CONTENTS
Monday, October 28, 1996
Bill C-307. Motion for second reading 5709
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5711
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5713
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 5714
(Sitting suspended at 11.36 a.m.) 5714
The House resumed at 12.01 p.m. 5714
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 5716
Amendment to an amendment 5721
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5722
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5724
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 5729
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5736
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5736
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5737
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5737
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 5745
Amendment to the amendment 5746
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5747
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5750
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5751
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5754
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5757
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5758
Consideration resumed of motion 5762
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5762
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5763
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5763
5709
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 28, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-307, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (polling hours),
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, today I would like to discuss my
private member's bill, Bill C-307, an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act (polling hours). This bill provides that every polling
station on election day will close at the same time regardless of the
time differences across the country.
[Translation]
As you know, Canada is a large country where distances
sometimes make things a lot more complicated, in spite of new
technologies and means of transportation.
The fact is that when British Columbians are waking up,
Canadians living in St. John's, Newfoundland, are having lunch.
The time difference is a major problem for all those who travel, and
more so for westerners on election day.
In British Columbia, results from the Atlantic region are in just
after 4 p.m., while those from Quebec and Ontario are known an
hour later. In British Columbia, where the population is much
smaller than in eastern and central Canada, this means that voters
always feel excluded from the federal election process.
[English]
Many British Columbians feel they are second class citizens.
They feel alienated. They have felt alienated all along. The other
western provinces have the same problem, although not as much as
British Columbia.
It is not right that such a large part of Canada is left out of a
process that touches all of us and determines the future of our
country. For this reason I have tabled a bill that provides that every
polling station on election day will close at the same time
regardless of the time differences across the country.
The current elections act gives the following provisions: Section
79(3) provides that elections be held on Monday or Tuesday.
Section 109(5) requires that polling hours be from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.
across the country. Section 324 carries exceptions for
constituencies with two or more time zones. Section 160 asks that
ballots be counted immediately after closing of polls. There is no
provision for delay. Section 328 says that it is an offence to publish
election results in any area before voting ends in that area.
(1105)
In my bill changes would occur in the hours of voting. They
would increase from 11 to 12 and the times would be as follows:
B.C. from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Alberta from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.;
Saskatchewan and Manitoba from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Ontario and
Quebec from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.; the maritime provinces from 11
a.m. to 11 p.m.; and Newfoundland from 11.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m.
After discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer who asked that
the hours not be increased from 11 to 12 because of increased costs,
I am proposing that we vote for 11 hours as it is done today and that
voting from Ontario to the maritimes be from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m.
and from 11.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. in Newfoundland. In this case
British Columbia would receive the Atlantic Canada results around
6 p.m. or 6.30 p.m. which would be acceptable. What is
disconcerting is getting the Quebec and Ontario results before the
closing of the polls in British Columbia.
[Translation]
Generally speaking, this proposal is acceptable. We know that, in
Ontario and in Quebec, 10 p.m. is not very late in the evening. A lot
of people start relaxing at this time. However, my colleagues from
the maritime provinces tell me that 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. is too late
in Newfoundland.
If this bill is referred to a committee today, we will have an
opportunity to review it and make appropriate changes if necessary.
There is a lot of opposition to the idea of voting at the same time
and not counting votes until all polling stations are closed, because
those working in polling stations located in eastern Canada would
5710
have to wait for a long time. Moreover, we do not want to stop the
publishing of results, something which is clearly an offense under
the act. The problem comes up every time an election is held.
[English]
Only two bills have been presented in the past to change the
system. In 1982 Bill C-113, on staggered hours, was tabled and
went only to first reading. In 1988 Bill C-79, to establish the
prohibition of election results before polls are closed, was tabled
and did not make second reading.
Complete staggered hours across the country would not solve the
problem. What we have to achieve is to have all of the results from
B.C. to Quebec, including the territories north of those provinces,
announced at the same time, that is, after 10 p.m. Only the
maritimes and Newfoundland would be allowed to announce
results earlier, after the closing of polls in those provinces.
In 1989 the Lortie commission recommended changes to the
voting hours. In 1991 the report of the special committee on
electoral reform recommended that we vote for 10 hours and that
those hours be staggered. This solution would not solve western
Canadians' sense of alienation and lack of participation. I do not
think that people who reside in the central and eastern provinces
and in the territories are aware of the difficulty western Canada
faces at every election.
[Translation]
It must also be realized that British Columbia is experiencing the
fastest growth in the country and that its population accounts for 13
per cent of Canada's overall population. The only poll on the issue
was held in 1990. Seventy per cent of those who took part in it said
voting hours were a problem, including 41 per cent who considered
the problem to be a serious one that had to be corrected. As well, 50
per cent of the participants were in favour of making changes to the
system, with 29 per cent strongly supporting such changes.
Yesterday, delegates at the Liberal convention voted
unanimously in favour of such changes. As you can see, there is a
general consensus. We realize that Canadians care for their
country's well-being and for each other. I spoke to a lot of people
regarding this issue, and the vast majority of them support the idea.
Even newspapers and media people are in favour of this change,
and I am grateful to all those who reacted positively to the idea.
(1110)
[English]
The Ottawa Citizen stated: ``Think of how western voters will
feel if for once they can go to the polls at dinnertime without
knowing Ontario's vote has determined the winner. From time to
time Parliament is faced with legislation which is inherently
sensible''.
Some people may think that 10 p.m. is too late, but remember
that in British Columbia we will only be able to vote until 7 p.m.
instead of 8 p.m. That is the difficulty of administering a country
that goes from the Pacific to the Atlantic to the Arctic. Remember
that this difficulty presents itself only every four to five years and
Canadians are able to adjust themselves to these kinds of changes.
I hope this bill will continue to be a lucky one and that we can
give it royal assent before the next election. On election day I am
sure people in the western provinces would celebrate and would
feel a part of this big country of ours when at night in front of the
TV they are informed of the election results at the same time as
people in the rest of Canada. For the first time in the history of this
country they would then feel that they count.
Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would find
unanimous consent to change the reference of Bill C-307 to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs instead of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Terrana: Madam Speaker, I want to conclude by thanking
all those who supported me, who encouraged me and who provided
advice regarding this bill.
I also ask hon. members to give me their support to refer this bill
to a committee at the earliest opportunity, for a more in-depth
review of this important issue.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak on Bill C-307, which the hon. member for
Vancouver-East just moved for second reading.
But first, I want to point out that today is the first day that people
everywhere in Canada and in Quebec are wearing, just like the
members of this House, a lapel poppy to pay tribute to all those
who served in the armed forces during the first and the second
world wars, during the Korea War and even during the first wars of
the Empire, including the Boer War at the end of the previous
century.
Whatever their origins, these people were sent wherever they
were needed to defend democracy. In my native parish of
Sainte-Claire de Dorchester, there were people who had fought the
Bosporus and Dardanelles war and who vividly remembered that
experience throughout their lives up until their deaths. I met and
still meet with veterans who served during the second world war
and in Korea and who are still very proud of the duties they carried
out.
Those who never came back deserve, of course, all our
admiration and those who fought and were lucky enough to come
back know they did world peace a huge favour. Some mothers lost
their
5711
sons, some wives lost their husbands, some brothers and sisters lost
their brothers and even their sisters.
So, of course, today, all the members of this House spare a
thought for those in our families, in our communities, and in all of
Canada, who fought to defend the values they believed in.
We have taken over, in a more peaceful fashion, but may the
example they have set guide us in the debates we hold and the
decisions we have to make.
(1115)
Regarding Bill C-307, I had the privilege to hear the
explanations given by the member for Vancouver-East. Obviously,
when polling hours were set, we did not think that Canadians would
be able to get the results over the radio immediately via another
country. We did not think that a television network such as CNN
could broadcast the results instantaneously throughout the world.
We did not think that results would be available on Internet.
These technological developments mean that just a few minutes
after polling stations close in St. Anthony or Maryston,
Newfoundland, the results are available to Canadians via foreign
countries, even though they cannot be announced in Canada under
the Canada Elections Act. They are available in Langley, British
Columbia, in Surrey, in North Vancouver, in Calgary or anywhere
in Canada.
Instantaneous communications have rendered the provisions of
the Canada Elections Act obsolete and they have to be revised. In
this sense, the official opposition, concerned with what goes on
from coast to coast, supports in principle the bill introduced by the
member for Vancouver-East.
To make a comparison, everybody in this House certainly
remembers the all important hockey games we used to have many
years ago between Canada and Russia. We got the result on the
news before we could watch the game on television. What was the
use of watching a hockey game when you already knew the result?
Even when the CBC, Radio-Canada and private broadcasters held
back the results in response to public pressure, people took to their
telephones and always managed to find out who had won a game in
international competitions.
The magic of modern communications has made it easy to obtain
results, even though the law technically prohibits it. It is therefore
time to amend the provisions of the Canada Elections Act so that
voters in different time zones voting to elect the same Parliament
may cast their ballot on a footing that truly feels equal, not just one
that is theoretically equal. Voters in Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon
and Winnipeg all have a right to feel that their participation in the
Canadian democratic process carries the same weight as that of any
other citizen.
The United States is having the same problem, as we are now
seeing. There has been much talk in the western states about
whether legislation should not be standardized so that results are
not known ahead of time.
Political analysts who have looked at several presidential
elections in the United States have shown that there was a snowball
effect at play in presidential wins, particularly in the 1980 election.
This was noted not only in the selection of the president, but also of
congressmen, with eastern results coming in quickly and western
voters apparently staying home in droves or voting with the tide,
thus creating a snowball effect. This effect is not necessarily
desirable.
The hon member for Vancouver East was saying earlier that, in
Quebec and in Ontario, 10 p.m. was not particularly late in most
municipalities, that in fact there was still quite a bit going on at that
time of night. There will perhaps be a small problem in the Atlantic
provinces, because there is still a one and a half hour difference
with Newfoundland, but these are questions that are worth looking
at in committee, and that must not used as excuses to block the bill
at second reading.
Thus, in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, where we are now in the process of looking at Bill C-63, an
act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which was referred to us
after first reading I might note, we could probably wrap up our
examination if Bill C-307 was referred to committee fairly rapidly.
With this in mind, and in order to make our contribution to the
debate and show our understanding of the problem associated with
the existing Canada Elections Act, we will be supporting the bill at
second reading and following its progress in committee attentively.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On debate, the
hon. member for Vancouver North.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, that
is North Vancouver. My constituents get quite upset when they hear
it come out the wrong way.
(1120 )
This bill does attempt to address the irritation felt by western
voters when they learn from the Ontario and Quebec results which
party will form the new government. In that respect I guess C-307
has a lot of appeal.
Of course, irritation when the election results come out is really
only a small part of the overall irritation felt in the west in
connection with what happens here in Ottawa, or what is run from
Ottawa, symptomatic of terrible things to come starting with
election night.
Election night is the night when Canadians gather together in
front of the television in order to watch the results to see what
party will be the next government. Frankly, it is extremely
frustrating to be in front of the television, to have the end of the
media
5712
blackout and see the 7 p.m. results being announced from Ontario
naming the next government barely before our polls even close.
In any case, political junkies, if we can call them that, all have
friends in Ontario, Quebec and further east and by about five
o'clock B.C. time they are busy calling their friends to find out the
first results. Quite often in B.C., if we are honest about it, we really
do know what is happening before the media blackout comes off.
Whether or not this spreading of the message by word of month
has an effect on the voting patterns is impossible to tell. Obviously
we cannot rerun an election to test it under different conditions.
Therefore it is impossible to tell whether changing voting hours or
some leakage of results have any impact whatsoever.
The remedies proposed in Bill C-307 do go some way forward in
dealing with the problem of western voter frustration of the release
of election results. However, like all of the other proposals
suggested over the last few years, Bill C-307 is not really the
perfect answer. For example, although some eastern Canadian
results will still be available prior to the closing of the polls in B.C.
the rest will be delayed. This leads me to the conclusion that one
form of frustration presently felt in the west will simply be
transformed into a different form of frustration for eastern voters
who will now have to wait up until quite late to begin seeing the
meaningful results.
Perhaps it would be easier to critique this bill indirectly by
referring to the various solutions that have been suggested over the
years by past commissions and study groups. These are not in any
particular order but I will number them just for reference. The first
suggestion is that all of the polls across Canada open at the same
local time of, say, 8 a.m. and close at the same local time of 7 p.m.,
with the counting of the votes deferred until all the polls are closed.
The problems identified with that sort of solution are that the
scrutineers, the returning officers and their staff would probably
have to remain in a lock-up for several hours, particularly in
eastern Canada, in order to wait for the polls to close everywhere
before they could begin counting and releasing the votes. It could
possibly be in the wee small hours of the next morning in eastern
Canada before that could happen. The average voters in those areas
would probably start to complain that they could not wait up so late
and would not find out who the government was until they got up in
the morning. That would be a legitimate complaint with that
suggestion.
