: ``The opposition party condemns this, that is all
does''. That is the position of the Société de développement
économique du Saint-Laurent, which raised the matter in a letter to
the Minister of Transport.
This corporation represents, according to this list here, at least
30 different organizations, including members of Quebec's
aluminum industry association and some big names like Alcan
Aluminum, the Alouette aluminum smelter, and so on. It also
includes the Association des armateurs du Saint-Laurent, the
Association des industries forestières du Québec, the
Administration de pilotage des Laurentides, the Bateau-Mouche du
Québec, stakeholders from various areas.
The Act respecting the oceans of Canada will give the federal
government, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada in particular, the
authority to raise fees, putting into question the competitiveness of
port facilities along the St. Lawrence River. That is why this bill
absolutely must be opposed, because it takes away from Quebec a
major development tool which is also used everywhere along the
St. Lawrence seaway.
It could have a major negative impact on all shipping to Ontario.
Behind all this are choices to be made and, in a way, the federal
government has chosen to fail Quebec in that respect. While a
completely different decision could have been made, a choice was
made to protect the bureaucracy. There is an major clean-up to do
with regard to icebreakers and in the federal St. Lawrence River
management system.
Take for example the fact that all icebreakers in the Atlantic
region operate out of Halifax. This may be very interesting for
people in the maritimes, but icebreakers work mostly in the St.
Lawrence and every time they have to fill up, they must go back to
Halifax. This is strange, because it is from Halifax that the Irving
corporation controls oil operations.
Why is such a situation not corrected? Why did the department
not clean up its act? Instead of asking for a fee increase, it might
have been better to do a cleanup inside and to say: ``We have to
review the coast guard issue. We have to see if we can provide the
same services at a lesser cost, or in a different way''.
This is not what the act will do. It will make sure that the
bureaucracy is being taken care of, at the expense of the businesses
that have to live with these economic realities. We are talking about
cost for icebreaking and fees for navigation aids, buoys. What is
tragic is that this measure jeopardizes the reform of port activities
in Canada.
The parliamentary transport committee is currently travelling
across Canada regarding Bill C-44. Everywhere it will stop, people
will tell its members, as was the case in Vancouver, where the issue
was not icebreaking but dredging costs: ``You are generating costs
to us that will kill any desire on our part to take over the facilities
you are offering us''.
Same thing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Let me give you a
concrete example. In Cacouna, the port development corporation
has already issued a letter of intent to the government and it is
prepared to take action, to negotiate with the federal government.
In fact, negotiations are about to be undertaken, and consultations
are already taking place on a regular basis.
5386
But the biggest fear in that community is not so much over what
is going on at Transport Canada-in fact dealing with transport
officials can be interesting-but rather how the port will be
affected by the new fees imposed under the Oceans Act and the
increase in fees.
There are so many negative consequences involved that people
often say: ``Let us take a little more time before making a
decision''. We should look into this, because these are questions
that SODES, the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council,
asked the Minister of Transport. because it would appear that he
listens better.
They have a vision, and I think the government should have kept
all these services under the authority of a single organization. This
way, decisions could have be made in a more rational and
co-ordinated fashion. Right now, there is something machiavellian
about the system. We would think that the separation between the
two departments was to ensure that the local community remains
responsible for the facilities and picks up the tab for related
services. These are very bad choices the federal government has
made and it does not look good.
(1620)
These questions that have remained unanswered so far come
from the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council. The
official opposition is not the only one asking questions. How will
these changes affect the selection of operators? Will businesses and
industrial sectors be forced to close? Will the higher fees result in
services being provided elsewhere than on the St. Lawrence River?
Are there financial losses involved for these businesses, not only
losses resulting from closures but also other types of losses? Will
the investment potential be affected? This is a fundamental
question. The decisions that will be made under the marine act will
affect economic choices in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. Major
corporations such as Alcan, which is a member of SODES, do see
this.
This is the type of issues people wonder about. With its Oceans
Act, the federal government deliberately chose to take this strategic
tool away from Quebec and this is why we must oppose the bill.
The government must absolutely redo its homework and give the
federal transport department responsibility for user fees again, so
that there will be only one decision maker, who will take into
account all the economic criteria, before making a choice.
It is not true that we only have to subsidize coast guard
icebreakers. The decisions made must take into account the
economic reality as a whole, and we must make sure that, in the
end, no additional damage is done through a fee increase, which
would mean more costs to the economy as a whole and also to the
governments involved.
In conclusion, the bill should be rejected. It is not a measure that
will serve the interests of Quebec, and this is why the official
opposition will vote against it.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), the division stands deferred until October
21, at the time of adjournment.
* * *
The House resumed from October 8, 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. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak on this bill, which is being read for the
third time. We are debating Bill C-29, an Act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial
purposes of certain manganese-based substances.
The main product affected by this bill is a fuel additive called
MMT, which has been in use since 1976 to increase the octane
rating in almost all unleaded gasoline. The Canadian General
Standards Board has set the maximum quantity at 18 milligrams of
manganese per litre.
(1625)
I am not a chemist, but I think it is appropriate and legitimate for
each and every one of us to wonder about the ongoing battle
between two large industries, the oil industry and the auto industry,
and about the nature and the effects of the products these industries
are manufacturing and marketing. Often, catastrophes happen
because of a lack of vigilance.
5387
In my riding alone, we are still dealing with the problems of
the lagoons in Mercier which were contaminated by stored toxic
waste and with the Chateauguay River which was contaminated
by chemical fertilizers.
The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of this bill at the second
reading stage. This was to allow the government to proceed with a
more thorough study of its bill. However, it did not take advantage
of this opportunity. It is trying to ban a substance without
demonstrating that this is a necessary and reasonable solution to a
real problem. We are not convinced at all that it is right. Thus, the
Bloc Quebecois is forced to oppose this bill.
We consider that the fundamental reasons of this bill remain
obscure. The government and the industry suspect the
manganese-based substances damage automobile anti-pollution
systems. But nothing proves this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Independent tests could not prove that MMT has a negative effect.
Here is what was concluded from a test program carried out by
the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, in the United
States:
As for the arguments put forward by the American Automobile Manufacturers'
Association opposing the conclusions of the EPA to the effect that MMT does not
alter ``all or part'' of the operation of the vehicle exhaust system, the court decided
they were of absolutely no value. First, the court indicated that the EAP had
established ``that the additive used by Ethyl had easily passed the tests required for
the study of the most severe requests ever made statistically speaking''. Moreover,
the court noted that the EAP had examined according to more severe criteria the
Ethyl data on the use of the additive in the vehicles produced by the highest
technology and had indicated that the APE could not detect any real increase of the
emissions.
When we are talking about car problems, I think that all of us
who have cars are the best experts. I have a car that reached 50,000
kilometres last week. Yet, after 50,000 kilometres, I get exactly the
same distance per litre as when I first bought the car. My previous
car, which I changed just 20 months ago, had 150,00 kilometres on
it. It never needed major repairs or maintenance, just an oil change
every now and then.
I understand perfectly well when automakers tell us that their
research is secret, that they cannot say anything to us about it, that
it is difficult to demonstrate that MMT is harmful to vehicles. I
have proof. We all drive cars and we are all in a position to know if
MMT is really harmful to vehicles.
(1630)
Some say also that this product could be harmful to our health
and to the environment. Nothing could be less certain. Until now,
neither Environment Canada nor Health Canada has banned MMT.
Ethyl Corporation goes even further, saying that MMT helps
reduce nitrogen monoxide emissions, one of the causes of urban
smog. If MMT was banned, this could result in an increase in the
amount of smog in our cities.
Here is what was said about a series of tests conducted by Ethyl
Corporation. It was said that, to satisfy the U.S. Clean Air Act
requirements for the reintroduction of MMT in unleaded gasolines
in the United States, Ethyl Corporation conducted the most
extensive series of tests ever undertaken on a gasoline additive.
The testing program was designed with the assistance of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. automakers to evaluate
and document the effect of MMT performance additive on
automobile tailpipe emissions and to determine the implications
for air quality if MMT additives were used in the U.S. gasoline.
Four different pairs of cars were driven 75,000 miles with and
without MMT to evaluate the effectiveness of MMT in oxygenated
fuels (MTBE and ethanol). The tests showed that adding MMT to
these fuels reduces nitrogen monoxide levels as well as the toxic
and chemical reactivity of unburned hydrocarbons.
The testing carried out by Ethyl Corporation went far beyond the
tests conducted by automobile manufacturers in Canada and in the
United States, as confirmed by the United States Court of Appeal in
its ruling handed down April 14, 1995, ordering the EPA to grant
Ethyl an exemption.
The purpose of the bill is to ban manganese-based substances
because they are apparently dangerous. Yet, this same bill allows
the use of MMT in gasoline containing lead. If it is okay in gasoline
containing lead, why is not okay in lead free gasoline?
The situation is not clear. In the United States, the ban on MMT
has been the focus of a legal war with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, which sought to have it banned completely. The
Court of Appeal decided otherwise, which leaves me thinking that
it has not yet been shown that MMT is a product dangerous to the
health or the environment.
The following is a summary of the ruling handed down by the
Court of Appeal ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to issue an notice lifting the ban on MMT.
On April 14, 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of
Columbia handed down its decision in the case of Ethyl
Corporation vs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in
which Ethyl challenged the July 13, 1994 rejection by the EPA of
the application by Ethyl to have the ban on MMT in lead free
gasoline lifted.
The Court established that the director had breached the
conditions clearly set out in section 211 by turning down Ethyl's
application to have the ban on MMT for public health reasons
lifted. According to the Court, because Congress had given the EPA
the mandate to evaluate solely in terms of emissions the implica-
5388
tions of applications to have bans lifted, and because Ethyl had met
the prescribed requirements, it felt that the director of the EPA had
overstepped his authority by turning down Ethyl's request to have
the ban on MMT lifted. In light of these facts, the Court issued a
direct order to the EPA to grant Ethyl's request and lift the ban on
the corporation's fuel additive.