The second suggestion uses the same opening and closing hours
as the first, but with all of the vote counting deferred until the
beginning of the next day in the west. Counting would then take
place and the results would be released simultaneously all across
the country.
The problem with that is that one has to ask whether the
scrutineers and other staff would have to be retained in a lock-up
overnight. Would the ballot boxes have to be removed to
somewhere secure in order to make sure there was no ballot
tampering before the next day? Either way, this method would
probably cause major disruption to commerce throughout the
country for the next day because all the those people who are trying
to watch the results or who are working within the system to count
votes or deal with the other aspects of the election would not be at
work. Frankly, it would appear to be a major disruption.
The third suggestion proposes staggered hours across the
country so that the polls open and close simultaneously. That is
similar to what was proposed in Bill C-307. Frankly, we do not
know whether the convenience factor of the polls being opened at
certain hours encourages or discourages people from voting. We
are well aware that there is legislation requiring employers to give
employees time to go and vote but in practice we all know that a lot
of people wait until after work. For example, in B.C. they do not go
to the polls until 5.30 p.m., 6 p.m. or 7 p.m.
In addition, on the problems mentioned earlier regarding that it
would probably then be the wee small hours before eastern
Canadians would know the results, it would just transfer the
frustration from the west coast to the east coast and so it is not
really a solution.
(1125 )
The 1991 royal commission on electoral reform and the 1993
special committee on electoral reform both recommended
staggered opening and closing hours at the polls as the best way to
address the issue. I am sure they spent a bundle of money coming
to their conclusions.
It is almost a shame we are not discussing royal commissions
and special committees today because we could probably get in
some good shots about the amount of taxpayer money wasted on
some of these projects. More often they appear to be simply a way
of postponing decisions rather than actually finding sensible
solutions.
In addition to the taxpayer funded political commissions that
have worked on this in the past, the Chief Electoral Officer has also
proposed a solution. That solution would involve the bridging of
time zone differences by combining modified staggered polling
hours, which sounds complicated but is not too complicated, with
special provisions for the counting and deferral of the release of
results after closing of the polls. I sense from the speech made by
the member for Vancouver East that these solutions could be
amendments to this bill.
Under this system, the results from eastern Canada would still be
available prior to the close of the polls in B.C. but only by about
half an hour. It would involve about 36 seats and would not have a
5713
major impact on the results, and so it is probably not a bad
compromise.
There would be a significant alleviation of the time zone effect,
with the results in eastern Canada still being available right before
11 p.m.
I support this bill's going to committee following today's debate.
It appears to be a non-partisan issue. We are all prepared to talk
about it to see if we can find meaningful ways to make this
legislation work, which I certainly support.
However, I would like to bring one point forward. It is a very
large unanswered question which we did not have to deal with in
the past. I will illustrate with an example. On October 12 an
election was held in New Zealand. The official results were
released poll by poll on the Internet. Anybody could dial up from
anywhere in the world to see them, as I did.
I discovered that along with the official results, some unofficial
results were being posted presumably by the various riding
associations. This will become a major problem-if we call it a
problem-in the future. All the media blackouts in the world will
not mean a thing if various riding associations, unofficial or not,
can just put results on the Internet. There is the potential for hoax
results to be put on the Internet in an attempt to affect election
results.
That is an issue we will have to deal with eventually. It may well
be that the only way we can deal with that is to simply not release
any results until a set time. I am not presupposing what the answer
would be but I suggest the issue should be looked at in committee.
One way of reducing the effects of counting delays, which would
allow for closing of polls more closely together, would be to
encourage the use of electronic voting methods. I will be
introducing a private member's bill to the House on Wednesday
regarding initiative and referendum. There is a provision in that bill
to permit electronic voting methods to be used.
For example, touch tone technology is well researched now and
has been proven to work. One way we could reduce the counting
time is with instant tallies done electronically. I hope the
government side will recognize the inevitably of having to move
with technology by moving toward those solutions in the long run.
In the long run new technology may actually come to the rescue.
It may help us to overcome this problem. Just as one portion of
technology is interfering with our ability to block results, another
set of technology may help us to overcome the problems.
Although many different proposals have been put forward over
the years, like those identified in Bill C-307, none of them has been
perfect and none of them has been adopted. Bill C-307 also suffers
from the problem of not being perfect but we could hardly expect it
to be perfect considering all the problems involved in getting it to
work.
On balance, it is probably the best opportunity we will have
during this Parliament to at least go part way in addressing the
existing concerns. For that reason I am supportive and I would urge
other members to support this bill's going to committee before
second reading.
The issue crosses partisan lines. There is every reason to believe
we can work together to put it into an enactable form. I urge
members to support the bill.
(1130 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise very briefly to address Bill C-307. I consider this an important
proposal, an important piece of legislation that apparently has the
support of the government and all parties. In light of this
unanimity, as a private member I thought it was more important
than ever to put on the record my reservations about this bill.
This bill is to address, as I understand it from the member who
proposed it, two problems. One problem is people finding out in
western Canada the results of elections in eastern Canada before
the polls have closed. In other words, knowing what the election
results are, which could influence the vote. The second is
addressing the problem of western alienation. On the first count,
there are some valid concerns. That is the reason the House is
looking at this legislation.
For example, in the last election it would be pretty easy to guess
that had more westerners known the results from Quebec, it might
well have influenced their vote in terms of the choosing of the
official opposition. No doubt, with modern computer technology,
these results will become more and more known before the polls
are closed in western Canada. That is a valid concern.
However, I want to express my own objections and, more than
objections, it is an insult to suggest that this is a serious attempt to
address western alienation. Westerners often find out that
Parliament has already been elected before the polls close in their
riding. Our system is structured such that governments can be
elected without the support of anybody in western Canada, and can
rule this country without any input from westerners no matter what
order the votes are counted in.
The cry of government members who are in trouble in the west is
that the whole problem is the counting of votes. Let me use a
specific reference. In the 1980 federal election, shortly after I
relocated to western Canada, the federal Liberal Party got itself
elected in eastern Canada by running on a platform of
expropriation of western resources. That is how it got elected.
It got elected by getting a majority of the seats in Ontario and
Quebec with virtually no representation whatsoever in western
Canada. It then proceeded to govern the country, making massive
changes to western industry and the resource base without any
5714
input whatsoever from western Canada. It did that on the basis of
how our system of government operates. If the votes had been
counted first in the west and later in the east, or at the same time, it
would have made no difference whatsoever to that.
It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the counting of the
ballots was the problem in that instance. It was a problem of the
system of government and the actual policies pursued by the
federal government vis-à-vis western Canada.
My colleague from North Vancouver has outlined in great detail
and very confidently the deficiencies of this proposal as well as the
deficiencies of alternatives. I congratulate him for that.
I want to add, however, one additional concern I have once again
as a westerner about this proposal. The staggered hours as modified
by the chief electoral officer means that the voting polls would
close very early in the evening in western Canada.
Those of us who have worked in many elections know that the
evening hours are the heaviest voting hours anywhere in the
country. What this proposal does which worries me the most is
restrict the access of westerners to the polls far more than it does
other Canadians because it impacts the hours when they are most
likely to vote. This is a serious concern. I hope the committee will
look at the reservations of the member for North Vancouver and
consider some of the options available.
That is all I want to say. I want to make it very clear in this
atmosphere of unanimity that there are serious reservations about
this bill. I want them on the record.
[Translation]
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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The bill is
therefore referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
[English]
Mrs. Terrana: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the House for co-operating and for letting this
bill go to committee. I thank all of my colleagues for their
interventions and assure them we will work together to make this
bill as workable as possible.
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, since the House has dealt with
its business this morning so efficiently, I think you might find there
is unanimous consent to suspend the House until noon.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent to suspend the business of the House until
noon?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Sitting suspended at 11.36 a.m.)
_______________
[
English]
The House resumed at 12.01 p.m.
The Speaker: The House is now in session. I am going to hear a
point of order from the hon. whip of the Reform Party.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Tuesday, October 22 the member for Wild Rose brought to your
attention a matter that occurred at the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs. It was a serious matter regarding a
breach of Standing Order 114. It was suggested that because it
appeared to be an inadvertent act, the issue could be resolved at
committee.
I brought the issue back to the committee because, as whip of the
party, I was the one who applied Standing Order 114. When I
applied the standing order on behalf of my caucus I had certain
expectations.
I am aware that committees are masters of their own
proceedings. I have experienced and have been frustrated by some
internal majority supported rules in the past. What is comforting is
that the rules of the House take precedence over the rules of the
committees. This lends some predictability and some protection,
particularly for those of us in opposition.
The problem arose on Monday, October 21. The member for
Wild Rose was substituting on the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs and attempted to table a motion at that committee
meeting. He was told that he could not do that. The reason given by
the chair was the fact that he was only a substitute. The chair based
her reasoning on an internal rule where 48 hours' notice is required
to move a motion.
5715
I refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation No. 766(1). It
describes the status of a non-member. It states that they can
participate, but ``they may not vote, move motions nor be a part of
any quorum''. Voting, moving motions and being a part of a
quorum is a privilege enjoyed by a permanent member.
However, it is the nature of the work of members of Parliament
to be out of Ottawa on occasion, or to have commitments in the
House while their committee is meeting. A procedure has always
existed to allow for other members to substitute for permanent
members. In our present standing orders this procedure is covered
under Standing Order 114. The relevant section of the standing
order that I applied reads as follows:
At any time-the Chief Whip of any recognized party may effect substitutions by
filing notice thereof with the clerk of the committee, having selected the substitutes
from among all the Members of his or her party-and such substitutions shall be
effective immediately they are received by the clerk of the committee.
(1205)
This procedure is effective because the substitute is given the
full status of a permanent member while the substitution is in force.
That full status means the authority to vote, move motions and be
part of quorum.
The chair of the committee argued that the member is only a
substitute for the day and therefore could not table the motion. Mr.
Speaker, if you cannot table a motion at this committee you cannot
move a motion. If you cannot move a motion then you are
breaching the authority granted the substitute under Standing Order
114. In other words, the committee has redefined the status of a
substitute.
Not only is a standing order diminished but a longstanding
practice is being ignored. Unlike the House where unanimous
consent is required by a private member to table a document, at
committee a member can table anything he or she wants. A
member can table a document, a letter or a motion. Considering
that a substitute has the status of a member while signed in, that
substitute can then table a document, letter or motion.
There was concern about whether or not the member for Wild
Rose would be signed in for a subsequent meeting to move his
motion, provided he was allowed to table the motion. It is not a
matter for the chair of that committee to decide or even speculate
on that. It is up to the party whips with the authority granted to
them under Standing Order 114 to determine the status of their
members who attend. It is the House that determines the
membership and outlines of procedure and authority for the
substitutes, not the chair or the committee majority. That is up to
the House in its rules. Such a decision by the chair or by that
committee to say that they pre-empt the standing orders of this
House borderlines on contempt.
The chair of the justice committee also argued that because
another member could table and move a motion on behalf of the
substitute that no harm was done.
Mr. Speaker, you were once a chairman of a committee and you
know full well it is not uncommon for a small opposition party not
to have a permanent member present at a meeting. There are often
substitutes representing a party at committee. That is commonly
done. Sometimes this is due to the business a committee is dealing
with and the wide variety of interests within a particular caucus.
Sometimes, as I pointed out to the chair of the committee, someone
will be substituted in a committee week after week in order to fulfil
the role that the party has asked the member to fill and to reflect his
or her interest in the subject matter.
Under these circumstances my party would be unable to table a
motion and therefore be unable to move a motion. The committee
is telling the House and every party whip of the House that no
longer can they just send substitutes to a committee in order to be
functional, they now have to ensure that a permanent member is
present.
Before this internal rule we could send whomever we determined
appropriate in order to fulfil the requirements of our party and our
caucus. We did so under the authority of the House. What has
happened to that authority? The justice committee has dictated a
new criteria for party whips. Standing Order 114 does not mean
what it once meant and the tail is wagging the dog.
On June 16, 1994 there was a similar case regarding Standing
Order 114. The chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs allowed a member who was not legally signed in to move
motions, vote and be part of quorum. Although he was aware of the
irregularity, he continued to allow the member to participate as a
substitute.
The matter was brought to the House the next day by the member
for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. The member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley questioned the chair's primary
responsibility to ensure that the committee operated under the rules
established by the House of Commons. Although, Mr. Speaker, you
rarely rule on proceedings of a committee, this case was a clear
breach of Standing Order 114.
In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you said:
In the matter now before us, I must conclude that this is serious enough to require
the intervention of the Chair because it concerns a fundamental right which belongs
to the House and not to the committee, namely the right to establish the membership
of a committee.
You went further, Mr. Speaker, and stated that:
While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own
proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers
conferred upon them by the House.
5716
(1210 )
We are in the same situation today. This time a member was
legally substituted in, but was denied the privileges of that status
under Standing Order 114.
Mr. Speaker, when I brought this matter to the committee, as you
asked me to do, the chair upheld the rules of the committee over the
rules of the House. Your last ruling regarding Standing Order 114 is
clear. The committee has no business interfering with the right of
the House to establish the membership of a committee. It has no
right to diminish the status of a substitute member and it has no
right dictating to the party whips membership requirements in
excess of what is already in our standing orders.
Standing Order 114 gives a substitute the authority to table, vote,
move motions and be part of quorum. The committee, in the case I
have cited, has gone beyond the power conferred on it by the House
by denying a substitute the right to table and move a motion.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to make a ruling on this to clarify
the matter. I have gone to the committee as you have requested but
I have not received satisfaction there. I think it is obviously a clear
contravention of your previous ruling and the rules of the House.
Could I please ask you to rule on this so that our members and all
party whips will know where they stand on this. It is a serious
matter which I believe you will take in the seriousness in which it is
offered.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
the same point of order, I want to apprise the House that this is the
first instance that this matter has come to my attention. I fully
understand that my hon. colleague, the Reform Party whip, to the
best of his ability and with the facts as he knows them, is defending
the interests of his colleague, the member for Wild Rose. I think his
intention is to defend the best interests of committees in general.
However, I submit as a point of verification that in the justice
committee the member in question in that most recent incident
referred to by my colleague from Fraser Valley East, the member
for Wild Rose, is an associate member.
I would also like to inform the Chair that the two members of the
Reform Party, who for lack of a better expression I will refer to as
full members of the committee, were present at the committee at
that time. Under those circumstances and possibly there were
others, I certainly understand the Reform Party whip raising this
matter at this time.
I only wish I had known about the matter previously. I would
have been in a better position to give a better argument to sustain
what I believe to be the standing rule of the House, which to a great
extent, of course, is the principle that committees are masters of
their own destiny.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize, as do all members, if that should be
infringed on, I certainly would respect any decision you would
make in that area in the best interests of the House and our
committee structure. I will leave that matter in your most capable
hands at this time.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. whip of the Reform Party for
bringing this to my attention once again, and the intervention of the
government whip today.
I will take this matter under advisement and I will, first of all,
inform myself of what transpired in the committee. I will inform
myself of the precedents, notwithstanding that the whip of the
Reform Party has outlined the case which seems to be very well
researched. I take the point that there are other people who were at
the committee who could have moved that motion.
I believe the crux of the matter, if I can put it in these words, is
that we are asking ourselves, does the committee have the power,
the right, to make a decision which would supersede a decision of
the House?
(1215 )
That is the case which I believe the whip of the Reform Party is
trying to make. Did that occur? I intend to inform myself and I will
get back to the House with a decision on this matter. I am sure the
House will give me a little bit of time so that I can satisfy myself
that whatever decision I make will be for the betterment of the
functioning not only of the committee but also of the House of
Commons. I will get back to the House at an early time.
_____________________________________________
5716
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation of commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in the debate today on Bill C-29 outlining the
government's actions on methylcyclopentadienyl manganese
tricarbonyl, commonly referred to as MMT.
We must be clear from the outset that the government's interest
in this legislation is our commitment to the environmental, health
and protection elements of the bill. We have made this commitment
to Canadians and we intend to make good on our commitment.
5717
When we looked around we asked ourselves how we can most
effectively ensure that we protect our environment. We must come
to one conclusion. The answer is we must do what we can to
prevent pollution. As legislators Canadians expect us to ensure
that their safety and the environment are maintained. I would
suggest to my colleagues that this is accomplished in C-29.
All of us here in this place and Canadians all across the country
are concerned about maintaining our environment. When we think
of air pollution we think of automobiles as being a major
contributor to air pollution. In fact, autos and all forms of
transportation are the leading source of air pollution. It stands to
reason that to impact on air pollution, if we are seriously taking
action on this, we must focus on the automobile. Bill C-29 does
that.
The auto industry, which represents 21 domestic and offshore
manufacturers, is convinced that MMT has an adverse effect on the
operation of vehicle pollution control components including the
sophisticated onboard systems. The industry is adamant that the
government must take quick and decisive action to ensure that
MMT free fuels are available to Canadian consumers. The auto
industry is so concerned and convinced of the detrimental effects of
MMT that it is conducting a $10 million test program in the United
States in order to obtain definitive evidence in support of this
position.
Bill C-29 represents a prudent approach to ensure that Canadian
consumers and the environment are protected in the view of
uncertainty of the long term impacts of MMT on the advanced
emissions control technology such as onboard diagnostics that are
being introduced in our cars and will be in widespread use in the
very near future.
The automakers have indicated that if MMT remains in
Canadian fuels, they would take action ranging from disconnecting
onboard diagnostic sensors to the removal of sensors and decreased
warranty provisions for our consumers. General Motors has
already advised us that certain onboard diagnostic systems in the
1996 models have been disabled.
The onboard diagnostic systems in autos are designed to permit
cars to operate more efficiently and in a more environmentally
friendly manner. If the systems fail or are disarmed because of
MMT in the fuel, there is an overall harmful impact on Canadians
and our environment. The public must be confident that the
government is doing all that it can in order to protect citizens and
the environment.
(1220 )
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment task
force on cleaner vehicles and fuels estimates that health benefits of
up to $31 billion over 23 years would result from introducing
cleaner fuels and more stringent emissions standards into the
Canadian marketplace. We can readily see the need for decisive
action, action that will reduce air pollutants and ensure efficient
operation of vehicles. Bill C-29 has that as its goal.
The EPA in the United States has expressed concerns on the lack
of data relating to the use of MMT in gasolines and therefore
advocates a cautious approach to the use of these additives in fuels.
Unless MMT is banned in Canada, our consumers will be
inconvenienced by frequent and unnecessary visits for vehicle
maintenance and will encounter warranty problems.
Over the years, Canadians have taken pride in setting an example
for our international colleagues on a number of fronts. In the case
of environmental issues we should not be overly influenced by
unnecessary threats of our neighbour to the south. We have worked
for and earned respect worldwide on issues on health and the
environment.
I ask my colleagues in the House that we not shy away from
taking a leadership role on this issue. The removal of MMT from
fuels will provide an opportunity for the introduction of ethanol
and other substitutes which could be an important element of a
broader based national energy policy. Such a policy would be
consistent with our commitments in the red book as well as an
Agriculture Canada policy paper to eliminate MMT from gasoline.
Just two weeks ago I attended a ground breaking ceremony for a
new ethanol facility in Chatham, Ontario. That event marked a
win-win situation for all parties involved in the development of
that initiative. The ethanol plant in Chatham will be a $153 million
facility producing 150 million litres of ethanol fuel each year. It
will allow Canadian farmers, manufacturers and distributors to
fulfil Canadian consumer demands and it will provide a safe, clean
burning fuel additive to our markets. It will be a success story for
our government, industry and consumers.
We must continue to pursue an alternate fuel policy. Our national
biomass ethanol program does just that. Our actions to eliminate
MMT from Canadian fuels will improve our environment, address
health concerns and provide options for alternate fuel additives.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to participate again in the debate on Bill C-29, an act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial
purposes of certain manganese-based substances. Its purpose is to
ban the use of manganese-base substances, including MMT.
This is a highly controversial bill, even among ministers and
government Mps. The cabinet is not unanimously in favour of it.
The majority of provinces are also opposed. As well, it involves a
serious conflict between two major industrial sectors: the automo-
5718
tive manufacturers and the oil industry. The former maintain that
MMT is harmful to their products, and forces them to adopt
mechanisms and practices which could result in purchasers having
to pay more for their vehicles. The latter are opposed to the banning
of manganese in unleaded gasoline, and contest the legitimacy of
the arguments used by the other group.
I object to the way automotive manufacturers are blackmailing
the government and the consumer, with their threat of a $3,000 hike
in price and restricted warranties if this bill is passed.
The petroleum industry claims MMT reduces nitrous oxide
emissions by as much as 20 per cent. Moreover, a study
commissioned by the Council of Ministers of Environment,
Canada, estimates that the refineries would require $115 million in
capital and $50 million yearly in additional operating costs to get
rid of MMT in Canada. This would also mean a hike in gasoline
prices. In addition, results of tests by the Ethyl Company in the
USA contradict the arguments of the automobile manufacturers.
(1225)
In my opinion, the proposal to ban MMT has no environmental,
economic or legal justification.
This bill is not in line with Canada's obligations under trade
agreements such as NAFTA and those relating to interprovincial
trade. This past September, the U.S. Ethyl Corporation indicated its
intention to lodge a complaint calling for $200 million U.S. in
damages from Canada under the appropriate sections of NAFTA
for the damages sustained by its Canadian subsidiary. This
multinational also claims that its reputation has been tarnished by
the comments of the Minister of the Environment on MMT.
As for interprovincial trade, by prohibiting the marketing of
manganese-based substances, this bill violates federal-provincial
trade agreements. It also constitutes an unacceptable intrusion by
the federal government in this area. In fact, almost all provinces are
opposed to this bill. Last May, even the Quebec National Assembly
passed a unanimous resolution, supported by the opposition, asking
the government to postpone the passage of this bill.
So it is hard to understand why the government insists on
sending this bill through the House, a bill that, by the way, was
criticized by the Minister for International Trade. In a letter sent to
the environment minister seven months ago, the Minister for
International Trade maintained that banning the importation of
MMT would be contrary to Canada's obligations as a member of
the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. There was no
justification for health or environmental reasons, considering the
scientific evidence available. He went on to say, and rightly so, that
he was afraid this would lead to another trade dispute with the
United States.
Premier Romanow of Saskatchewan sent a letter to the Prime
Minister of Canada on September 16, in which he said that the
legislation was in no way justified at this time. He added that,
according to the scientific data available on MMT, there was no
indication that environmental benefits would accrue as result of
this legislation, and they found it difficult to let the refineries or
consumers foot the bill.
At the present time, there is very little justification for banning
the addition of MMT to unleaded gas. I may remind the House that
from the economic point of view, this bill is a costly one, especially
in terms of jobs lost, if we consider the threat to the viability of
many refineries, including some refineries in Quebec.
This is in addition to the economic problems arising from the
resulting violations of trade agreements with North America and
the Canadian provinces. This bill contains a number of legal
shortcomings, which may have major consequences for Canada's
reputation and economy. How can we expect American businesses
to be interested in penetrating the Canadian market, when the
Government of Canada interferes with the way they do business or
fails to observe its trade agreements by passing bills like C-29?
As far as the environment is concerned, the evidence has shown
that removing MMT does not increase air pollution, nor is this
substance harmful to public health.
(1230)
A research program funded by the Quebec Department of
National Resources, the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Petroleum Products
Institute has made it clear that the contribution of manganese from
MMT sources is negligible, compared with other industrial and
natural sources; highway traffic only has an indirect effect on the
percentage of manganese in the atmosphere by recirculating dust
particles near roads and streets.
In conclusion, there is every reason to object vehemently to Bill
C-29, which creates problems from the economic, environmental,
social, commercial and legal points of view. For all of these
reasons, I am very much opposed to Bill C-29.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some
confusion about exactly what we are debating here today. The title
of Bill C-29 is to regulate the interprovincial trade in and the
importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based
substances.
This is not about protecting the environment. It is not about
members of Parliament making technical decisions beyond their
5719
competency and it is not about this House acting as refereebetween two extremely powerful lobby groups.
This bill is related strictly to international and interprovincial
trade, what can be traded and what cannot. Why, therefore, is this
bill being brought forward by the Minister of the Environment?
This makes no sense at all.
The Liberals have been opposed to the North American Free
Trade Agreement in the past but now they are its strongest
supporters. If Bill C-29 is passed, there is going to be trouble with
our trade partners in the NAFTA agreement. There will be a
dispute. This government could save itself embarrassment. It could
save the country embarrassment by dropping this whole bill
completely.
The Minister for International Trade agrees with what I have
said. He is very concerned about the possible passage of this bill.
He fears for the reputation of Canada in the international trading
community.
I wish to read for the record a letter that the Minister for
International Trade wrote to the Minister of the Environment on
February 23, 1996:
Dear Sergio:
I understand that you are considering the reintroduction of Bill C-94 in the
upcoming session. My department continues to have certain reservations concerning
this measure, which I wish to draw to your attention.
One of the original arguments favouring the ban on MMT was that the United
States already prohibited its use as a petroleum additive. Recently the U.S. Court of
Appeal overturned the U.S. ban. This has effectively removed harmonization
arguments in support of Bill C-94. Indeed, since adding MMT to petroleum products
is now permissible in the U.S., harmonization would now be promoted by
introducing no new Canadian regulations.
An import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with Canada's obligations
under the WTO and NAFTA: (1) it would constitute an impermissible prohibition on
imports, particularly if domestic production, sale and use is not similarly prohibited,
and (2) it could not be justified on health or environmental grounds given current
scientific evidence.
The United States trade representative-is monitoring the situation closely. There
is the possibility that the United States could mount a challenge, either on USTR's
own initiative or pursuant to a Section 301 petition; Ethyl Corp., the American
producer of MMT, has indicated that it most certainly intends to file such a petition.