(1635)
Here are the very two points they would have us believe, and
which are the reasons behind the tabling of this bill, that is, the
damage that can be done to automobiles, and the health problems
that can arise. In both cases, neither the automobile manufacturers
nor certain courts in the United States have come up with
conclusive evidence.
We are, however, entitled to wonder why the government is so
bent on replacing MMT. The determination of the federal Liberals
to ban MMT will cost Quebecers and Canadians several tens of
millions of dollars, and possibly over $100 million. Gas consumers
are going to pay the bill, largely through increases of probably 1
cent per litre in the price of gas at the pump.
The costs generated by this bill could escalate further. On
September 10 this year, the Ethyl Corporation, an American
company, filed a notice of intent to submit a complaint, with a view
to obtaining compensation totalling $201 million in American
currency or $275 million in Canadian currency, pursuant to section
1116 of the North American Free Trade Agreement signed by the
Canadian government. The company claims that Bill C-29 violates
certain provisions of NAFTA and that as a result, it subsidiary,
Ethyl Canada, will suffer losses when the bill comes into force.
In the circumstances, it is surprising to see the government
continue this exercise. The issue is divisive, and the debate still
goes on, even within the government caucus. It would seem that
with this bill, the Canadian government knowingly exposes itself to
legal action, which today seems imminent.
Last February, the Minister for International Trade warned the
Minister of the Environment in a letter of the possibility of legal
action. With Bill C-29, Canada seeks to prohibit imports of MMT,
without in any way restricting the domestic production, sale or use
of this product. This is further evidence of the bill's lack of
purpose.
The government continues this exercise regardless because some
major interests are at stake. What is at stake is ethanol. We know
that Ontario and western Canada, with a research budget of $70
million from the federal government, want to take over the
production of ethanol and in the process replace MMT. The
problems this may cause for employment are of minor importance
to the federal government. We in Quebec have had a taste of this
kind of medicine in the past.
Previously, the federal government caused a real disaster in the
petrochemical industry in East Montreal, that benefited western
Canada. The Borden line, established in 1963, led to Montreal's
losing four of its six refineries in the seventies and eighties. Nearly
8,000 jobs were lost as a result. In fact, I would like to take this
opportunity to renew an invitation from Quebec's Minister of
Finance, Bernard Landry, to his federal counterpart and the Prime
Minister of Canada, asking them to pay regular visits to Montreal
east so they will remember the damage done by the federal
government and the consequences that are still being felt today.
The same happened in the case of the Auto Pact in 1965. It led to
a concentration of the automotive industry in southern Ontario,
thus encouraging closer ties with the American automotive
industry. I know the federal government will not admit that this
industrial raiding is the cause of Quebec's current economic
problems, but I can tell you it is the main reason why Quebecers
want to see a sovereign Quebec.
(1640)
Another example of disinformation: 76,000 lost jobs in Quebec
in July and August, supposedly because of the political uncertainty.
The Prime Minister of Canada made the effort to travel to Beauce
this summer to voice his claim that Quebec's economic woes were
the result of political uncertainty. Yet, in August, when Quebec
created 41,000 jobs, or 50 per cent of the figure for all of Canada,
no one in the federal government could be found to visit Quebec
and talk to us about political uncertainty.
As for the sad fate of the other provinces, it did not occur to any
Liberal MP to link that to political uncertainty. As well as operating
from a double standard, the government is moving ahead with no
concern for its partners in the federation. Six provinces already, in
other words a majority, have made known their opposition to Bill
C-29. The provinces have a say on the issue of gasoline additives.
In passing legislation on interprovincial trade, the government is
again interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. What has
become of the decentralizing federalism promised during the
referendum campaign? We are still stuck with the never-ending
centralization of powers and decisions on the federal level.
Since the Liberals regained power in Ottawa, the last thing in the
government's mind is respect for the fundamental law of this
country. For example, it systematically refused to comply with
Alberta's request to include the subject of MMT on the agenda of
the conference of natural resources ministers, which took place in
Yellowknife recently.
5389
In short, we are faced with a battle between two major
industries; the automotive industry and the petroleum industry do
not agree on the use of their products. Who will back off? Who
is right? Who will win?
Who will pay? The user, I am sure. But I am equally sure that we
would be able to predict the outcome if we were only able to see
who has contributed the most to the slush fund.
In conclusion, we on this side of the House are going to vote
against Bill C-29. It is more the result of efforts by lobbyists and
corporate self-interest than a reflection of real public interest. As
far as the content is concerned, nothing leads us to believe that
MMT will be banned along with manganese-based products. As far
as form is concerned, this is a hastily thrown together effort which
is simply adding fuel to the fire.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
today I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the
Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. I had a good
conversation with Mr. Douglas R. Leggat, chairman of the
Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada and
MMT certainly was an issue with them.
He reminded me of the fact that General Motors, Ford, Chrysler,
Toyota, Honda, BMW, Jaguar, Hyundai, Mazda, Nissan, Rolls
Royce, Subaru, Volvo and I could go on, all these automobile
manufacturers have registered their support in favour of the ban on
MMT. On top of that there is a national survey of Canadians which
says that the majority of Canadians also support the ban on MMT.
How can the member say that the government is not serious
about this bill and that it does not represent the well-being of
Canadians as reflected by those impacted by it? It is an important
issue and the government is certainly very serious about
proceeding with this bill. That is why it has come before the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Godin: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. There is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of Bloc
members that the issue is a very serious one indeed.
I went through all the documents made available to us, either by
the health department or others; I mentioned earlier a couple of
specific examples, and I will not go over them again.
(1645)
I will be pleased to provide the member with a copy of this
information, if he does not have it already.
Neither the health community nor the car manufacturers can
provide us at the present time with any conclusive example, test or
study showing that MMT is a hazard. We are told, for instance, that
it causes damages to vehicles. Again, as I said earlier, I believe that
those who are in the best position to notice that MMT causes
damages to cars are the users.
All of us are users. I am one. I have been driving for years, and
when I put 150,000 kilometres on my car without any repairs, I
have my doubts when car manufacturers tell me that MMT is a
problem.
With regard to the health issue, it is more difficult of course to
show, to clearly demonstrate which product is harmful and which
one is not. I mentioned a slew of cases before the American courts;
there again, it proved impossible to show that MMT was a health
hazard.
Third, I cannot understand, if it were that much of a health
hazard, why Canada, not another country, would allow it to be
manufactured, exported, and added to unleaded gasoline. It would
not make any sense if it were that harmful. It does not make any
sense to tell us it is extremely harmful and then, turn around and
allow it to be added to gasoline.
With regard to the poll, I must sincerely tell you that if someone
called me at home asking me whether I agreed or not, given how
little I know about the production of MMT, I would have to listen to
the preamble. And when you tell people in the preamble that it is
harmful, they say: ``If it is harmful, ban it''.
For my part, I agree with the member that this issue is very
serious, but the government has not been serious enough for me to
vote in favour of the bill.
[English]
Mr. Szabo: Madam Speaker, there is an important aspect here
that the member has raised. That is that we cannot prove beyond a
reasonable doubt whether there are problems. There is a suspicion
and a risk element here that is apparent from the work that has been
done. It makes me recall the circumstances surrounding the
substance ureaformaldehyde. It was a substance that was used very
prevalently in our insulation systems and things were discovered
later.
The point is that if we are going to make legislation and we are
going to err, the prudent thing to do is to err on the side of caution.
Concerns have been raised. I think the member would agree that if
over time there is an error made, that the error on the side of
caution which errs in favour of protecting the health of Canadians
in dealing with a potentially serious environmental issue and a
potentially damaging situation simply to the operation of motor
vehicles, it is the prudent course to take.
Would the member agree with that assessment?
[Translation]
Mr. Godin: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this is undoubtly a
serious matter.
5390
(1650)
I think that where there is a little confusion is that it is not a new
product being introduced, but rather an old product being
withdrawn. This is totally different from a new product; such a
product must be approved and greater caution must be exercised.
I believe this is not the issue. The issue is that Ontario, especially
Ontario, with a subsidy of, I think, $70 million, wants to produce
ethanol, wants to monopolize the market. I believe this is the real
issue. They come from Ontario, I understand that, and they want to
immediately take over ethanol production, and the purpose of
eliminating MMT is to replace it by ethanol.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, B.Q.): Madam Speaker, I thank
you for allowing me to speak immediately because, shortly after
six, I must take a plane to Winnipeg where I will replace a Bloc
Quebecois colleague on the justice committee which is holding
consultations on young offenders. I also want to thank my
colleague from the Reform Party who agreed to let me speak before
him.
I am happy to participate in this third reading debate on Bill
C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation
for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.
That bill would prohibit the utilisation of manganese-based
products, including MMT. That additive has been added to
unleaded gasoline since 1977 in Canada. However, it is important
to mention that Bill C-29 does not ban the production, sale or
utilisation of MMT in Canada.
Just like all my other colleagues from the Bloc who participated
in this debate, I also think that this bill raises several questions. The
economic and environmental consequences of this bill, as well as
its impact on trade between Canadian provinces and between
Canada and our southern neighbour, the United States, command a
more thorough consideration before we pass the bill as readily as
the Liberal would want us to.
I wonder about the relevance and the appropriateness of such a
bill considering that this government should, in theory, first and
foremost see to the common well-being of the country. I say in
theory because, judging by the spirit of Bill C-29, in fact, the
government seems to be acting in favour of one small group at the
expense of Canadians and Quebecers in general.
Therefore, I cannot support Bill C-29 because there seems to be
a disproportion between the costs and benefits for the population. I
also will not support Bill C-29 because I feel it is unfair since it
favours the wealthiest people in our society, that is the majors of
the automobile industry who gather more and more in the very
Liberal province of Ontario.
I take this opportunity to salute the 26,000 General Motors
workers who are now on strike at the plants in Boisbriand, Quebec,
and in Oshawa, St. Catharines, Windsor, London and Woodstock in
Ontario.
(1655)
These people are out on strike to save their jobs and to prevent
this multinational company from selling two automotive parts
plants in Ontario, plants which employ some 3,800 unionized
workers. These workers are also striking in protest against General
Motors' undue reliance on outside suppliers for parts. In most
cases, the subcontractors employ non-unionized workers who are
paid less.