Also, Ethyl Corp. may try to advance an argument that such a ban would be a
measure tantamount to expropriation of Ethyl's investment in Canada. Thus, Canada
may also be susceptible to an investor-state challenge under Chapter 11 of the
NAFTA.
There has been heated debate surrounding the exact effects of banning MMT. The
claims of the automotive and petroleum industries conflict markedly, with little
common ground between them. Testing is only now starting in the United States,
with unambiguous results some years away.
In view of the Presidential and Congressional elections this year, American
politicians are particularly sensitive to any foreign initiative which might injure their
domestic industries.
In conclusion, let me stress my department's belief that Bill C-94 should not be
re-introduced as it could have many adverse implications for Canadian trade,
without compensating environmental benefits.
(1235)
It is signed by the Minister for International Trade.
I am sure the House is aware that Bill C-94, to which this letter
refers, is the precise equivalent of Bill C-29 which we are debating
here today.
In view of this, I move:
That all the words after the word ``that'' be deleted, and the following substituted
therefor:
This House declines to give third reading to Bill C-29, An act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain
manganese based substances, since the bill fails to address the impact of the import
prohibition on certain manganese based substances on international trade.
The Speaker: The amendment is acceptable. The debate is now
on the amendment.
I inadvertently skipped over a speaker. I am going to try to catch
up as we go along. I am going to recognize the hon. member for
Durham and then, depending on who stands, we will go from there.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
mind being looked over but I do not want to be overlooked.
It gives me great pleasure to speak today on Bill C-29, the MMT
legislation and the amendment thereto. Also, I would like to
congratulate the Minister of the Environment for having the
intestinal fortitude to reintroduce the bill before this legislature.
In Durham on a clear day, as the song goes, we can see forever.
On a clear day in the summer sometimes we can see the CN Tower.
This summer we saw less and less of the CN Tower as Toronto
became smogged in.
(1240)
People want to take responsibility for the environment and they
want to do it in a number of different ways. Our automobile
industry is addressing the real concerns people have about how the
can take responsibility for the vehicles they drive and indeed in a
lot of other industries as well. We have seen this in various areas,
the packaging of products and so forth.
The automobile industry has been very responsive to the desire
of people to have a clean and safe environment by a number of
initiatives. It is moving toward alternative sources of fuel. We had
5720
discussions in this House about the use of ethanol in our gasoline
and there are other environmentally sensitive fuels available. In my
riding General Motors is a major manufacturer employer and has
been a leader in developing these kinds of technologies for its
vehicles.
Recently I was surprised to learn that onboard diagnostic
systems, which are state of the art, allow people to understand how
their vehicles are performing relative to the pollutants.
Many years ago when catalytic converters were first introduced
people said ``how do we get them off our cars because they are
affecting our fuel consumption?'' People's attitudes have
completely changed. Today that is not the attitude of a common
person. People want to find out how they can be part of the
solution, not part of the problem.
The automobile companies have wisely in their marketing
systems realized this and that is why these onboard diagnostic
systems exist. They give them the ability to know that their
vehicles are performing as best they can and are not polluting the
environment as much as possible with our current technology.
General Motors is disabling certain aspects of its onboard
diagnostic systems for one very important reason. Manganese
based fuel additives cause an 80 per cent residual within engines.
As a consequence it creates a situation where the onboard
diagnostic system does not work. Here we have a company which
is recognizing the desire of people to have a safer and cleaner
environment and producing technology to do that but which is
unable to basically maintain that because of some of the fuel
additives allowed in our gasoline.
There is an ongoing debate about manganese additives but it is
the residual build-up within the engine that then turns around and
basically makes the onboard diagnostic system not work. Part of
that process is that if a catalytic converter is not working properly it
should be replaced. People want to know that and those people
want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
This legislation addresses that very real concern the average
person has. I am surprised at the opposition to this from both
opposition parties. I heard one of the Bloc members talk about
bringing investment to this country. Some of the biggest investors
in this country are the car manufacturing companies. In Ontario
one out of six people can trace their jobs directly to automobile
production. I am surprised that the Block has taken the position it
has because similarly we have a significant plant in Sainte-Thérèse,
Quebec that is also very interested in dealing with the desires of
people to control the environment.
I was pleased to see Maureen Kempston-Darkes, president of the
Canadian division of General Motors, announcing that her
company and other car makers will introduce leading edge
pollution control technologies to further reduce smog-causing
emissions from automobiles.
(1245 )
They are not going to continue with that kind of research and
development, they are not going to continue with those kinds of
solutions to pollution if they do not get the assistance through
people like us who will ban the use of MMT as a fuel additive.
Clearly those vehicles are not going to perform up to their
expectations as long as they have these components within the
gasoline they produce.
In conclusion, I am very supportive of the MMT legislation, the
banning of MMT. I believe the people of Durham desire to see
alternate fuels and other technologies that companies like General
Motors will develop to reduce fuel emissions and to create a
cleaner air environment not only for us but for generations to come
after us.
I look forward to the passage of this bill in all due haste.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in this House to reiterate that the Bloc
Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-29.
In fact, after listening to our government colleagues' speeches
this morning and the previous speeches at second reading, we are
more convinced than ever that every one of us should at this
time-I repeat, at this time-vote against Bill C-29.
This bill is aimed at prohibiting the importation into Canada of
and the interprovincial trade in MMT, without any serious evidence
that it is harmful to health or the environment. It is also in flagrant
violation of NAFTA, and we should be particularly careful with
this.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore opposed to this bill at third
reading. We stress that we will always oppose Bill C-29 as it now
stands, because it is unacceptable for a Minister of the
Environment to try to legislate on international trade. We will not
support the roundabout way in which the Minister of the
Environment is using legislation to ban the importation of and
interprovincial trade in a product under the pretext that this product
is harmful to health and the environment.
If the Minister of the Environment is really convinced that MMT
is dangerous, he should also ban the manufacturing and use of this
product. This bill prohibits the importation of this product, but not
its use and manufacturing. Yet, according to their fine rhetoric,
MMT is harmful to people's health. In that case, why are we still
allowed to use and produce it?
Frankly, Bill C-29 is not aimed in the right direction. On the
contrary, it still allows the use and production of MMT, but only
within a province's borders.
Some Liberal members have accused us of not being concerned
with the environment and Canadians' health. You know this is not
5721
true. Like all the members of this House, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are very concerned with the well-being of Quebecers
and Canadians alike. That is why we have asked that the
government give us clear and irrefutable proof that MMT is
harmful.
Without doubting their word, we would like them to prove their
point, which they have not been done. I will explain it to some
extent in my remarks. When a serious study is available, we will be
able to make an informed decision. But so far, the Minister of the
Environment and his colleagues have not provided any real reason
or hard facts in support of their claim.
At this stage of the debate on Bill C-29, the government has yet
to demonstrate the need for such legislation or its merits, which
suggests to us that the real reasons for wanting this bill passed are
of a purely commercial and electoral nature.
Like his predecessor, the Minister of the Environment is
favouring corn producers in western Canada and especially those in
Ontario. By banning MMT, whose sole producer is Ethyl, the
minister is ensuring that the only alternative to MMT will be
ethanol, since fuel without additives is not foreseeable in the short
and medium term.
(1250)
For the Minister of the Environment like for Machiavelli's main
character in The Prince, the end justifies the means. It has been
clear to us for quite a while already that the minister really cares
much less than he says about the environment and the health of
Canadians and cares much more about pleasing western and
Ontario corn producers, who he hopes will vote Liberal in the next
election.
Ignoring every recommendation made by his colleagues in this
House, not only Bloc Quebecois and Reform Party members, but
also the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of the
Environment continues crusading against MMT, but we must
recognize that he has a very small army behind him.
To achieve his end, he is prepared to sacrifice millions of dollars
in financial compensation to Ethyl, an American company, which
filed notice, on September 10, to claim $276 million Canadian in
damages from the Canadian government for presumably breaching
the provisions of NAFTA. While his government boasts about
making job creation its number one priority-they said it over and
over during the weekend-the minister is prepared to sacrifice jobs
in the oil industry.
He would even go as far as to subject Canadians to yet another
hike in the price of gas. Of course, nothing is too costly when one
wants to please a lobby.
Despite all opposition, the environment minister and the Liberal
government will probably get Bill C-29 passed. However, the
government's modus operandi regarding this issue confirms once
again the lack of judgment of some of its members.
When will the Liberal government finally act in a responsible
and serious manner, as we have been asking, since, once again, the
government's action does not make sense.
We tried to put three short questions to the government. Why
prohibit a product which, in the opinion of Health Canada, does not
pose any risk to the health of Canadians? Unless I am mistaken,
Health Canada is a Canadian organization. As I said about
Statistics Canada in another speech, if the government is not
pleased, it simply removes the chairperson and replaces him or her.
Why prohibit the importation and interprovincial trade of such a
product, rather than its production and use? If it is so harmful to
one's health, then we should prohibit its production and use.
Why violate a trade agreement which we duly signed and run the
risk of having to pay a compensation of $276 million Canadian, if
not more? These are the same Liberals that used to be passionate
about free trade agreements. Historically, Liberals have been free
traders and they should know free trade agreements very well, or at
least respect them.
These are the three short questions the environment minister and
his colleagues should have answered in earlier speeches. But they
did not do so, first because there is no rational answer to these
questions, but also because, once again, they simply do as they
please. The Liberal government does not care at all about the
opinion of Canadians, who protested in large numbers against Bill
C-29. As with many other issues, the government turns a deaf ear.
This is a shame. In its present form, Bill C-29 is inappropriate
and we have a duty, as members representing Quebecers and
Canadians, to oppose this legislation. A number of stakeholders
from various areas, including six provincial governments,
vigorously oppose Bill C-29. I join my voice to theirs to invite all
members of Parliament, including Liberals, to vote against this
legislation.
The government must do its homework and table a proper and
rigorous bill.
In conclusion, I want to table an amendment to the amendment
of the Reform Party to Bill C-29. I propose, seconded by the hon.
member for Laurentides:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following:
``and particularly, the impact of the said Bill on trade between Canada and the United
States''.
(1255)
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, the amendment to the
amendment is in order. We will therefore continue debate.
5722
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to say a few words today about the
amendment to Bill C-29 which was recently put forward by my
colleague from Saskatchewan.
The intent of the amendment is to delay the passage of the bill. In
other words, that it not be read a third time until the government
adequately addresses the pending import prohibition on certain
manganese based substances and the impact of that on our free
trade agreements which currently exist. The Reform Party clearly
sees a problem with that.
I would like to begin my comments by referring to some key
facts about MMT. I noticed there have been a lot of suppositions
put forward from both sides of the House during this debate and a
lot of innuendo flowing in this place about this subject.
MMT is a gasoline fuel additive which boosts octane in gasoline
and increases the efficiency of gasoline production. MMT has been
used in almost all Canadian unleaded gasolines since 1977.
Canadian motorists have travelled more than an estimated trillion
kilometres using gasoline treated with MMT. MMT is the only
available gasoline additive in Canada that is capable of reducing
nitrogen oxide emissions, NOx, by as much as 20 per cent.
Removing MMT from gasoline will increase nitrogen oxide
emissions. Nitrogen oxide emissions cause urban smog. A ban on
MMT would have the equivalent effect of adding 1 million cars to
Canadian roads by the year 2000.
Two recent studies have concluded that the removal of MMT
would increase Canadian nitrogen oxide emissions by 50,000 to
60,000 tonnes annually. This would violate Canada's international
treaty agreement signed in Montreal in 1988 promising to freeze
nitrogen oxide emissions at the 1987 level.
Test results from the Environmental Protection Agency in the
United States, the largest approved fuel additives testing program
in history, demonstrate clearly that contrary to claims by the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, MMT in Canadian gasoline is
fully compatible with new on board diagnostic systems.
Automakers have experienced significant difficulties with the
certification of on board diagnostic systems in the United States
and the U.S. EPA has stated in the federal register that automobile
manufacturers have expressed and demonstrated difficulty in
complying with every aspect of the OBD requirements and that
such difficulty appears likely to continue into 1996 and 1997 model
years.
(1300)
The United States EPA and the California Air Resources Board
have recently changed their regulations to allow for certification of
vehicles that do not comply with OBD-II requirements.
Often in this debate the talk is about automobile emissions but
no one on the other side of the House talks about the emissions
from the refineries during the production of gasoline. MMT allows
Canadian refiners to use less intensive refining thereby decreasing
refinery emissions of carbon dioxide as well as nitrogen oxide and
sulphur dioxide. It also enables refiners to reduce the aromatic
content of gasoline which reduces emissions of benzene. I just add
that for clarification to the viewing public.
A lot of facts have been presented to parliamentarians from all
parties on this subject. Sometimes it seems that the debate, as was
referred to by my hon. colleague when he presented his
amendment, often strays quite a bit from the intent of the bill or
what the bill actually does. What the bill does is it places a ban on
the interprovincial transport or the international importation of the
product MMT. That is all it does.
It is said that if we do not do this that possibly it will be harmful
or that it will be potentially harmful, or that it will potentially gum
up the onboard diagnostic systems of new automobiles. In their
speeches hon. members across the way have used words such as
``maybe'' and ``might''. If we are going to base the requirement of
legislation on the hypothetical, which is what we are doing with
this piece of legislation, then I will pose a hypothetical question
myself.
If we in this place are going to ban products in Canada, which is
what is going to be accomplished with this ban on the
transportation of MMT, every time we think there is a potential for
harm, how many lawsuits will the Government of Canada have to
face? Ultimately how many millions of dollars will the taxpayers
of Canada have to pay just because we feel there is some potential
for a problem down the road? That is the thrust of what I wish to
add to the debate today.
Everyone in the riding I represent is well aware that I have
spoken a number of times on this subject over the last year and a
half as have many colleagues on both sides of the House. The point
was made recently that members from both sides are reaching the
point of exhaustion on this subject. I do not know how much more
can be said about it.
That is why we are continually concerned that no matter how
many points are made on the side opposing this piece of legislation,
we see that C-94, which was put forward in the previous session of
Parliament, has been brought back to the House as Bill C-29 which
we are debating today. We find that no amendments were made,
despite all of the debate in this place and all of the points raised on
5723
the part of opposition members of Parliament who tried to bring to
the attention of the government the very real concerns out there and
the economic impact this is going to have on industry and jobs.
The government says it is concerned about jobs and the
continuing high number of unemployed and underemployed in this
country of ours. Yet this government has brought in this piece of
legislation unamended from the previous session. It is in virtually
the same state as it was when Parliament prorogued in January of
this year.
(1305)
I have to question what we are doing in this place. We bring
forward points which are then ignored with no reference and
legislation is continually forced through this House of Commons
because one party enjoys a majority. It really brings into question
the whole issue of how Canada is governed and what effect and
impact debate in this Chamber ultimately has upon legislation.
With that, I will close. Of course, as the seconder of the
amendment I am in total support of it. This government must
properly address the concern which, as my hon. colleague noted,
was raised in a letter from the hon. Minister for International Trade
to his counterpart, the Minister of the Environment some time ago,
about what impact this legislation will have on our trading partners
and how they view our commitment to the free trade agreement.
Until that is properly done and until the study is completed, this bill
should be set aside.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Before
continuing, I would just like to remind members that the debate is
now on the subamendment of the official opposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam Speaker,
it is an honour for me to rise in this House and speak to Bill C-29,
which seeks to prohibit the use of manganese based products in
leaded gasoline in Canada. It goes about it very indirectly, by
prohibiting interprovincial trade and importation from the United
States, where the product is manufactured by Ethyl Corporation.
The purpose of this bill is therefore to prohibit the use of
manganese based products in leaded gasoline. We in the Bloc
Quebecois are opposed to this bill, in its present form anyway, for a
number of reasons.
First of all, it is interesting to note the emphasis of government
officials on the risk to the environment of products such as MMT.
You may have noticed that the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Agriculture spent almost eight minutes of his ten
minute speech speaking about the risks and dangers of this additive
in leaded gasoline, when this is simply not true. Nowhere in North
America has it been shown that the use of manganese based
substances in leaded gasoline is dangerous to the environment.
There is not a shred of evidence.
Furthermore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
already argued to have this product banned in gasoline, saying that
it was a risk to the environment, when this is not the case. Agency
spokespersons have not been able to prove it. And not only is it not
dangerous for the environment, but, if this product is now
prohibited in leaded gasoline, then there really is a risk of creating
a problem for the environment. According to studies, this
manganese based product reduces emissions of nitrogen oxide that
creates the greenhouse effect. This is a dangerous gas that is
harmful to the environment. It creates a greenhouse effect, with
disastrous consequences that, in some cases, are even world wide
in scope.
(1310)
By banning the use of manganese-based products in leaded gas,
we run the risk of increasing the greenhouse effect. Emissions of
nitrogen oxide may increase by as much as 20 per cent. The
government or its representatives cannot truthfully say they want to
ban the use of products like MMT because they are harmful to the
environment. The evidence proves the exact opposite is true.
For instance, we are told that MMT may cause problems for car
owners because it may lead to deterioration of the exhaust system,
which is also clearly unfounded. There is no real reason, no
sensible reason for reaching that conclusion.
This product does not create a specific hazard for cars, but in
addition, if MMT is removed from leaded gas, this may actually
increase the price of cars and the price of gas and also have a rather
negative impact on the oil companies, especially in Quebec,
because they will have to change their equipment as a result of the
ban on MMT. This bill, which aims to ban the use of
manganese-based products in leaded gas, has a whole series of
negative effects.
Why should the government want to pass a bill, and ulterior
motives are a factor, by banning not the product itself, because it is
not in itself harmful, but the interprovincial trade in or importation
from the United States of the product? Why does the Liberal
government insist on doing so, although there is every indication
that not only would this be harmful to the environment but it would
also have a negative impact on the entire oil industry and the
automotive industry in Canada, in addition to the loss of jobs?
Banning interprovincial trade in this product constitutes an
intrusion in provincial jurisdictions. That is why six provinces are
opposed to this bill. I repeat, this constitutes a federal intrusion in a
provincial jurisdiction. Banning the importation of this product
from the United States may put Canada in a very uncomfortable
position with the U.S., because that would violate NAFTA. If this
5724
bill is passed, Canada will be sued for damages to the tune of $200
or $300 million. Considering the current deficit, this is no time for
the government to open the door to legal action.
So why is the government so stubborn, despite all the negative
effects this bill may have on the environment and the automotive
and petroleum industries, despite the predicted loss of jobs and
possible legal action by the United States and the provinces? I will
tell you why. The reason is they have decided to create an ethanol
industry in Ontario, to create jobs in Ontario at the expense of the
other provinces, at the expense of Quebec and at the expense of the
entire country.
Sure, the government has the power, and so it can go ahead and
develop an industry that is not harmful as such, and I certainly
agree there is something to say for the production of ethanol and
the use of this product as an additive to unleaded gas. It could be a
bonus for farmers.
(1315)
But doing it in such a roundabout way reminds me, as a
Quebecer, of the Borden line, of how the federal government in
1963 managed to move most of the oil refineries into Ontario
through a similarly roundabout approach. Montreal lost four out of
six, no wonder Montreal is badly off. In those same years, in 1965,
the government managed to concentrate the entire automotive
industry in Ontario. You will not that Quebec has virtually no
automobile industry. It is all in Ontario.
These unfortunate examples demonstrate how, once again, this
Liberal government is attempting to concentrate its efforts on
Ontario, despite the fact that there are a number of reasons not to do
so, as in the case for Bill C-29.
It is patently obvious that removal of this product as an additive
to unleaded gasoline will have a strong negative impact on the
environment, on the automotive industry, on the petroleum
industry. It can mean job losses, and a lot of hassle for the
government in the form of lawsuits from the U.S. and the other
provinces. This is, in my opinion, bad politics, and is the reason
why we in the Bloc are opposed to Bill C-29, at least as it stands at
present.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
rise today at third reading of Bill C-29, an act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial
purposes of certain manganese-based substances.
This bill has been debated in this House for quite some time,
having been introduced as Bill C-94 during the previous session.
Although it survived a challenge to the Liberal government's work
when the House was prorogued last winter, this bill is the perfect
example of the absurdity and lack of logic guiding cabinet, and
especially its leader's lack of rigour.
As I pointed out, the government allowed dozens of bills to die
on the Order Paper when the House was prorogued. Yet, Bill C-94
survived to become Bill C-29. This is totally absurd. Enough
pressure was exerted during the first session for the government to
abandon this bill, which, in fact, does not in any way respond to the
concerns of the industry, the public, or the various interest groups.
This bill is highly controversial in form as well as content. As far
as form is concerned, the government may be using the noble
precepts of public health and environmental protection to pass a
bill that will benefit only the ethanol industry. I will get back to this
outrageous aspect of the bill a little later at the end of my speech.
First, I would like to go back to the substance of Bill C-29,
whose main purpose is to ban the addition of MMT to unleaded
gasoline. I find it unacceptable for the party in power to be
shamelessly spending taxpayers' money in order to pass a bill that
not only does not respond to public concerns, but also knowingly
creates a conflict situation in which Canada could be sued for close
to $300 million under NAFTA.
(1320)
The situation is quite simple. The government and the
automotive industry want MMT banned as a fuel additive because
MMT may impair the operation of emission control devices. It
does nothing of the kind, at least not according to American,
Canadian and European scientific studies published to date. There
is no legislation attesting to the harmfulness of MMT as a fuel
additive.
This goes to show that there must be more obscure and possibly
more partisan reasons pushing the government to have this bill
passed, even though the Prime Minister boasts about not having
been involved in any scandal.
Let me explain briefly the basis for my remarks. This move to
ban the importation of MMT, and especially its trade, has more to
do with protectionism than with the public interest, unless it is
merely motivated by financial consideration or else support for and
contributions to the Liberal Party's election fund. Personally, I
have no problem endorsing this view, given the very real
motivation the former Minister of the Environment may have,
benefits the current incumbent may also be entitled to, incidentally.
They are using scare tactics in saying that adding manganese to
fuel is harmful to our health and to the environment. In this respect,
the U.S. Court of Appeal has ruled against banning MMT, because
it was not established that MMT presented a public health risk.
Incidentally, our American neighbours are much more cautious
than us when dealing with environmental issues. Therefore, if the
U.S. court of appeal ruled, as regards EPA's challenge concerning
5725
MMT, that the use of this product cannot not be prohibited in the
United States, I fail to see why we should prohibit it here in
Canada.
Even the EPA, which is well-known in my riding of Frontenac
because of the asbestos dispute, made no attempt to challenge this
ruling, since the evidence to support such a move is so weak and
disorganized. This suggests that such a restrictive measure under
NAFTA can be supported by the industry providing the substitute,
namely ethanol. The automotive industry is also involved in this
attempt to prohibit MMT, even though it does not lead the group
lobbying the Liberal caucus.
One wonders about the principles and especially the integrity of
some cabinet members, given that the former environment minister
is from a region that produces ethanol, while the current minister is
also from Ontario. Indeed, one wonders about the real motives of
the environment minister. Obviously, an industry as rich as the
ethanol industry can be very generous during an election campaign.
We are all aware of current economic conditions.
(1325)
But there is more. We are at third reading of Bill C-29, whose
impact is so major that it is now a source of dissension within the
Liberal caucus. Bill C-29 directly contravenes several NAFTA
provisions. Worse still, Canada faces a potential lawsuit that could
reach close to $300 million. In fact, the Minister for International
Trade has already told his colleague, the environment minister,
about the peculiarity of this situation. Yet, nothing seems to detract
the minister and his acolytes from their objective.
Since my time is running out, I will conclude by stressing the
danger, for Canadian Parliament, to pass Bill C-29. The official
opposition will strongly oppose this legislation, so that, if it is not
defeated it can at least be amended so as not to be implemented
throughout the country.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker,
following on my colleague, I will speak today to Bill C-29, which
the government attempts to sell with three main reasons.
First of all, it comes right out and tells us that manganese
represents a serious danger to public health. The second reason it
gives is that it could result in extensive damage to antipollution
systems in vehicles. The third reason it gives is that this bill
provides an opportunity to harmonize our policies with those of the
United States. These are the three reasons given for the bill.
In my opinion, the government has only one real reason for
introducing this bill. It is a question of protectionism. We know
that the product that will replace manganese is ethanol. This bill is
an attempt to protect ethanol producers in Ontario and western
Canada. This, in my view, is the real reason why the government
has introduced this bill.
We must not forget that in 1994 the then environment minister
and the then health minister positioned themselves with respect to
this bill. These two ministers put forward a development program
designed to protect ethanol.
Once you have a program, you are talking about money invested.
This program has a 70 million dollar budget. There is no turning
back; significant funds have been committed. Naturally, the major
factories are going to be in Ontario and western Canada.
However, the government is also forgetting that there are
important social costs associated with this bill.
(1330)
Considering the present economic situation, it would be
irresponsible to ignore the additional costs that would result if this
bill were passed. The petroleum industry mentioned that it would
cost $7 million in Quebec alone to bring about the necessary
changes. Imagine the millions of dollars it would take across
Canada. And someone will have to pay for all this. In the end, it
will be the gasoline consumer.
The petroleum industry tells us that automatically, people will be
laid off. Today, with the level of unemployment we have in Canada,
we cannot afford to let any industry proceed with lay-offs. The
order of the day should as follows: put people back to work and let
them feel proud of themselves once again. We cannot afford
lay-offs in this industry.
And what about damages of $275 million being sought by Ethyl
Corporation, an American company that produces manganese?
This company alleges that NAFTA has been violated. Do we have
so much money in this country that we can afford to take this
lightly? Has the Minister of the Environment consulted his legal
advisors? At a time when the government is making cuts in social
programs and health care, this is a very serious matter. If the
government is in such a hurry to spend its money, I suggest it
consider how many jobs it could create with that money.