I wish to express my solidarity with the CAW strikers, the
Canadian automobile workers, and I wish them success. I hope they
will sign shortly a good collective agreement with their employer.
Having worked a considerable time in the labour movement I
know a strike is never easy; it is difficult and I hope they will
manage to reach an agreement in the very near future.
One of the reasons put forward by the government in support of
this bill is that MMT is harmful for the environment. Therefore, it
is also harmful for public health. However, it is mainly the
automobile manufacturers who are making these allegations. They
contend that MMT in gas fouls up the car pollution control systems
which could lead to an increase in the price of cars, therefore they
threaten to reduce warranties and to disconnect the onboard
diagnostic systems. The minister who introduced the bill was very
receptive to these pressures which have more to do with
blackmailing than with true warning against the harmful effects of
a product.
Blackmail, indeed, since at the same time other people were
voicing a reverse opinion on this bill. Based on Health Canada
studies, one of which was done on December 6, 1994, officials
from the oil industry and the product distributors, particularly
Ethyl Canada, claim that MMT is not harmful to public health.
Results from several scientific tests also show the addition of a
quantity of MMT to gasoline leads to a reduction of emissions
contributing to the formation of ground-level ozone and urban
smog. Contrary to statements made by the automotive insdustry
lobby, with the ban on MMT, urban smog becomes more
significant.
If we withdraw MMT from gasoline, we will have to find a
substitute for it. At the present time, it seems the Liberal
government is in favour of ethanol, but ethanol production is
financially and environmentally costly. Its production from corn
pollutes the environment much more than MMT production.
MMT requires less intensive treatment than ethanol, which
means less carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and
sulphur dioxide from the stacks of plants producing gasoline. As
for ethanol, fertilizers and pesticides used in corn production cause
5391
damage to soil. If the environmental and social arguments in favour
of this bill do not hold, the same goes from the economic
arguments.
It has been demonstrated that costs related to the changes
proposed by Bill C-29 are excessive. Canada simply cannot afford
such rather irrational expenses.
(1700)
The substitute proposed for MMT, that is, ethanol, would require
several millions of dollars in investments. Besides, as my
colleague was saying earlier, the government has already launched
an investment program of about $70 million for ethanol
development. Coincidentally, an ethanol plant in Chatham,
Ontario, a Liberal stronghold, has received federal government
assistance.
Undoubtedly, this bill is partisan, and it is not a coincidence that
the government wants to have it passed at all costs. By giving in to
the pressures of the automotive industry, which is concentrated in
Hamilton West, the riding of the minister at the time, and in
southwestern Ontario, and by favouring the ethanol industry, it is
scoring political points.
As taxpayers, the people of Canada and Quebec will lose a great
deal in this project. According to some estimates, it will cost over
$100 million in capital, including $7 million in Quebec alone, in
addition to the operating costs of the refineries, which will have to
leave the additive MMT out of their gasoline. If this bill is passed,
the oil companies may threaten to lay off employees or to increase
the price of gasoline.
In addition to the production and transportation costs, there are
the costs associated with the multiple lawsuits that might be
launched by the American and Canadian companies hurt by this
policy. It is imperative to point out that Bill C-29 violates certain
provisions of international trade agreements, including NAFTA, as
well as interprovincial trade treaties. Once again, through this bill,
the Liberal government flouts certain sections of the Canadian
Constitution prohibiting federal interference in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
On September 10, Ethyl Corporation, from the U.S., which is the
only company manufacturing MMT and exporting it to Canada,
filed a C$275 million lawsuit against the federal government. Ethyl
argues that, under an article in NAFTA, its trade rights are being
undermined by this legislation the government is about to pass.
This multinational corporation alleges that its reputation has been
damaged by the environment minister's comments on MMT.
Last February, the Minister for International Trade sent a letter
to his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to warn her that
prohibiting the importation of MMT would violate Canada's
obligations under the terms of the World Trade Organization and
NAFTA, and could only be justified for health or environmental
reasons in light of the scientific evidence available.
The Premier of Saskatchewan also informed the Prime Minister
of his reservations about the impact of Bill C-29. In a letter dated
September 16, he wrote that ``the bill is totally unjustified at this
time''. It is the Government of Saskatchewan saying this. That
provincial government's views should be taken into consideration.
Saskatchewan is not the only province to object to Bill C-29. By
attempting to regulate interprovincial trade, the federal
government is once again interfering in an area of provincial
jurisdiction.
(1705)
Last May, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a
motion calling on the federal government to defer passage of Bill
C-29. Of course, as in several other areas, the federal government
continues to turn a deaf ear to the provinces opposing its legislative
agenda. Once again, co-operation between the federal government
and the provinces has become an important issue.
For all these reasons, I cannot support this bill. The scientific
evidence invoked to justify the ban on MMT is extremely weak,
while environmental and economic considerations have not been
taken into account. I, for one, feel that these aspects have an impact
on the quality of life of Canadians and Quebecers. That is why we
must look at them more seriously and carefully than this
government is doing.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member raises similar issues to those that have been raised by other
speakers from the Bloc having to do with an indictment of the
automobile lobby.
As I indicated earlier, today I had an opportunity to meet with the
Canadian Automobile Dealers Association and the chairman,
Douglas R. Leggat from Burlington, Ontario. The issue of MMT is
extremely important to them.
The adverse effect of MMT stems from the fact that
approximately 80 per cent of the combustion products of the
additive remain in the engine combustion chamber and catalytic
converter. This adversely affects the vehicle pollution control
equipment and as a result will increase air pollution and consequent
health implications.
My question to the member comes down to, are we concerned
about a potential problem of the lobbyist type or are we dealing
with a risk to the environment and to the health of Canadians? I
would like the member to tell me what the automobile industry has
to gain from this other than to have products which reduce the
pollution of Canada's environment.
5392
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to us that there is a very
strong lobbying effort by the automotive industry on this issue.
Like my hon. colleague, most of the government members who
oppose our view are from Ontario, where there is a high
concentration of car manufacturers.
If you were really sure of your facts, you could discuss the
matter with your colleague, the Minister of International Trade,
who is also from Ontario, who wrote the Minister of the
Environment, saying how concerned he was about the potential
implications of this bill.
If you are so right, why did the Government of Saskatchewan
express very serious reservations about this bill? The Government
of Quebec did the same thing; the Quebec National Assembly
unanimously passed a resolution opposing this bill.
I think it would be in the interests of the people of Canada and
Quebec not to proceed with this bill, especially at a time when there
is a difference of opinion in government, within Cabinet. I think the
bill should be considered further before being brought back, given
that it is very controversial.
(1710 )
[English]
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight for the
member that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
task force on cleaner vehicles and fuels estimated that health
benefits of up to $31 billion over 23 years would result from
introducing cleaner fuels and more stringent vehicle emissions
standards into the Canadian marketplace.
Acknowledging that there is some uncertainty, some risk, some
disagreement of opinion, would it not be prudent to proceed with
this bill if we are to err on the side of caution in protection of the
health of Canadians and the Canadian environment?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that
the health of Canadians and Quebecers is at great risk. That is why I
do not believe this bill is warranted in the circumstances. There are
scientific studies to back me up on this.
I think that the government is facing a huge challenge, because if
there is no consensus within Cabinet itself, among its own
members, it would be wiser not to go ahead with a bill as strongly
criticized and as controversial as this one.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want to
suggest that the scientificstudies the hon. member from the Bloc
was referring to are studies that have been developed by the
corporation in question which is producing MMT. One might try to
understand whether these would be unbiased studies.
Studies were conducted by the University of Waterloo, which is
a very fine Canadian university with international and national
reputation. The university has suggested that the studies that were
conducted by Ethyl Corporation were not valid and were not
conducted in a rigorous scientific way. I would suggest that the
studies that the hon. member has brought forward are not entirely
correct.
The member talks about a lot of things in his speech. The debate
right now is on the amendment, which is to postpone a vote on this
bill for another six months. I find this amendment to be totally
intolerable and unacceptable. I think Canadians who are watching
us today also find this intolerable.
Canadians find it intolerable that the Bloc and the Reform are
colluding on this and are falling prey to a lobbying effort by an
American multinational firm. If we are going to stand up for
Canada, if we are going to stand up for the health of Canadians, if
we are going to stand up for a clean environment for Canadians, we
are not going to pander to the desires and needs of an American
multinational. I say shame to them.
I would point out in reference to the concerns the member
opposite has raised, that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment task force, which represents ministers from all the
provinces in Canada, in its report on cleaner vehicles and fuels
recognizes that fuels and emissions control technology should be
treated as an integrated system to reduce motor vehicle emissions.
The ministers have further agreed to require that cleaner fuels be
mandated for use in all motor vehicles. The MMT initiative is fully
consistent with this approach.
I was in committee and there were witnesses from Ethyl
Corporation. I asked the witness from Ethyl: Whose responsibility
is it to ensure that we reduce unacceptable emissions? Is it the
public? Is it the government? Is it the automotive industry? Is it the
refinery? His answer to me was that all those other people had a
responsibility but that the refineries and the producers of MMT had
no responsibility. I think Canadians would find that absolutely
unacceptable. The arguments that are put forward by both the Bloc
and Reform support unacceptable arguments.
(1715)
The hon. member from my side of the House who has a little bit
of sense around this issue, I would suggest a lot of sense around
this issue-
Mr. Calder: He is a Liberal.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: He is a Liberal. Absolutely.
5393
The hon. member asked a question of the member opposite, why
would all of these automotive manufacturers put forward a
situation where MMT is bad for their onboard diagnostic systems?
We are talking about over 20 automotive manufacturers that are
in competition with each other. They have spent millions of dollars
conducting scientific tests. Why would they spend this money in
a fiercely competitive market if they were not going after the
truth?
I want to add a few more truths about Bill C-29 to refute some of
the untruths coming from the other side. The truth is that MMT
impairs emission control equipment. If you want information on
the formulation of fuel you should consult a refinery expert. If you
want to understand the impact of that fuel on a vehicle you need to
talk to the engineers and scientists who design and test vehicles.