The House will agree that if this bill is passed, it will be a very
expensive proposition. So it is rather irresponsible to go ahead with
this bill. Furthermore, the government should take the advice of the
provinces and act on that advice. Of course we all know the federal
government has no respect for the provinces. This has been a long
standing rendition.
And in this bill, the government is true to form. We all know that
six provinces out of ten vehemently oppose this bill. They are
calling for nothing less than its rejection. Interprovincial trade is
5726
threatened, so the provinces have some say in the matter. However,
as we all know, the government's attitude is centralist.
In committee and on second reading, we in the Bloc Quebecois
tried to have this bill postponed. We urged the government to wait
until various studies had been concluded before making a decision,
and to consult those who had something to say about the bill and to
listen to these people. That is how important the matter is.
(1335)
We do not need the kind of consultations we had with the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a few months ago, who did not
take the process seriously.
I think that the impact on health and the environment is too
serious for us to accept this bill. The minister should go back to the
drawing board, let more people have their say and also wait until all
the studies are in before coming back with a new bill. That is why
the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill on third reading.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Madam
Speaker, had the Government members accepted the wise
amendment proposed by my colleague for Laurentides a while ago,
we would no longer be involved in this debate, or at least not for a
while.
In the light of the scientific data available in this sector, it
seemed obvious that we were lacking certain fundamental
information before going ahead with adoption of this bill. Despite
the fact that the government has not called for such scientific
studies, it is determined to move ahead, thus placing the opposition
parties in the position of having to vote against it, despite the fact
that the initial positions, at least as far as the Bloc is concerned,
were not so black and white. We were saying that we were not
categorically against the use of MMT, but did believe that scientific
proof was lacking, and it seemed only logical to demand such proof
before going any further. That, unfortunately, proved impossible.
It must be understood that the MMT being referred to is, quite
simply, an additive in the production of gasoline for cars. The
refineries use additives to raise the octane level. Lead is an additive
and, in its case, there was proof some time ago that it was a health
hazard. The refineries therefore replaced lead with another
additive: manganese or MMT.
It is hard to understand the government position, since there are
studies underway at this time, preliminary ones at least. The first
outcomes of these are not as alarmist as the government would
have it. The government is not basing its alarmism on any scientific
study whatsoever.
In the first part of this debate, the government side was often
heard saying: ``If we continue to use MMT, Canada will be a
minority of one, for Europe is not using it.'' Why is it not in use in
Europe? Simply because they are still making lead-based gasoline.
Two additives are not necessary, only one, and since Europe has not
yet got rid of lead in its gasoline, naturally it is not using MMT.
The day that it does get rid of lead, however, European companies
may be forced to start using MMT, unless some other product is
discovered.
(1340)
The oil companies are not dead set against MMT. They are
simply asking for proof that it is harmful to people's health and the
environment. Bill C-29 is really anachronistic because not only is it
not founded on demonstrable data, but it is also out of sync with the
times.
What does Bill C-29 do? It does not ban the use of MMT, but its
importation. Let us keep in mind that, not too long ago, the
Canadian government and the U.S. administration signed a free
trade agreement specifically aimed at eliminating trade barriers
between the two countries. Mexico joined the treaty a little later. So
banning the importation of MMT goes against the spirit, at least, of
the free trade agreement with the U.S.
But Bill C-29 is also anachronistic for another reason. When we
signed the free trade deal with the U.S. a few years ago, the
Canadian government stated that, once the problem of liberalizing
trade between Canada and the U.S. was settled, interprovincial
trade barriers should come down. So what does Bill C-29 do? It
bans interprovincial trade in MMT. Second anachronistic element:
it recreates a barrier after such vigorous condemnation of
interprovincial trade barriers.
Finally, since this bill seems somewhat strange and violates the
international and interprovincial rules we gave ourselves, why does
the government insist on going ahead? It gave us two reasons. It
claims that MMT is harmful to people's health. If that were true, it
could have-with or without this bill-added MMT to the list of
toxic products, and that would have been the end of it. But that is
not what it did.
It also claims that it is harmful to the environment based on a
ruling by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which did
ban the use of MMT at one point. However, this ruling was
appealed, and the agency lost its case. In some American states, the
use of MMT has become acceptable again.
Not only have the health and environmental reasons not been
clearly demonstrated, but according to Ethyl Corporation, which
produces MMT, eliminating this product would increase nitrous
oxide emissions by close to 20 per cent, which, of course, would
have a disastrous impact on the environment and therefore on
Canadians' health.
If not for health or environmental reasons, why would the
government insist on going ahead? We think that the government
was pressured by two lobby groups. First, the auto industry, which
claims, without ever having proven it, that the use of MMT would
adversely affect antipollution devices.
5727
(1345)
But it has never been demonstrated that it was. Instead of
substantiating its claim, it took the much easier route of simply
asking the government to prohibit the interprovincial trade in and
importation of the product, making it a non-issue.
The second lobby that probably got involved is that of an
emerging industry, namely the ethanol industry. I am not saying
that there is something wrong with using ethanol. What I am saying
at this time is that, with the science available, we are probably not
in a position to safely assume that replacing MMT with another
additive like ethanol will not create other problems. We would, of
course, have to see what goes into producing ethanol. If it is
derived from grains, then we can argue that pesticides and chemical
fertilizers may have been used, for instance. If it is made out of
wood chips, there would be another problem.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will remain opposed to
Bill C-29.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill
C-29 the this government is set to pass exemplifies its ad hoc
approach to environmental management. Indeed, Bill C-29 has
been introduced at a time when nothing has been clearly
established, when the so-called scientific opinion is divided.
As we know, the scientific approach is based on rigour, critical
thinking, analysis, precision and objectivity. The least we can say
in this case is that Bill C-29 is based on considerations of interest
instead of reason.
What is this bill all about? Bill C-29 prohibits the commercial
use of MMT, which is, as we know, a manganese-based substance
added to unleaded gasoline to increase its octane level, thereby
making car engines more efficient. The bill also regulates the
interprovincial trade in and importation for commercial purposes
of certain manganese-based substances.
At this stage of the debate, we must recognize that there is water
in the gas line. Opinions are in fact mixed on the relevance of
prohibiting or allowing the use of MMT. Some, like the Minister of
the Environment and his predecessor, are for banning
manganese-based products because they suspect MMT of being a
health risk and impairing the operation emission control systems
on cars.
At the time of this bill's tabling, they also wanted this bill passed
to harmonize Canadian legislation with that of other countries, the
U.S. in particular. As for Ethyl Corporation, the only company
producing and exporting MMT to Canada, it believes that, on the
contrary, the use of MMT results in a decrease of up to 20 per cent
of emissions of nitrogen oxides harmful to the environment. These
emissions are responsible for urban smog.
As for auto makers, they claim manganese adversely affects the
smooth functioning of new antipollution devices in cars. To this,
those who support the use of MMT reply that the findings of
scientific studies on this issue are contradictory and that the
problems are due primarily to other factors.
Oil companies now support the use of additives. According to
them, manganese reduces the consumption of crude oil, increases
the octane levels in gasoline, improves engine performance and
reduces polluting emissions. We also know that ethanol could
become a substitute for manganese. The ethanol industry is located
in western Canada and in Ontario, primarily in the region
represented by the Deputy Prime Minister, which would therefore
benefit from another market.
(1350)
This is where the problem lies. Remember the announcement
made last year by the former environment minister and Deputy
Prime Minister about a $70 million investment program to develop
ethanol. We are going full speed with nothing to guide us, except
the interests of some. Beyond the diverging opinions and studies,
some facts remain.
In 1994, the health department conducted a review of these
issues. The conclusions reached by Health Canada stress that
exposure to manganese does not pose a threat to the health of
Canadians and Quebecers. In fact, had the results been different
and had MMT been proven to be toxic, Health Canada would have
prohibited its use. And, given the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, we would not be here debating Bill C-29.
Everything would have been just fine.
Second, everyone, including those who oppose the use of MMT,
agree that this product helps reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides,
even though results of studies may vary. Some talk about a 20 per
cent reduction, while others say it is 5 per cent. According to others
still, prohibiting the use of MMT could trigger an increase in
emissions of nitrogen oxides equivalent to having one million
additional cars on the road by the year 2000. Who is right? Which
of these estimates is correct? We still do not know.
Third, this bill will generate costs of several million dollars. It
will, among others, result in enormous costs to the oil industry,
which will have to start making gasoline free of MMT. Once again,
consumers and taxpayers will be footing most of the bill.
Finally, there is another factor of no small importance
concerning the development of the situation in the United States. A
November 1995 ruling by the District of Columbia Court of Appeal
recognized that MMT was not harmful to health or to antipollution
systems in vehicles. Because of this ruling, MMT can be
reintroduced in the United States.
5728
The Minister of the Environment and his predecessor have thus
been deprived of one of their main arguments, harmonization with
U.S. policy. Now that MMT has been authorized in the United
States, Bill C-29, prohibiting its importation, will constitute a
unjustified protectionist measure, contrary to the free circulation
of goods, the cornerstone of NAFTA. For it is indeed the
importation of and interprovincial trade in MMT that is the focus
of Bill C-29.
Thus, Bill C-29 will allow national production of MMT and its
sale and use within a province. If this product is as harmful as the
government claims, why authorize it? The policy is obviously
inconsistent.
By prohibiting international and domestic trade, the government
is contravening NAFTA and once again trampling on provincial
jurisdiction. Despite the Minister for International Trade's warning
to the Minister of the Environment last February, the latter is
pushing ahead with Bill C-29. The result is that, last September 10,
Ethyl Corporation in the United States issued a notice of its
intention to file a complaint under the Free Trade Agreement and to
seek compensation from the Canadian government of, get ready,
almost $300 million, money that may be thrown out the window
because of the pigheadedness we are seeing.
While the Liberal government is slashing budgets as never
before, it is knowingly gambling with the public purse. This is not
right. At the very least, government members should think about
what they are doing and put a bit of manganese or ethanol into their
arguments, in order to boost their credibility rating.
(1355)
I would also like to comment on another aspect of this bill.
Unintentionally, I imagine, the member for York-Simcoe, in a
speech in November 1995, gave the Bloc Quebecois another reason
to be critical of the inflexibility of Canadian federalism.
Commenting on an American court ruling in favour of MMT, the
member for York-Simcoe said, and I quote: ``30 per cent of the
United States will continue with the ban on the use of MMT in
fuel''.
In Canada, the federal government alone decides what additives
will be allowed in gasoline. Despite strong opposition by six
provinces to Bill C-29, the Minister of the Environment has his
mind made up and is refusing to listen to his provincial
counterparts. In a country that claims to be the most decentralized
in the world and in light of the supposedly new flexible
federalism-Plan C, you never know-this attitude is astonishing.
The reasons given by the environment minister for banning the
importation of MMT no longer stand up. Whether for reasons of
health, damage to antipollution systems, environmental issues, or
harmonization of Canadian and U.S. policies, Bill C-29 fails on all
counts.
The current debate proves that there are a number of questions
outstanding. But the federal government is charging full steam
ahead, preferring expediency to any serious logic. There is no
doubt that this government is running on empty.
[English]
The Speaker: I would permit questions except we are running a
little short. What I propose to do is take that very first question
from the government whip right after question period. He will be
the first one I go to. I could not afford to not go there.
_____________________________________________
5728
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the town of Boissevain, Manitoba, strategically located along the
junction of Highway 10 and Highway 3, and serving as the gateway
to the world famous International Peace Garden, has embarked on a
most creative project, namely to preserve its history and culture in
the form of larger than life murals on buildings in the community.
The community, originally called Cherry Creek, was named
Boissevain in recognition of the efforts of a Dutch financial railway
official named Adolph Boissevain who was instrumental in
founding that community.
Pictorial perspectives of wild life and agricultural resources, the
arrival of the railroad, adventures of the early pioneers, the role and
rich traditions of the Metis, the organization and the arrival of
Northwest Mounted Police along the Boundary Trail are just some
of the themes captured in the 20 murals now visible in the
community.
I encourage all colleagues to consider visiting Boissevain and
sharing a part of our colourful history.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last weekend, the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste named CSN
president Gérald Larose patriot of the year. Mr. Larose earned this
title by fighting to build a more humane society in which all
citizens, whatever their economic and social backgrounds, have the
same rights and opportunities.
A staunch sovereignist, he has used all of his skills to serve the
Quebec cause to which he is committed. He has always shown
absolute confidence in the people of Quebec.
5729
Mr. Larose deserves this tribute for his great generosity and his
exceptional contribution to Quebec's democratic life. Mr. Larose's
social commitment shows the link between the fight for Quebec
sovereignty and the struggle for a more just society.
On behalf of all my colleagues, congratulations, Gérald Larose.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I recently made a submission to a B.C. standing
committee with regard to the Nishg'a Agreement in Principle. It is
holding public hearings throughout British Columbia.