Everyone agrees that more than 80 per cent of the manganese
that is added to gasoline stays in the automobile's engine and
emissions control system. Guess what happens when it stays there?
It gums up the works. It makes those systems inoperable. When
those systems do not operate it makes it impossible to monitor all
of the other emissions from that automobile.
The member opposite in his speech spoke of the cost to
consumers. Taking MMT out of gasoline will result in a $5 cost to
the consumer for a year versus thousands and thousands of dollars
of cost to their automobile. That is why the Canadian Automobile
Association, which is the largest consumer group for the
automobile drivers in Canada, is right behind this bill.
Another truth is that if MMT was really as great as the
corporation that produces it claims for vehicle performance and
emission control, it would have been embraced by the automotive
manufacturers in jurisdictions like California as part of their
emission control standard. MMT is banned in California. If anyone
in the House has been to California you know the kinds of problems
it has with smog.
The organizations that have been held accountable for achieving
measures for emissions reductions have worked with leading
academics, scientists and engineers around the world to find a way
to reduce the pollution from vehicles. No jurisdiction or
corporation has found MMT to be part of the solution.
The truth is that Canada is the only jurisdiction in the developed
world in which MMT is used on a national basis. In spite of the
recent narrow technical decision of a U.S. court that forced the
Environmental Protection Agency to grant Ethyl a waiver, MMT is
still prohibited for use in over one-third of the U.S. states. A
number of refineries do not allow MMT as part of their
reformulation program.
There is another truth which I would like to use to debunk
opinions expressed by members of the House. The Government of
Canada has the authority under NAFTA to pass legislation like Bill
C-29. I guess the members opposite are running like scared little
chickens, afraid of this giant American multinational company.
They are afraid to promote their sovereignty. I find it very
interesting when we hear a lot of debate about sovereignty in this
House.
NAFTA has a safeguard that allows us to protect human, animal
or plant life and health. This safeguard was enshrined in NAFTA to
allow the federal government the ability to protect the environment
and the health of Canadians without fear of having these efforts
blocked by frivolous trade actions like the one recently announced.
(1720)
I have another truth. It is that the U.S. wants to ban MMT as
badly as Canada. The proposed challenge being brought by the
corporation is a private challenge against Bill C-29. This is a clear
signal that its position is not supported by the American
government. The American government has not hestitated to
launch complaints under NAFTA in the past but in this case the
U.S. EPA has taken a leadership role, which is what the
Government of Canada is doing in opposing the use of this fuel
additive.
Carol Browner who is the head of the EPA in the United States
said earlier this year, and I would like to say this loudly, clearly and
perhaps slowly so that it might sink into the member's opposite,
that the EPA, believes that the American public should not be used
as a laboratory to test the safety of MMT.
I applaud the efforts of the government which makes a similar
stand. Canadians will not be a testing ground for MMT. Would you
like me to repeat that? Canadians will not be-
The Deputy Speaker: I ask the hon. member to please sit down.
I appreciate the hon. member is not the only one who does this but
the hon. member will please not have a you and I discussion across
the floor. I ask that she please address all of her remarks to the
Chair.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is
just that I have such an incredible passion about this particular
issue and I have such a lack of understanding why the opposite side
is not getting it.
Health Canada confirmed in July 1996 that it fully supports the
proposed ban on MMT. A ban on MMT is also supported by the
public health departments of the cities of Toronto and North York.
These and other communities are all too familiar with the health
problems associated with poor air quality and are anxious to see
MMT banned. Very little is known about the long term health
effects of chronic low level exposure to manganese compounds that
are formed when MMT is used as an additive in gasoline.
5394
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the suggestion that
we are caving in to one lobby group is totally absurd. When we
look at the equation, who is standing on the side of the public
interest? On one side are the Bloc and the Reform that have caved
in to the lobbying efforts of a single American multinational which
I might add fought against the removal of lead in gasoline.
On the other side, the side that is speaking for the public interest,
for the health of Canadians, for the environmental protection of
Canadians are organizations like the Allergy Asthma Information
Association, the Canadian Automobile Association, which is the
largest consumer group for Canadians automobile drivers, the
Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Council of Canadians, the
Environmental Defence Fund, the Learning Disabilities
Association of Canada, the Ontario Public Health Association,
Pollution Probe and the Sierra Club of Canada.
(1725 )
I believe I have made my case very clearly and I look forward to
a quick resolution of the amendment and the bill.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as I listen to the comments on MMT it occurs to me that just about
the time the Liberals are getting around to banning it, the United
States lifted the ban about a year ago. I wonder why the Liberals are
trying to play catch-up on this now.
A consequence of eliminating MMT as an additive is a 20 per
cent increase in nitrous oxide emissions, which is the smog we are
trying to avoid in our cities. What the member said does not make a
lot of sense. I wonder what her comment would be in the light of
these two facts.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member had
the misfortune not to hear my speech. I will endeavour to speak a
little more slowly.
With respect to the member's first question, in my speech I
clearly stated that the case which went before the U.S. Supreme
Court was lost on technical grounds. The EPA is going ahead. I also
said that Carol Browner, who is head of the Environmental
Protection Agency in the United States, said that the American
public should not be used as a laboratory to test the safety of MMT.
I further said that California, along with 16 other U.S. states, has
banned MMT. Most of the refineries in the United States are not
using MMT. They refuse to use MMT.
With respect to the final question of the hon. member opposite,
the information that he has relayed to the House comes from a
study undertaken by the corporation responsible for the production
of MMT and, might I add, the only corporation in the entire world
which produces MMT. This information came from the study. This
was a study which the University of Waterloo, an internationally
renowned institution, debunked.
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want ask a question of the parliamentary
secretary. The member from the third party spoke about nitrous
oxide, manganese oxide, et cetera. There is another additive that
we could put into gasoline. It is called alcohol. When alcohol is put
together with gasoline it is called ethanol. We are not putting a
refinery out of business. It could mix that too.
In Ontario we will create a new domestic market for corn
producers, consisting of 15 million bushels, with the ethanol plant
which will come on line next year. Carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide emissions can be lowered. The problem of the onboard
diagnostic sensors which the automotive dealers are worried about
can be solved. More than that, there is a byproduct of this. It is
called brewer's grain. Brewer's grain has had enzymes which have
acted upon it. It is highly digestible. It can be fed to cattle, dairy
cows and pigs. There is a byproduct from it called fertilizer. Some
of the amendments the third party is talking about reflect the
byproduct that comes from bulls. That can go into the ground.
Crops can be raised from that. There is absolutely no pollution
from it at all. It is totally green biomass. I would like the
parliamentary secretary to comment on that.
(1730)
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, as always, my hon. colleague
has an interesting way of addressing some very complex problems.
One of the things that has been raised in this House, especially
by members opposite, is that this will only help the Ontario corn
industry. I would suggest that not only ethanol can be used as a
replacement for MMT. There are many other substances.
The members from the Bloc forget that there is an ethanol
producing organization in Quebec which manufacturers ethanol
from wood products.
There are many different opportunities. There are refinery
operations in the province of Alberta, the province that many
Reform members come from.
When we are talking about banning MMT and replacing it, we
are talking about a variety of substances being used in ways that all
parts of this country can benefit instead of giving all of the money
to an American firm.
An hon. member: It is good for health.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It is good for health.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, with apologies to the
member for Mississauga South, unless there is unanimous consent
to extend the time.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been
scheduled to speak on this issue for some time now. I was kind
enough to give my space in the order to a Bloc member who had to
5395
catch a plane. I would appreciate some time to speak on this issue
before the time expires.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, there is not unanimous
consent to extend the time of the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want
some clarification from the Chair as to the extension of time.
Private Members' Business is set for 5.30 p.m. and certainly we
have no difficulty at all in extending it briefly but obviously we do
want to get on with the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. The time has
been extended because of a ministerial statement to 5.42 p.m.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
important for me to speak on this issue again because of the way
the Liberal members are using the facts of this issue so loosely. We
have talked about a number of them. Over and over they have
talked about the ethanol issue.
I have been involved in this issue from the very beginning. I
listened to the evidence before the committees. We were told time
and time again by the refinery people that ethanol is not a substitute
for MMT in gasoline. So that is a straw man they are putting up. It
is an entirely irrelevant issue; it has no relevance here.
We are talking about who is in the pockets of whom. The
member Essex-Windsor talked about the importance of the
Canadian automobile industry and that it produces 465,000 jobs
and 7 per cent of Canada's GDP and all the rest of it. I do not see
how that is relevant in this debate unless that member is lobbying
on behalf of the automotive industry.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With due
respect, when a member names another member and indicates that
they are in the pockets of somebody else, indicates that somehow
they are getting some benefit, that is to impute motive and bring
disrespect to a fellow colleague in the House.
(1735)
I resent that and I ask the member to withdraw the comment.
The Deputy Speaker: If members had to sit up here they would
appreciate that sometimes comments that are made are very
disturbing. I wonder, in the interest of collegiality if the member
would be prepared to reconsider and word that matter differently.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to withdraw the
accusation if those on that side withdraw exactly the same
accusation that was made against this party.
The Deputy Speaker: I did not rule it to be unparliamentary. In
light of what the member has said, I will rule that what has been
said is not unparliamentary and I will allow the member to
continue.
Mr. Chatters: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I have no
problem with the member for Essex-Windsor defending the
interests of the automotive industry because they are, after all, her
constituents. Coming from a constituency that has considerable oil
and gas development, I would also speak on behalf of those people.
However, one condition I would put, speaking on their behalf, is
that they would produce credible evidence for me to back up their
case. I sat in committee and listened to the evidence and only a
moron would have believed the evidence to be credible. They told
us that this substance in fact fouled the spark-plugs of cars. They
did not even have the decency to produce the evidence on two
spark-plugs that were the same make and model. The Liberals sat
there and swallowed that rubbish like it was the truth.
I listened, met and talked to both sides on this issue, the car
manufacturers, the refiners and Ethyl Corporation, which is more
than the Liberals were willing to do, I might add. After all this
debate and in committee Ethyl Corporation told the members that it
wanted to be reasonable and fair on this issue and that if the
Liberals would just allow a non-partisan study where all the
interest groups had a chance to partake in the protocol on this study
and that the evidence was impartial and undeniable, it would
voluntarily withdraw the product from the market. How can anyone
be more reasonable than that? I suggest they cannot.
I think the hypocrisy that floats around this issue is unbelievable.
The member for York-Simcoe, who spoke yesterday, stood in the
House during statements and said: ``Nations around the world
agree that human interventions create conditions that cause global
warming and climate change. We all share in the negative
economic and social consequences''.
That same day in the afternoon the member for Elgin-Norfolk
said: ``I would like to congratulate the city of Chatham and the
company, Commercial Alcohols, for the recent announcement of
the construction of a new $153 million ethanol production
facility''. We kind of get an idea of what is going on here. We
cannot have it both ways.
An hon. member: That smell is getting pretty bad.
Mr. Chatters: You are darn right, and it is not the fermenting
corn that smells either.
The facts surrounding the ethanol business relating to MMT
simply are not a rational argument because ethanol does not and
will not replace MMT. I think anyone who looks at the argument
would agree.
5396
I am running short of time so I am jumping around here a little
bit. I would also like to quote from the Halifax Sunday Daily News
when Premier Savage of Nova Scotia said that he could not
support this bill because the supporting of this bill would
necessitate the closing of the Imperial Oil refinery in his province.
An hon. member: That is garbage.
Mr. Chatters: That is right here.
(1740)
The fact is the automotive industry is trying to get rid of MMT to
cover a deficiency in the technology it is required to bring forward.
In spite of the fact that MMT has been banned for 20 years in the
United States, the OBD-II technology has the same failure rate in
the U.S. as it does in Canada where MMT is in the gasoline. The
problem is that the automotive industry had to get exemptions from
those standards in order to licence the OBD-II technology in its
cars because they are not reliable. The technology is not developed
to the degree it needs to be and it cannot meet the standards. It
needed a bogeyman to blame that on so it chose MMT. And that is
the plain and simple reason why this issue is before us now.
The evidence is there. This issue has been studied more than any
other gasoline additive issue in history. It went before the courts in
the United States twice and Ethyl Corporation won the cases both
times. There is no scientifically verifiable evidence to show that
MMT does foul the OBD-II equipment. It simply is not there.
We have heard time and time again the horror stories about
manganese destroying human brain cells and all the rest of it. The
Liberals' own health minister studied this product very thoroughly
and in spite of all we have heard, Health Canada says there is no
detrimental effect to the health of Canadians by the addition of
MMT to gasoline in Canada.
Again, these strawmen keep popping up everywhere to cover this
weakness of the evidence involved. I got across everything I
needed to.
The Deputy Speaker: It now being 5.42 p.m., the House will
now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5396
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP) moved:
That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Transport should proceed rapidly
to establish a Canadian test site for Operation Respond, a computerized database of
hazardous materials that would improve safety for firefighters and help save lives and
property.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since 1991 firefighters and other
emergency responders have been seeking the establishment of a
Canadian demonstration site for Operation Respond, a
computerized North American emergency response information
system which enables firefighters to obtain accurate instant
information at the scene of a hazardous materials incident. I would
note as well that Operation Respond can also be applied to
passenger rail traffic.
Over the years firefighters and other emergency responders have
received significant support from members on all sides of the
House in their demand for speedy action on Operation Respond.
I would like to take the opportunity today to acknowledge the
support of members on all sides of the House from the Liberal
caucus, les deputés du Bloc québécois, members of the Reform
Party and members of the Conservative Party.
Yesterday I spoke with half the members of the Conservative
caucus, the member for Saint John, and she indicated her strong
and ongoing support for this motion.
I also want to thank all the members who have written or
telephoned to indicate their support of the motion even though
some are not able to be present in the House for this first day of
debate.
Members will also understand that I want to pay a special tribute
and say a special word of thanks to my own colleagues who have
been so vigorously supporting these changes over the years, my
colleague for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake who seconded the
motion today and all of my other colleagues who joined in
seconding the motion now before the House. I would particularly
note the member for Winnipeg-Transcona who has been a solid
supporter of this. In fact, in June 1995 he brought a motion before
the House also under Private Members' Business urging the
government to move forward on this very important initiative.
As long ago as 1992 colleagues such as Ian Angus from Thunder
Bay and Joy Langan from Mission-Coquitlan spoke out in
support of these changes. The people who have really been on the
frontlines in this long campaign are the firefighters themselves, the
International Association of Firefighters and firefighters across
Canada.
(1745)
From my community the Canadian vice-president Terry Ritchie;
Mark Fletcher, the president of local 323; the Burnaby local of the
IAFF and Robert Hall of Vancouver local 18, have been
particularly helpful in this. I might add that they have noted some
of the particular concerns in the lower mainland. As a port city,
Vancouver has had more than its share of hazardous materials
incidents and
5397
the amount of traffic that passes through our ports and our streets
continues to escalate very significantly.
All transportation corridors to the lower mainland run through
Burnaby whether it is roadways, railways, airways or marine ways.
In fact all hazardous materials that are shipped into Vancouver via
trucks are transported along highways which travel through
Burnaby. The major rail carriers all travel through Burnaby. Four of
the six petrochemical wharves in the GVRD, the Greater
Vancouver Regional District, are also located in Burnaby.
The Burnaby firefighters have noted that the current system, the
CANUTEC system which has been in place since 1979, works well
when firefighters know specifically with what they are dealing. The
problem is not knowing what chemicals, what other hazardous
materials are being dealt with. As noted by Mark Fletcher in his
letter to me: ``Often valuable time is lost and great risks are taken
in trying to make that determination. A computerized tracking
system would alert us to the fact when rail cars or tanker trucks
were carrying mixed loads because of course chemicals which are
relatively harmless on their own can in fact become extremely
dangerous if they are mixed in with other chemicals''.
Operation Respond has the potential to save many lives in the
city of Burnaby, the lives of the members of our fire department but
also the lives of citizens in that community. The system would
enable firefighters to stay in a safe zone away from a hazardous
materials incident and not have to take proactive measures until
they know what they are dealing with and until they can proceed in
a safe manner.
I want to acknowledge the leadership on this issue of the
Canadian director of the International Association of Firefighters,
Doug Coupar, who has done such an outstanding job of making
members and others aware of the importance of this issue and the
importance of moving quickly on this issue.
I want to add a special word of thanks to my assistant Catherine
Meaden who has done such a fine job as well in helping to prepare
this important debate.
The objective of this motion is straightforward.
[Translation]
It is to establish a test site for Operation Respond, a
computerized database of hazardous materials that would improve
safety for firefighters and help save lives and property.
[English]
By way of background I would note that the most dangerous
aspect of firefighting is responding to incidents that involve
hazardous materials or HAZMAT as they are known. Firefighters
in Canada are especially hampered by the lack of information
available in such incidents, especially within the critical first few
minutes after arriving on the scene. What is absolutely essential is
accurate, accessible information. This is crucial to saving lives and
property at the scene of these accidents. The appropriate response
for one hazardous material could prove quite catastrophic or very
dangerous if another substance is present.
[Translation]
There is a whole gamut of advanced technological systems that
would allow firefighters to know exactly the nature of hazardous
materials to which they are exposed, and to get the advice they
need to react. These systems may be designed for the processing of
hazardous materials at a given site, and for those transported by
train, aircraft, truck or boat.
[English]
The information provided by these systems not only aids in
identifying what hazardous materials are present but it can also
offer detailed information on the appropriate emergency response
techniques. In some cases it can provide guidance on evacuating
specific communities.
Implementation of a hazardous materials identification system
would ensure that firefighters have the information they need to
effectively respond to any incident enabling them to protect lives
and property. Surely firefighters have the right to know precisely
what hazardous materials may be present. They have the right to
know that immediately. They should not have to wait minutes or in
some cases hours to get that vital information.
(1750)
In the case of passenger rail emergencies, Operation Respond
will make it easier for firefighters to save lives by knowing entry
points, electrical and mechanical systems and bypass advice.
Members of the House will perhaps have noted an ad that was
placed in this week's issue of the Hill Times newspaper. In this ad it
is pointed out that courier packages are readily traceable across
Canada, indeed around the world. That technology exists, but
Canada's firefighters do not have access to the same modern and
latest technology to identify potentially hazardous materials. It is
essential that we make this change and it is essential that we make
it now.
There are many examples of the urgency of this system.
Members will recall the Mississauga train derailment in 1979. The
train was carrying chlorine gas and 24 cars of the train derailed.
Two propane filled cars exploded into a huge fireball of chlorine
gas. Many residents were forced to evacuate their homes.
I know that the member for Mississauga West, who strongly
supports this motion by the way, remembers vividly that particular
incident. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport, the member for Hamilton West, who has also indicated
previously his support for this motion, recalls well the Mississauga
5398
incident. In fact as a young television reporter from Hamilton he
was assigned to cover that tragedy.
In circumstances such as that it is absolutely essential that
firefighters have access at the earliest possible time with the latest
technology to know precisely with what materials they are dealing.
There are many other examples. In the small town of Linwood in
Ontario was a burning vehicle, a urethane spray truck. Firefighters
attended the scene. They were not able to identify a placard, which
of course we are told should be available. One of the firefighters
was able to obtain the driver's manifest and the load sheet and
determined from that what dangerous chemicals were on board.
They consulted with CANUTEC and were told to stop their
suppression efforts. In fact those suppression efforts could have
been dangerous to the firefighters in question.
There was a rural Manitoba accident where firefighters had to
wait 13 hours to determine the contents of a derailed train. Finally
they used binoculars to obtain an identification number.
Another incident was on the northern bank of the Eramosa River
in Guelph outside the Huntsman chemical plant earlier this year.
The Guelph fire department was called. It was a chaotic scene, a
spill of some 56,000 litres of the liquid chemical phenyl which was
being unloaded into a storage tank. It is very toxic and very
flammable and burns on contact. The firefighters were hampered
because they were not able to get the information they needed when
they needed it. They waited two hours before they were finally able
to obtain that information.