Contrary to public expectations, these hearings are configured in
such a way that no substantive change to the AIP can be achieved.
Last spring the federal government behaved as if it could be
changed. Now it is clear that governments are acting as if it is a
binding agreement. There is a sense of public disgust because they
see no tolerance from governments to vary from their
predetermined agenda. The only mandate of this committee is to
determine what elements of the AIP are transferable to other B.C.
treaty agreements.
(1400)
All we have heard recently is a deafening silence from the
federal minister as the province carries out this sham. It is time for
the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to honour
his earlier commitment for meaningful public input and analysis
into the Nisga'a deal.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October 1996 marks the Society of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists' national public awareness campaign on
menopause.
Supported in this important initiative by partners such as the
Osteoporosis Society of Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation,
the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association and the North American
Menopause Society, the SOGC has launched a four-week campaign
called ``Menopause: Let's Talk About It!''
Thanks to the co-operation of Canadian cable industry members
like Shaw Cable, a cross-country series of public dialogues will be
televised to ensure maximum community awareness.
Founded in 1944, the SOGC, a voluntary, scientific, non-profit
corporation, remains committed to education initiatives for both
the public and health care professionals.
Once a taboo subject, menopause has become a topic of great
interest. Women are bombarded with information from lay sources,
the media and the medical community. To help sort fact from
fiction the SOGC's national awareness campaign is designed to
inform women of choices available to them during menopause, to
provide greater access to information to allow informed decision
making and to raise public awareness of menopause and its impact
on women's lives.
While the national campaign is-
The Speaker: We are having some minor difficulties with the
lights. When I call your name, however, I believe we get
transmission. We are working on it to get it cleared up in the next
few minutes.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, former
Senator Arthur Tremblay died yesterday morning in Quebec City at
the age of 79.
He participated in the campaign against Duplessis, worked as a
senior government official, became the first Deputy Minister of
Education in Quebec history, and was the driving force behind the
educational reform of the 1960s. After serving as Deputy Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs, he was appointed to the Senate in
1979.
As a great servant of the state, he always put Quebec's interests
first. He was an architect of the quiet revolution, but his political
reflections led him to oppose the unilateral patriation of the
Constitution. Bitterly disappointed when the Meech Lake accord
failed as a result of Newfoundland and Manitoba's opposition, he
joined the sovereignist ranks. As former minister Marc-André
Bédard reminded us, Senator Tremblay was a perfectionist, and not
the kind of man to take position without careful consideration.
Senator Tremblay will remain a great Quebecer to us all. To his
family, I wish to express our sincerest condolences.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are proud of the equality of opportunity that our social programs in
health, education and welfare have provided to all Canadians. We
must be vigilant to ensure that equality of opportunity continues to
prevail.
5730
In Toronto, Ontario's teachers were being vigilant when they
marched to warn parents about the erosion of Ontario's education
system. In Ottawa, Liberal Party delegates were being vigilant
when they addressed the phenomenon of child poverty in the
country. They are recommending a national child benefit to lift
children out of poverty and to restore equality of opportunity as
a hallmark of Canadian citizenship.
As parliamentarians we too must be vigilant so that during our
watch we strengthen equality of opportunity for Canadian children.
By doing so, we will ensure the future of our nation.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after the weekend Liberal policy convention we now
know how the government develops its policies. It consults empty
chairs and empty rooms which pose no difficult questions,
resulting in perfect harmony. For the real tough questions Liberals
look to the Prime Minister's wife for answers.
A big problem with the Liberal government is that it has placed
the wrong ministers in their respective portfolios. For example, the
justice minister should be switched to agriculture. Then farmers
would be out of prison farming and the real criminals might be
behind bars. The heritage minister and the finance minister should
reverse their roles so that the CBC could survive the cuts and report
to the nation the moment the Liberal government has spent us into
bankruptcy. When this happens, they will just look for the minister
with the credit cards.
(1405)
The Liberals swing to the left, they swing to the right and sooner
or later they will swing out of sight.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
anyone who is well informed and honest cannot help but admire
French President Jacques Chirac's courage. He acted with
conviction and firmness to support the Palestinians' legitimate
aspirations.
It is unusual for a head of state to come and take a personal look
at a situation like that of the Palestinians. He is convinced that the
peace process can succeed if the parties comply with the terms of
the Oslo agreement providing for Palestinian self-government on
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
He is asking the Palestinians primarily to resist the temptation of
violence, despite the stalling of the peace process and the
frustrations and humiliations they must face every day.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Middle East peace process is much like a long journey, waiting
for that small first step in order to begin. Yet such as step is there
for the taking.
This week marks the fifth anniversary of Israeli airman Ron
Arad's joining the ranks of soldiers missing in action. He is not
alone. There are a host of other MIAs who have been awaiting
release since 1982. Their families have been calling for their
liberation but to little avail.
It is time that their captors heeded the expressions of concern on
their behalf forwarded by the global community and, in particular,
by Canada. On a humanitarian basis, their release is long overdue.
Moreover, such action would contribute substantially to peace
initiatives since the release of MIAs would represent a powerful
confidence building measure.
From a social and political perspective the return of MIAs makes
sense. Canada should generate a chorus of like minded countries to
urge Iran, Syria and others capable of affecting the repatriation of
MIAs to act without delay.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
delegates at the national Liberal convention held in Ottawa this
past weekend have achieved a consensus on a number of important
issues.
It should be noted that our government's deficit reduction
strategy has received overwhelming endorsement from convention
delegates. Diversion tactics such as tax reductions, as attractive as
they may be in the short term, would jeopardize the government's
fiscal health.
Liberals from all over the country have chosen to support a
strategy that will lead to the complete elimination of the deficit by
the turn of this century. That is how we will ensure job creation,
sustainable social programs and real economic recovery.
5731
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this past weekend Liberal delegates from across Canada
assembled in Ottawa for the 1996 biennial convention. Convention
delegates were united in their support and encouraged the
government to stay the course for continued success in deficit
reduction.
The government is on track to meet or better its deficit target of
$24.3 billion or 3 per cent of GDP this current year; $17 billion in
1997-98 and in 1998-99 the deficit target is $9 billion or
approximately 1 per cent of GDP. This means it will no longer need
to go to the financial markets for new borrowing requirements.
Interest rates are as low as they have been in 30 years. Inflation
is under control and the government's number one priority of job
creation is working as business and industry create thousands of
new jobs across Canada.
We will be faced with new challenges that we will accept and
overcome as we have to date while building a better tomorrow for
all Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here are the ten most often heard phrases at the Liberal Party
convention this weekend.
(1410 )
10. Policy? What policy? We're here to party.
9. I can't speak to that resolution. I forgot the Liberal Party script
back in my hotel room.
8. Hello, are you a regular party delegate, or are you a lobbyist?
7. Let's not offer Quebecers a better Canada. Let's just try to buy
their support.
6. How do you get that boot polish off your tongue?
5. I know that gagging sound will go away, just keep forcing that
distinct society down their throats.
4. The minister of youth didn't actually do anything wrong. She
just made a mistake when she bought a fur coat on her government
credit card.
3. Will that be Chablis or Chardonnay?
2. Liberals believe that Canadians don't need or deserve tax
relief.
And the number one most heard phrase at the Liberal Party
convention this weekend was the Minister of Finance repeating: ``I
want to be Prime Minister. I want to be Prime Minister. Pleeease let
me be Prime Minister''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Liberal delegates from across the country met over
the weekend to discuss their party's platform in the next election
campaign.
They passed resolutions on job creation, youth, child poverty,
health, social security, pensions, the environment, safety,
aboriginal people, citizenship and immigration, to name but a few.
The federal Liberals have reaffirmed their deep commitment to
the values of social solidarity, sharing and tolerance.
As the Prime Minister told the delegates in his speech at the
convention, the Liberal Party is a party of the center. The Liberal
vision of Canada is one of justice, equality and responsibility. And
it is this positive and dynamic vision that we will be proposing to
the voters in the next election.
* * *
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in their typically arrogant way, last weekend, the Liberals
wrote their own report card on their so-called brilliant performance
since the Grits' return to Ottawa.
The Liberals gave themselves a score of 78 per cent, after getting
elected on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs and doing nothing since;
after promising in 1993 to abolish the GST and finding nothing
better to do than have the Deputy Prime Minister temporarily
resign and then apologize for having failed to fulfil their
commitment; and after promising to put the government's fiscal
house in order but merely cutting funding to the most
disadvantaged members of our society and shovelling the deficit in
the provinces' backyards.
One year to the day after the Quebec referendum, there is no
reason to applaud this government's achievements in this respect.
At their convention over the weekend, the Liberals swept aside the
embarrassing issue of the constitutional debate, no doubt to make
sure they got a passing grade.
In fact, the only 78 per cent score the Liberals deserve today is
for the act they put on at their convention.
5732
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in the days prior to the Liberals meeting and convention in
Ottawa, the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops released a report
on poverty.
That report is a listing of the dismay felt by Canadians about the
level of poverty in this country. Certainly the Liberals should have
been dealing with that issue during their convention. Seven
hundred thousand people have joined the ranks of the poor since
this government took office.
The Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops talked about jobs as
being one of the key elements in ensuring we can eliminate
poverty. Creating jobs deals with problems within aboriginal
communities. Creating jobs deals with matters in our urban
environment. Creating jobs helps to ensure a better economy for
rural Canadians.
The Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops has sounded an alarm
of which the Liberals have to stand and take note. I urge them to
pay attention to that. I urge all Canadians to ask for the creation of
jobs.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
health care system is one of Canada's proudest achievements.
Based on the belief that every Canadian has the right to receive the
care he or she needs, our health care system is an affirmation of
Canada's commitment to human dignity, compassion and
collective well-being.
Over the past few months, it has become clear that the Liberal
Party is the only party willing to protect this very important
component of Canadian society.
The Reform Party has no qualms about supporting user fees and
creating a two-tiered health care system, putting the burden of
being sick squarely on the shoulders of those most in need.
The Tories want all Canadians to pay up to $2,000 a year for
private health insurance in case you suffer the misfortune of
becoming ill.
(1415)
Meanwhile at the 1996 Liberal Party biennial convention this
past weekend resolution after resolution was passed upholding the
five principles of the Canada Health Act to ensure access to quality
health care for all.
When it comes to health care, Canadians know who they can
trust.
5732
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will not comment. The Liberal convention was pretty
rough this weekend. I will not go further than that, in order to stay
within the rules.
The Prime Minister has spent the past few days applauding his
own performance as Prime Minister. He even said that he had done
enough for Quebec, as far as his referendum promises were
concerned.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
How can he explain the Prime Minister's statement about having
done enough as far as his referendum commitments are concerned,
when the majority of Quebecers are dissatisfied with his job, a
majority which includes the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, the
leader of the Conservative Party, and some of those who backed the
Prime Minister in his referendum promises and now admit he has
not delivered the goods?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has, through a resolution
of this House, recognized the distinct character of Quebec. It has
adopted legislation conferring regional vetoes. Since the throne
speech, it has launched a vast program of reform, affecting areas as
diverse as mines, forests, social housing, manpower, and social and
economic union.
This is a very significant reform, and we are still open to all truly
concrete suggestions the opposition or any other political party in
Canada might make to us with a view to pursuing our efforts to
improve Canadian federation, which is already one of the best there
is in the world.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):Mr.
Speaker, before the minister starts calling for suggestions from
anyone, I have one to make to him: let him just meet the
commitments the Prime Minister has made to people. If the
government met its commitments, this would already represent
huge progress, in everybody's eyes. That is my suggestion to the
minister.
The Prime Minister has said that, now the referendum is a thing
of the past, it is no longer necessary to always be on the same
wavelength, with the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party in
particular. How, then, can the minister explain to us what he means
in this statement, other than that, now that the promises have had
their desired effect-winning-it is no longer important to follow
up on them?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, following up is what is important. That is what
5733
Quebecers and other Canadians have done together since this
federation was created, one of the best known countries in the
world, not only for its quality of life, but also for its values of
tolerance and openmindedness.
What absolutely must not be followed up on, is the destructive
project represented by the opposition. This is a project which
would bring deep divisions, not just between Quebec and Canada,
but between Quebecers themselves. Quebecers understand this, and
the numbers turning away from this project represented by the
opposition are increasing by leaps and bounds.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs that the circus is over now. He is no longer in the Liberal
three-ring circus, but back in front of the House of Commons.
People want answers, not dissertations on the meaning of the
federation and of Canada and of continuation of the opposition's
project. For heaven's sake. Let us have an answer then.
The Prime Minister has once again tried to get the rest of Canada
to swallow the idea that the Quebec question can be solved with a
spoonful of sugar. Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
realize that the Prime Minister's commitments of this weekend on
the question of the distinct society within the Constitution are
merely an illusion, an illusion which serves to mask the emptiness
of their constitutional position?