It is not good enough to rely on the CANUTEC system which is
currently in place. Operation Respond uses a unique number which
is clearly identified, clearly displayed, not just in one place but on
all load containers and in a variety of different locations.
It is essential that we move ahead. It is essential that the
transport minister make the Operation Respond Canadian test site a
top priority for his department and that he commit the necessary
staff and resources to do that.
The House might ask why is it that Canada has not already
moved to test Operation Respond? Transport Canada tells us that
the current CANUTEC system needs no improvement. There are
too many examples of CANUTEC not working effectively. Delay,
manual use of a telephone, are simply not acceptable, especially
when computer technology exists. They say there have been no
direct casualties from incidents. So far we have been fortunate.
What about a major catastrophe in downtown Toronto, for
example? Would CANUTEC act quickly enough to prevent
casualties? There is a very serious question about that.
(1755)
The CANUTEC system and those who defend it alone also fail to
account for those who have been exposed to contamination, the
inconvenience of unnecessary evacuation or the loss of property
which might have been preventable.
Transport Canada tries to say, as well, that it will cost too much.
We hear astronomical estimates which are in the millions of
dollars. That is absolute nonsense. We are not talking about
scrapping CANUTEC and starting out with an entirely new system.
We are talking about building on CANUTEC, strengthening and
improving the CANUTEC system to ensure that it uses the latest in
computer technology.
I would note that, in fact, the majority of professional fire
departments already have the necessary equipment to operate the
system.
Operation Respond is a non-profit entity. It is already in place in
the United States in many locations and its people are quite
prepared to co-operate to get this under way in Canada. In fact,
today we received tentative cost estimates from Operation
Respond. They say it would be in the order of $40,000 to $50,000.
If we wanted to add passenger rail to that it might bump the cost up
to $65,000 or $70,000. That is all we are talking about. Surely there
is not a member in the House who would not agree that this is a
small price to pay to enhance the safety and the security of
Canadian firefighters and Canadian communities.
The key point is very straightforward. Firefighters want direct,
on screen access via laptop computer when they are in the critical
first stages of identification. The CANUTEC system does not
provide this. Right now firefighters have to go through a
CANUTEC middleman by telephone, even though most
professional fire departments already have computers and
modems.
Let us augment and improve the CANUTEC system. Let us work
together with major carriers who have indicated they are prepared
to co-operate. Let us make sure that Transport Canada is not just
sitting on the sidelines observing. Let us make sure that it is the
major player in this very important process.
This motion has support, not just from firefighters and many
communities across Canada, but from other emergency responders.
The Canadian Police Association, for example, has written me a
letter in which it says that the Canadian Police Association,
representing approximately 40,000 frontline police officers,
supports any additional tool, such as the motion proposes, which
will facilitate the safe storage, handling and shipping of hazardous
material within Canada.
5399
The United Transportation Union, which represents more than
8,000 rail and bus transportation industry employees, is in total
support of Operation Respond in its efforts to provide first
responders with on site, up to the minute, safe and reliable hazard
information. UTU members are all too familiar with the dangers
of incidents involving hazardous materials. As railway employees
they have experienced hazardous material incidents. They say that
the CANUTEC system leaves unquantifiable reasons for which
Operation Respond should be implemented immediately.
Imagine being put on hold for upwards of three hours while
trying to access needed information. That is just not acceptable.
I urge all members of the House to support this motion. I ask the
Standing Committee on Transport to hold hearings. That
committee is chaired by the hon. member for Winnipeg South. That
member was not able to be here today for this debate. However, I
spoke to him and he indicated his strong support for this motion. I
am very pleased that he also indicated that he is prepared to
encourage and to support hearings of the Standing Committee on
Transport on this motion.
Firefighters and other emergency responders from across
Canada are going to be watching this debate very carefully and will
be watching the outcome of the debate. I am concerned about any
attempt by any member of the House, particularly on the
government side, to water down or amend this motion to suggest
that we should study it, examine it or observe it. The time is long
overdue to implement a test site. We do not need any more
observation. We do not need any more study.
It is fitting that this week Canadians are observing Fire
Prevention Week. Two days from now, Saturday, October 12, is
Fire Service Recognition Day.
(1800 )
When the Minister of Labour spoke earlier this week about this
day, he noted that our full time and volunteer firefighters often put
their own lives in danger in order to save other lives. He said: ``We
want to use this day to express our appreciation and gratitude to all
firefighters across Canada''.
In closing, let me say that there could be no more fitting tribute
to the dedication and commitment of firefighters and other
emergency responders in Canada than passing this motion and
establishing a Canadian test site for Operation Respond to improve
the safety of firefighters and to help save lives and property.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the government members here and
elsewhere, obviously we would echo the kinds of praises the
member for Burnaby-Kingsway offers to those in emergency
response teams.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the
motion brought forward by the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway concerning the establishment of a test site for
``Operation Respond''.
The motion stipulates that the federal government should
establish without delay a test site for the ``Operation Respond''
program. This emergency response system, which was first set up
in the Houston area, in the United States, is now in use in selected
localities in that country.
``Operation Respond'' provides basic information to people and
organizations in selected areas, who have access to the appropriate
software. The promoter is ``Operation Respond Incorporated'', a
non-profit organization, which is marketing an emergency response
computer system, that includes procedures, software and content.
[English]
The primary goal of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act
is to promote public safety during the transportation of dangerous
goods. This dangerous goods program has two dimensions. The
first is to prevent an accidental release. The second is to ensure
adequate responses should there be an accidental release or should
one appear imminent.
Accident prevention includes proper identification of dangerous
goods, appropriate means of containment and proper markings on
these containers. In addition, a shipping document describing the
dangerous goods accompanies those shipments.
Adequate response to any accidental release of dangerous goods
requires knowing what is involved, its properties and what should
be done. Canada already has in place a comprehensive, national
emergency response service called CANUTEC.
CANUTEC is equipped to handle these types of situations.
Operation Respond is limited in its activities. Indeed I should point
out that the response information provided by the Operation
Respond program is essentially that which is contained in the
``North American Emergency Responds'' guidebook which was
co-authored by CANUTEC and the U.S. Department of Transport.
My colleague opposite knows that this guidebook was developed
to provide responders with immediate guidance at an accident and
is only an introductory element in CANUTEC's program. As an
aside, I would like to point out that Transport Canada has this
summer provided sufficient copies of the recently released 1996
version of this guide for distribution at no charge to all fire
department vehicles and to all police highway vehicles in Canada.
5400
In addition, this year the department also distributed in the form
of a video to all fire departments in Canada the results of research
work on explosions associated with liquefied gases. The video
makes reference to the tragic accident in Quebec where several
firefighters lost their lives as a result of a boiling liquid expansion
vapour explosion involving liquefied gas.
I make reference to these items and to the support CANUTEC
provides firefighters to highlight the fact that the department has a
great respect for firefighters. It recognizes that providing effective
support to firefighters is one of the more important emergency
response activities that the department can undertake.
(1805 )
I am certain the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway is
familiar with CANUTEC. The centre operates 24 hours a day,
seven days a week. Its primary goal is to provide information,
guidance and advice.
CANUTEC provides a bilingual chemical and regulatory
information and communications service to emergency responders
and industry at an accident. These responders may include
volunteer firefighters, full time firefighters, police or industry
response teams, such as teams from the major petroleum and
chemical producers.
CANUTEC is staffed by professional chemists, trained in
accident situations, who are capable of providing information and
advice to any level of detail required by responders.
[Translation]
It gets around 30,000 phone calls a year, 600 of which are for
serious accidents. Pursuant to the Transportation of Dangerous
Goods Act, any accidental release of a dangerous substance must
be immediately reported to local police authorities. However, if the
accident involves a train, Canutec must be the first organization to
be informed.
[English]
In Transport Canada's continuing effort to provide for a safe and
efficient transportation system, two officials from Transport
Canada are currently observing the Operation Respond program in
the United States. Their role as observers is to attend Operation
Respond meetings and to identify any new activities which would
be considered effective tools for responders in Canada.
Finally, let me assure all members that Transport Canada will
continue to closely monitor the Operation Respond program and
will consider any activities which are shown to be effective in
assisting emergency responders.
My colleague opposite has already given an indication that there
is support for these kinds of initiatives and for the Department of
Transport's initiatives by members of the transport committee. I
leave it to my colleagues on that committee to speak for themselves
and to address this issue when it appears again during private
members' hour. I do not presume to speak on their behalf, but I
know they share with me the considerations that I have just
outlined not only for themselves but for the department as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the motion by the
member for Burnaby-Kingsway, which strikes me as an
interesting one. We could even say that it is a good opportunity to
point out where the work of parliamentarians can have an influence
on departments when they are a bit slow to implement something.
We have a member who has just told a minister, a department
with several thousands of employees, that they perhaps should have
done something a little sooner, the question having first come up in
1991. Some things could have been done and the motion introduced
is certainly interesting from many points of view.
It should be noted that what we are talking about is
implementing a test site to ensure that computerized data about
hazardous materials can be made available very rapidly to fire
fighters called to accidents.
It is a rather complex situation, because it also involves the
provinces. There is WHMIS in Quebec, which concerns the
handling of all hazardous materials, and these various programs
must be linked up so that the computerized system works and so
that everything is done legally and in accordance with provincial
jurisdiction.
It is understandable that the member for Burnaby-Kingsway
has included the word ``rapidly'' in his motion, because Transport
Canada has been slow to act. This is clear from the letters of
support he has received from the International Association of Fire
Fighters and the Canadian Police Association. It is something that
people have been waiting for.
(1810)
These are the groups who have been dealing with the problems
for a long time now, those with the expertise, because, in the case
of hazardous materials, it is important that the information be
available in the first five minutes after they have been informed of
an incident.
It is also important to have very precise information, on
electrical and mechanical systems, for instance, anything that can
help avoid a misstep that would create a problem worse than the
original one.
For some time, Transport Canada depended on the CANUTEC
telephone system, but now it is obvious this is not enough. What is
needed is a faster, more suitable, more accurate system which
provides us with access to the computerized tools developed in
recent years. There is no excuse for being behind the times, like
5401
dinosaurs, particularly in areas where vital actions have to be taken
quickly.
I feel that this is all the more vital because there are volunteer
fire fighters, as well as professionals. This summer, I attended the
KRTB (Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup, Témiscouata, Basques) fire
fighter competitions. About ten different fire brigades were
involved. It was easy to see just how vital physical dexterity,
courage, tenacity and endurance are to a fire fighter.
I was thinking, as I examined the motion of the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway, that it was important for this type of service
to be made available to people who perform these duties on a
volunteer basis, and quickly.
One might think that rural fire fighters will not run into major
fires and major problems, but then the railway comes to mind. All
that is needed is one train wreck, since the rail lines cut through the
whole region, one incident with a hazardous waste spill. Without
the necessary information , we would find ourselves in a very
touchy situation in which volunteer fire fighters, children's fathers
and mothers, could find their lives in jeopardy if the wrong steps
were taken.
A society can be judged by the protective services it offers.
Those who are supposed to intervene in hazardous situations
should have access to a quick and effective source of information
so they can provide a satisfactory service.
This is an interesting motion that will compel the government to
take action as soon as it has been adopted. Awareness of the
problem has already increased thanks to today's debate and to the
vote that will follow so that this motion can be put into effect.
To the Bloc Quebecois, it is also important to ensure that this test
plan is implemented in accordance with provincial jurisdictions,
taking into account the practical aspects of operations and of quick
intervention, but to ensure that data bases are made available to
those who manage the system so that the information is available
and this sort of service is provided in the proper way, it will be
necessary to guarantee free access to information and to ensure this
is done in accordance with existing legislation.
For instance, after testing the site in British Columbia, we cannot
afford to wait six months, a year or two years until it can be used in
Quebec, just because the provincial jurisdictions were not taken
into account. This aspect must also be considered when
establishing the test site, so that here in Canada we will be able to
establish something similar to what is already being used in the
United States. The system will provide the kind of service that will
help us avoid major accidents involving humans, sometimes loss of
life or financial loss. The service will help people who already
serve the public and are prepared to face hazards in the course of
their daily lives.
In this context, Parliament would do well to support a motion of
this kind, especially since the Canadian government seems to be
dragging its feet. It is not a bad idea to do some moving and
shaking to ensure that this project gets off the ground.
(1815)
One wonders if we had a system where jurisdictions were clear
cut and the responsibilities of all concerned were clearly identified,
whether this type of action would not have taken place more
quickly, because there would have been one authority responsible.
There would be no passing the buck. I hope that some day we will
have that kind of system, for the benefit of Quebecers and
Canadians.
But meanwhile, the motion presented by the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway is a very interesting one. I think it deserves
support. In concluding my speech, I move:
That the motion be amended by adding after the word ``should'', the following:
``, in agreement with the provinces,''.
So this experiment should be carried out to reflect the
responsibilities of all levels of government so that, in the end, we
will have a better way to protect both fire fighters and all those who
may be involved in disasters as a result of accidents across this
country.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is admissible.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this very
important debate.
I begin this evening by congratulating the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway for bringing this matter forward for
discussion and hopefully for approval.
Private Members' Business in this Parliament has been the
source of many fruitful and interesting debates. As hard as it
sometimes may be for us to believe it, occasionally bills and
motions actually pass. Without Private Members' Business we
probably would not be having this debate tonight.
The motion put forward by my colleague seeks something
relatively simple and inexpensive. By passing this motion we will
be sending the Minister of Transport a message, to move quickly to
establish a Canadian test site for Operation Respond. We are asking
him to have the effectiveness of the software developed by
Operation Respond tested to determine if it does identify hazardous
materials, thus improving the safety for firefighters and others who
may be involved in a chemical fire.
Everyone in the Chamber and all Canadians are indebted to
firefighters for the courageous work they do. I am sure we all
remember trips to the local fire station to see the big red trucks and
5402
the brave men, now women and men, who hourly put their lives in
danger to protect our lives and our property. I never cease to be
amazed by the ability of our firefighters to respond quickly and
effectively to all forms of crisis.
In this motion we are addressing a particularly dangerous
situation where hazardous goods or chemicals are involved in a
fire. We have moved to a time in history where with complex
materials and chemicals a firefighter must have a level of
sophisticated knowledge beyond anything previously required in
our history.
The firefighter has to know the particular combustibility of
compounds, how various chemicals react together and, of course,
the means that must be used to put the fire out.
Approximately 25 years ago the system which is presently used,
CANUTEC, was developed by the Department of Transport. It is an
excellent system that has served us well in the past years. I
understand that it works when placards are put on vehicles or rail
cars transporting hazardous goods, explaining the content of the
rail car or transport truck or other ferrying device. Once these
placards are spotted by the firefighter they call the staff at
CANUTEC with the information. Within eight to ten minutes a call
comes back telling the firefighters at the scene what the contents
are and how they might fight the blaze.
As I said, it is a good system but perhaps not as quick as it could
be. That is where this motion comes in. That is where Operation
Respond comes in.
(1820)
Under this system, which is has been ably explained by the
member for Burnaby-Kingsway, each truck, vessel, rail car or any
other mode of carrying freight which is part of the Operation
Respond program carries a unique number.
Firefighters simply need to find the unique number which I
gather is displayed in many places on the container and enter it into
a lap top computer carried in a firebrick.
Within a minute the contents of the container will be displayed
on the lap top computer screen. The sources of the information for
Operation Respond are data bases kept by the carriers. This system
is not only quick but gets around the problem encountered with
CANUTEC where sometimes the placard showing the relevant
information regarding the container is destroyed in the crash or
burned in the fire.
The Operation Respond system can be used for passenger rail
where it would show entry points and electrical systems et cetera
on the passenger cars. The software for this program was
developed in the United States and is the property of the United
States government. I am informed it is willing to share it with us
for free. It has already made this offer to Mexico and Mexico has
said yes and is testing and implementing Operation Respond.
The hardware needed to use the software is a lap top computer.
Most fire stations already have them, at least according to the
International Association of Firefighters. A place is needed to test
and surely this government can find some vacant land. How about
some of the Canadian Armed Forces bases land that has already
been closed. Why not try it? What do we have to lose?
Why is Canada not testing Operation Respond already? There
are some reasons. Transport Canada believes the current system,
CANUTEC, needs no improvement. Countless examples prove that
this is not the case. CANUTEC system does work but not as
quickly or as a reliably as Operation Respond would.
Officials point to the fact that in using the present system there
have been no direct casualties from incidents involving hazardous
materials. Is this not just luck? In the event of a major spill in
downtown Toronto would the CANUTEC system work fast enough
to prevent casualties? They also fail to account for those who have
been exposed to contamination, the inconvenience of unnecessary
evacuation or loss of property which might have been preventable.
Apparently what stands in the way are the egos of Transport
Canada, the egos that developed the original detection system and
do not want to give it up. They do not want to give in to progress.
Let us say in this case that Operation Respond is to be used along
with CANUTEC to placate the egos of Transport Canada. Let us
test it to see if it works and let us see how it works. The costs of
proceeding are minimal. Through adoption of this motion let us
send a clear signal to Transport Canada to draft the test criteria
which can be used to determine if the test is a success.
What is the position of international firefighters? International
firefighters of course support this demonstration site for Operation
Respond. They say that firefighters deserve the right to know
exactly what hazardous materials may be present at any incident.
They need access to reliable information within the first three to
four minutes on arrival. That will save lives by ensuring that
firefighters use the most effective response techniques at any
incident involving hazardous materials.
In passenger rail emergencies Operation Respond will make it
easier for firefighters to save lives by knowing entry points,
electrical, mechanical systems and bypass advice.
The International Association of Firefighters urges the transport
minister to make Operation Respond's Canadian test site a top
priority in his department by committing staff and resources to this
project immediately.
5403
Let us send a clear message to our brave firefighters that we
in this Chamber stand behind them in what they are trying to do.
I know the firefighters in my riding and across Canada need the
Operation Respond system and I know they are watching tonight.
Let us send a clear message to the Canadian people that we have
their safety at the top of our agenda. Let us adopt this motion.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I join the
debate on the motion before us which asks the House to advise the
Minister of Transport to proceed rapidly to establish a Canadian
test site for Operation Respond, a computerized data base of
hazardous materials that would improve the safety for firefighters
and help save lives and property.
That we are debating this motion during fire prevention week is a
happy happenstance. I take this opportunity to salute the
courageous staff and volunteers of 4,061 fire departments across
Canada for their dedication and service that helps secure the safety
of Canadians and their properties. They have done a most laudable
job.
(1825)
Yearly there are approximately 27 million shipments of
dangerous goods, for a total weight of 2 billion tonnes. Yet less
than 0.002 per cent of these shipments are involved in an
emergency where people, property and/or the environment is
threatened while waiting for an effective response.
Canadians can take pride in our existing legislation. The
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, together with Canada's
dangerous goods program, is the basis for this strikingly small
percentage of accidents involving the release of hazardous
materials.
We continue to want to do better. We would like to reduce this
already small percentage of accidents to an irreducible minimum
and so we must continue to search for a better tool, a better system
where one exists.
Earlier the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
spoke about the twin goals of Canada's dangerous goods program,
to prevent an accidental release of hazardous materials during
transport and to ensure an adequate response is at hand should there
be such an accident.
It is in continuing vigilance for the latter goal that Canada has
had in place since 1979 a comprehensive national emergency
response service called CANUTEC, short for Canada urgence en
transport emergency centre.
This emergency centre is nationwide in scope and it is operated
by Transport Canada 24 hours a day every day of the year, giving
valuable information and communication service to emergency
responders, including our fire fighters, ambulance personnel and
police forces. It is staffed by professionals, trained in accident
situations who can provide immediate advice on chemical, physical
and toxicological properties of dangerous goods, on health hazards
and first aid, fire, explosion, spill or leak hazards, remedial actions
for the protection of life, property and the environment, evacuation
distances, and personal protection clothing.
Federal regulations require that CANUTEC must be contacted in
the event of an accident or incident involving radioactive materials
or infectious substances.
To ensure its high quality service keeps with the times,
CANUTEC scientists research and investigate developments in
emergency technologies and new information regarding dangerous
goods. Joint international research projects are developed and
undertaken.
I am pleased to inform the House that in keeping with its
commitment to high quality service, officials from Transport
Canada have been observing the implementation of Operation
Respond at the Buffalo test site in Texas, including the ones held as
recently as last month.
Let me share some of these observations. It requires a lot of
co-ordination between various emergency services, police, fire and
ambulance services. It could not substitute for the lack of
familiarity of emergency responders with dangerous goods
response procedures. One county was cited as an example. The
communication equipment did not make it easy for one service
from one county to talk to a different county with a different
service.
Most road carriers do not have computerized data banks showing
in real time the content of their vehicles. Operation Respond had to
negotiate with trucking firms so that they could gain access to
companies' data banks through a modem necessitating the need for
compatibility of the systems.
Operation Respond works better on the rail side of
transportation. Operation Respond was not able to provide
information on the type of protective clothing required for a test
situation. Operation Respond could not give the on-scene
commander answer to the question of how he could determine
whether to evacuate an industrial plant to which smoke from the
accident was drifting toward. This latter observation, I might note,
would have been addressed by Canada's CANUTEC service had
the accident happened in Canada.
But my purpose in sharing these observations is not to criticize.
Far from it. No system is ever perfect. Operation Respond trials
only made some of its weaknesses visible. They will have to be
solved for any safety program to work, Operation Respond or any
other program.
5404
(1830)
I would like to go one step further and respectfully submit that a
careful comparative study of the capabilities of the two systems,
Operation Respond versus CANUTEC, in Canadian or American
sites or both, may well be the approach to take, were we to find the
better system which I alluded to earlier in my debate. I support the
continued search for a better system. This search should be done
with speed.
Our firefighters and our emergency responders deserve our
respect, our help and our support. They are the Canadian public's
first line of defence in the event of an accident. We in the House
have a duty to provide them with all the information they need to
protect the public and themselves. We shall provide them with the
tools necessary to achieve this goal.
We must have the foresight and the imagination to envisage new
uses for new technologies in a way which will help our firefighters
and all other emergency responders.
Operation Respond certainly opens new horizons. Hence we
must continue to monitor it and to test it. We should examine the
feasibility of allowing the American company, Operation Respond
Institute Incorporated, should it wish, to conduct a Canadian test
site. Conceivably, this may be a joint international effort.
While we must also display the reserve that keeps us from
jumping on the bandwagon that in the end may lead us away from
our real goals, we must not hesitate to accept a tool when after
thorough research it is demonstrated to be better and which will
make our country safer for all.
Having had some background in the clinical trials of drugs, in
clinical research, I know that one treatment 15 years ago was
deemed to be the best in North America but 15 years later it was
shown to be not so. We must listen carefully and examine all data
carefully. We must not jump on the bandwagon, but at the same
time we must not hesitate to move and move with speed if it can be
demonstrated that possibilities for a better system exist out there.
Our ultimate goal is a safer country for all citizens, including
emergency responders at the scene of an accident, particularly
when the accident involves hazardous materials.
I would like to reiterate the concept that when we are presented
with the opportunity of a new and better system, we must not
detract from examining that system. Of course, when we examine a
system, costs will be involved but we must equate the costs to the
real benefits that will ensue. We have to measure that against the
lives that will be saved, against the properties that will be lost and
against the environment that will be threatened for eternity.
I congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway for
taking this particular initiative. We must examine it with great care,
for a better system demands great care in handling it. We cannot
conclude that it is best when at the same time we say that we must
test it. The very essence of testing a particular system tells us that
we have not yet made the final conclusion on the quality of the
particular system. And so I submit that we must look at this with a
very positive mind because what is at stake are the lives and
property of Canadians.
(1835)
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Kingsway on
a point of order. The member will realize he is using the time of the
hon. member for Lévis.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I wonder if the
hon. member might be willing to accept a very brief question at this
point with the unanimous consent of the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend the
debate by two or three minutes to allow a question?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, we need to take care when we are
examining the impact of any policy on human-
The Deputy Speaker: It is getting too complicated. I am sorry
to all colleagues. The hon. member for Lévis.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's
attitude is indicative of its unwillingness to be questioned, even
though on this side we are in agreement.
I have been here all afternoon and I notice some inconsistencies
in the government's attitude. For instance, with regard to the single
food inspection agency, it took the federal government 18 years
more than the Quebec government to solve the problem of overlap
among its departments with regard to the setting up of a process to
replace manganese with ethanol. It is urgent since the impact in
Ontario is very significant. This is a matter of great urgency.
The proposal by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway is very
interesting and would cost very little. I asked him because he had
an assessment made of this. The cost for the implementation of this
new measure would be $50,000 for the federal government and
$60,000 more if we also applied it to the railway. For a mere
$110,000 the federal government is requesting time, more time for
a study. This is something they use in the United States, it has been
scientifically proven and it will improve the situation.
Once again the government is showing it cannot react at the drop
of a hat. It is taking an inordinate amount of time just to study a
small measure which would greatly improve peoples' safety. Just
5405
imagine, within five minutes of a call, fire fighters would know if
there were hazardous substances in a place.
Let me relate a incident that happened in a company in my
riding. Because of the products that were found there, water could
not be used to extinguish the fire because it would actually cause
the fire to spread. It would have been important to have this type of
information. The government side, as always, is procrastinating,
asking for time to get involved.
I know the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway agrees with
the amendment moved by the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. He would agree with it. What he
is proposing is an amendment that says ``in agreement with the
provinces''. Why does he propose that? It is simply because fire
fighters are under the authority of municipalities in general and
municipalities are under the authority of the provinces.
All we are asking the federal government to do is introduce a
system that would be used from coast to coast in order to improve
the information for firefighters and facilitate their work.
(1840)
As you know, in large centres, the knowledge and the
information available to fire departments can be rather advanced.
However, fire departments in small municipalities of Quebec, and
elsewhere, are often made up of volunteer fire fighters. These
people need a system that is easy to access and to operate, and one
that will provide them with the available information. These are not
permanent employees. They need a tool of reference to help them
do their job and do it better.
It is unbelievable that the government would hesitate, study,
ponder and wonder about a measure that would cost $110,000. The
costs related to the proceedings of this House during the hour that
was just spent on this issue are higher than that. But the
government wants to continue to review and analyze the issue. This
is unacceptable.
I wanted to make these comments in support of the motion
proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, and the
amendment of the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business is now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order
Paper.
_____________________________________________
5405
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on September 26 I rose in Parliament to note the historic
signing that week of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty at
the United Nations by 80 countries, including Canada. I should
point out that as of today, 111 countries have signed the
comprehensive test ban treaty. This treaty will reduce the
development of new nuclear weapons because if nuclear weapons
cannot be tested, new nuclear weapons cannot be developed.
On September 26, I also noted that several key countries,
sometimes known as nuclear threshold states, had refused to sign
the treaty. These are countries that have a nuclear weapons program
and are trying to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Prominent
among these countries which did not sign are India and Pakistan. I
should point out that Pakistan was willing to sign if India signed,
but India refused to sign.
I would like to point out as well that to bring this treaty into
force, it is required that 44 nations which have a nuclear capability
must ratify the treaty and deposit the ratifications at the UN.
The signing of this historic treaty, especially by the five nuclear
powers, is indeed a great accomplishment for the security of our
planet and a great accomplishment for the security of mankind. I
might say as well it is a great accomplishment for those of us who
have been working for many years to ban all nuclear weapons.
This treaty properly complements the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty which was extended indefinitely several months ago.
However the signing of this treaty is not enough. The job is
incomplete. Not only is it essential to get the 44 ratifications to
bring the treaty into force, but it is also essential to bring on side
those nations such as India that have not yet signed. There will be
no advance in global security if the old nuclear powers stop testing
and reduce their weapons, while other nations continue to test and
become new nuclear powers.
India's argument that the present nuclear powers should first
commit to a timetable to reduce and eliminate all their nuclear
weapons is a good argument, but it does not justify its
non-signature nor any future testing or any attempt to develop new
nuclear capabilities.
Such countries as Germany, Japan and Brazil, which are also
large powerful countries and do not have nuclear weapons, are not
blocking the treaty and insisting that these other countries do what
India is insisting.
Once again I ask the government, what can Canada do to bring
India and other non-signatories on side and to assure the
implementation of this important treaty?
5406
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to respond to the hon.
member's question.
Thanks to Canada, a conference is scheduled to be held some
time late in 1999 to discuss the status of the CTBT. This conference
is called for in the treaty and is a Canadian initiative. At that
conference, signatory countries will review the situation of the
treaty and, if it is not yet in force, will seek ways by which they
might ensure its early implementation.
Clearly it would be premature to specify what actions might be
taken, as what would happen depends on the exact status of the
treaty at that time. Also the policies and positions held by countries
may change by that time.
It is our hope that those countries which have said they will not
sign the CTBT will reflect on their position and eventually sign this
treaty and other non-proliferation treaties which they may not have
signed yet. Canada will use every diplomatic opportunity to press
for universal adherence to the treaty.
Along with Canada, more than 90 countries had signed the treaty
by the end of last week, including the five nuclear weapon states:
the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France and China.
The number of signatory countries increases daily and they already
include one of the so-called threshold states, Israel.
The treaty requires that 44 countries listed in the text sign and
ratify the treaty in order that the CTBT enter into force. In the
meantime, under customary international law, countries which
have signed a treaty are obliged to do nothing that would go against
the purpose of the treaty.
What about the countries which do not wish to sign the treaty?
Canada respects the decision of sovereign nations to take whatever
action they see fit, including not signing a treaty which has the
overwhelming support of the international community. Canada
believes that this treaty, with the strong support that it enjoys, will
establish a legally binding international norm against testing and
will be a powerful political and moral lever even on
non-signatories.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)