(1420)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again, what is the emptiness are we talking
about, when we enjoy the finest quality of life in the world, one
envied, by not just millions but billions of people who would dearly
love to share our emptiness with us, that emptiness which
Quebecers and other Canadians have worked together to build?
Will they turn their backs on that to launch into a project fraught
with uncertainty, a project that is ill-defined, a project that is aimed
at division and not at the open-mindedness which Quebecers and
other Canadians have within them and wish to preserve for
themselves and their children?
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here is
the Prime Minister's new strategy: he has his party adopt a
resolution on a vague concept of distinct society which he will trot
out across the country, saying it means nothing to English Canada
and means a lot to Quebec, and all this for the sole purpose of
fostering illusions among the electorate. This is so vague, it is just
playing for time by lulling people to sleep. It is just a way to save
the ship once again until the next election.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that this
resolution on distinct society is just another way to gain time and
get through the next election without having to explain that they
have done nothing and once again run an election campaign on the
basis of so-called promises of change?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our federation is changing, it is changing for the better
and in such a way that it will be able to provide Canadians with a
better quality of life. It is changing because we now have the lowest
interest rates ever, a low inflation rate, and we are creating jobs.
It is changing in that it is clarifying the roles of various levels of
government, to have a federal government that is strong in its
particular jurisdictions and provincial governments that are strong
in theirs, and a strong partnership between these two levels of
government.
This federation is also changing in that it recognizes the place of
Quebec in the federation, through a resolution adopted in this
House or as expressed in a resolution by the Liberal Party of
Canada adopted on the weekend, whose purpose is to convince
Canadians that recognition of Quebec in the Constitution would be
one of the fundamental values of Canada, something Canadians
could do in full confidence.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in that
case, what explanation does the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs have for his comments on the weekend, when he said that a
distinct society involves no concrete or specific powers for
Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that was never mentioned. Does the hon. member
know what Meech Lake said about this? ``Nothing in this section
derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the
Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the
provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to
language''.
Canadians in the other provinces would not be sending more
power, money or privileges to Quebec but a joyous signal, a
positive signal to show how much they want Quebecers to remain
in Canada and, by their distinctness, be part of this great Canadian
diversity.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister says that Liberals will have to fight arrogance,
overspending, overconfidence and complacency.
It is a losing battle. The unemployment rate is hovering around
10 per cent and yet the Liberals claim that they have kept their
promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. Just in case we had any doubts, the
Liberals now have sent out 1.4 million flyers entitled ``Integrity in
5734
Action'' in an attempt to gloss over their dismal record on jobs.
This is arrogance in action, certainly not integrity.
My question is for the Prime Minister. However, I am not sure
who to ask over there today. Wasn't that a party? How can the
Prime Minister even imagine that he has kept his promise on jobs,
jobs, jobs?
(1425)
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the applause and the welcome. I hope I will get equal
applause after my answer.
The facts speak for themselves: since this government took
office, more than 600,000 new jobs have been created; the
unemployment rate has gone down by some 2 per cent. There is a
lot more to do but we are going to do it because we are keeping and
will continue to keep our commitment to help create jobs for
Canadians.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
they talk about 600,000 jobs gained, they never seem to say how
many hundred thousand jobs have been lost since this
government's inaction.
While we are on the topic of Liberal arrogance, let us take a look
at the government's record on health care funding. Surely that
answer will not be quite as easy.
At the Liberal love-in over the weekend, the Prime Minister tried
to downplay his government's cuts to medicare by saying that it
was simply a squeeze. I do not know how he could call that a
squeeze. It seems it was a choke hold with a body slam thrown in.
The Canadian Medical Association-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I do not think I heard a question, but I know it is
coming.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, you will hear it now. Will they admit
that $3 billion of cuts in health care is hardly the Liberal way? Will
they admit they have gone too far with their slashing? Will this
government commit to putting more federal money back into
health care, as it promised in the sixties?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is one for the record books. The party that wanted to wipe out
medicare and privatize it is today calling for the preservation of
medicare. I am glad its members realize the importance of it and
have come around to supporting this key Liberal commitment.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, each
hospital in this country that has empty beds should have a banner
over it saying: ``This brought to you by the Liberal Government of
Canada''. That is shameful.
I am surprised the Prime Minister will not make any firm
funding commitments because in his keynote speech on the
weekend he seemed all too eager to get back to his free spending,
big government Liberal roots.
The real reason why the Prime Minister rejects any talk of tax
relief is that he would rather spend taxes than cut taxes. The best
way to create jobs in this country is to balance the budget and lower
taxes through smaller government.
Why will they not give Canadians some tax relief, not tax
increases?. Why is it that Liberals always think a dollar in the
hands of a bureaucrat or a politician does more good than a dollar
in the hands of the Canadian taxpayer where it belongs?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can ask my hon. friend why the Reform Party always thinks that
Canadians doing things together through government is worse than
not working together to have a better country. Surely having a
better country through a sound fiscal framework as well as
government doing things for all Canadians is better than the
Reform approach of slash, burn and destroy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, since the Liberals took
office in Ottawa, federal investments in Quebec have constantly
been decreasing, going down from 19.7 per cent of total Canadian
investments in 1993 to 15.4 per cent this year. Normally, Quebec
should have been entitled to one quarter of federal investments.
How can the Prime Minister, who bragged this past weekend
about what he had in store for Quebec, explain this decrease in
federal investments in Quebec since he took office?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is making a somewhat selective use of
data. The fact is we just announced a number of federal investment
initiatives in Quebec, and particularly in Montreal.
(1430)
These include an investment announced last week in the
aeronautical industry; an investment in the Mitel plant, located in
Bromont; an investment in the biotechnology institute, at the
5735
national research centre, and the maintaining of the space agency,
among others.
Given that almost 41 per cent of tax credits for research and
development are claimed in Quebec, these sectors are well
supported by the federal government.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not get the meaning of my question. Since
the Liberals took office, public investments in Quebec have
decreased, in relation to the rest of the country. Federal investments
have decreased in Quebec in the last three years. This is what we
are saying.
The Prime Minister tells us this is related to the bidding process.
Maybe once or twice, but after 15 years one begins to wonder. This
is systematic discrimination.
This is what my supplementary is about. Does the Prime
Minister or the Minister of Industry find it normal that, for the past
15 years, again according to this recent study by Statistics Canada,
federal investments in Quebec have accounted for only 16.4 per
cent of federal spending, instead of 25 per cent, thus resulting in a
shortfall of close to $4 billion for Quebec? This is a lot of money
and a lot of jobs that the Liberal government, and its Conservative
predecessor, deliberately refused to create in Quebec.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am always disturbed by the representations made by
regional parties in the House. They seem to believe that each
investment should be equally divided among all the provinces.
Does the hon. member think it would be better if the investment
announced last Monday regarding Canadair were divided equally
between all Canadians?
Mr. Young: Maybe he could explain that at the economic
summit.
Mr. Manley: Does he think all tax credits for research and
development should be divided? Should all the networks of centres
of excellence be divided fairly among the provinces?
Mr. Young: It would interesting to discuss this at the economic
summit. For one thing, they like to get federal money.
Mr. Manley: To say that this idea was really not based on
economic and industrial development is simply false.
Mr. Young: It is blackmail.
[English]
The Speaker: Sometimes we have a couple of microphones
open and inadvertently other voices come over the intercom.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while
the Prime Minister and his Liberal cronies sipped wine over the
weekend and said no to lower taxes, ordinary Canadians were
trying to figure out how they were going to pay for next week's
groceries.
Here is the story. Disposable income is down $3,000 per family,
1.4 million Canadians are out of work, another 1 million have
stopped looking for work, 2 million are underemployed and one in
four workers is worried about losing their job.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his unwillingness to shrink
and focus his government and leave more money in the pockets of
taxpayers and job creators is the real reason he and his government
are failing to fulfil their promise to create jobs, jobs, jobs?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House leader has
already stated we have created 700,000 jobs in the private sector.
Let me read a commentary on the Reform Party's policy from
Dr. Ruth Getter, chief economist of the Toronto Dominion Bank:
``What the government has done with its restraint that it has put in
place is really quite remarkable and we have got this kind of
environment in the economy that is ready to take off. If at this point
you say cut even more so you can cut taxes, it is not clear to me that
you could accomplish anything by that''.
(1435)
That is what the Reform Party is saying, that it wants to
accomplish nothing.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
the hon. member would go to the 1.4 million unemployed people
out there and ask for a mark from them on their record of creating
jobs, jobs, jobs.
Despite recognition earlier this year that infrastructure and other
make work programs failed to create real jobs, the Prime Minister
stood up in front of his Liberal cronies this weekend and promised
to return to this boondoggle form of governance.
Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians why now he is talking
about spending any future budget surplus on bloating the size of
government rather than giving consumers and job creators the tax
relief they need to create the real jobs that people are demanding?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really interested
to hear the Reform Party talking about jobs and social programs.
Believing that the Reform Party has a social conscience is like
believing that Count Dracula was a blood donor.
5736
What would the Reform Party's policies do? The Reform Party's
policies would tax the poor to pay the rich. It would eliminate the
high income surtax. That means $100 lower taxes for the $30,000
a year person and $1,200 lower taxes for the $100,000 a year
person.
That is not in the cards in our program. Let the Reform Party sell
that one to the public.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The rapidly escalating conflict in eastern Zaire between Tutsi
rebels and the Zairian army is on the point of culminating in a
human catastrophe far worse than that in Rwanda in 1994. More
than one million Rwandan refugees have been cut off, and 500,000
of them are fleeing the country.
With aid workers forced to leave the area and the planned airlift
to rescue refugees in danger of being called off, can the minister
give an update on the situation and indicate what his government
intends to do to help avoid a repetition of the 1994 tragedy?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I share the concerns expressed by the hon. member. As
she says, it is a very serious problem. At this time, we are
supporting the report by the U.N. Secretary General calling for
diplomatic mediation efforts.
The secretary of state for Latin America and Africa, Mrs.
Stewart, is in Africa to attend a meeting of the coalition of African
countries. She is representing Canada's position in favour of a
peaceful solution.
We are also ready to respond to requests for assistance from
international organizations. There have been no requests to date,
but we are ready to respond should any arise.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
American government recently tried to persuade African countries
to set up a permanent force to come to the assistance of African
civilians in the event of war. Although this suggestion has, for the
time being, been given a chilly reception by African countries, does
the minister intend to try to argue for the creation of such a force,
which would be one way of helping to resolve the present crisis?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been some very good examples in the past few
years of regional groupings of African countries coming together to
organize peace forces.
The proposal by Secretary Christopher is one that we have
discussed directly with officials in the United States and with
African countries.
Again, we have indicated that we are prepared to assist if the
African countries themselves agree to some kind of standby force
or representation in the central African region. We have a number
of ways in which we can support, through training and through the
work of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. At the present time we
provide assistance to a number of institutes for conflict resolution
and strategic studies in South Africa and Cairo. Others are engaged
with the OAU.
(1440)
I certainly agree with the hon. member, if we could work out
some way in which the African states themselves could respond.
They have an economic boycott which in part has been successful.
Clearly the situation in Zaire has the potential for a major disaster.
Unless the international community responds with a degree of
resolve unlike what we showed in Rwanda, we could be facing a
very grave problem.
Canada stands by ready to do what it can.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a cynical
attempt to get elected, the Liberals promised in the red book not to
withdraw from the health care field. The Prime Minister finally
admitted this weekend that he had had to squeeze medicare.
How does a squeeze of $3 billion a year to federal transfers for
medicare reconcile with that Liberal red book promise?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ignores the fact that
the health ministers of the provinces and territories of Canada had
asked for a commitment from this government, a commitment
which it made and lived up to, to stabilize funding and to give
funding that people could address on a secured basis. They asked
for a cash floor which is over $11 billion and with which they are
extremely happy. They have stable funding for the next five years
at an average of $26.1 billion, gradually to go higher by 1998.
I think that is what the provinces and the territories were looking
for in order to stabilize health care expenditures and health care
systems. We delivered on that promise.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary talks about stable funding but it is
something from a stable that we got instead.
Reform however has a fresh start on medicare. When the budget
is balanced in 1999, we promise to increase the funding for health
5737
care and education by $4 billion. That is not stable funding for
medicare; that is increased funding for medicare.
Simply put, will the Liberals take another page from the Reform
Party platform and restore the funding for medicare?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we would take the member a little
more seriously if he was not so interested in making light of the
affair. If he had looked at what we have done in the last two
budgets, he would already have seen that there is a provision for
increasing spending by 1998. I wonder which page is taken out of
whose book.
I do not know how we are going to go on from the point that the
member opposite is suggesting that first we slash the system so it
cannot function and then we give it an injection of cash. We prefer
a more responsible approach, the one we have outlined in budgets
past and in the current budget. That is the right way and we are
going to continue with that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry.
Recently, the Minister had a meeting with Philips Electronic in
the Netherlands to discuss investments this company might make
in Canada. Meanwhile, Investment Canada and Polygram, a
subsidiary of Philips, were negotiating the terms of Polygram's
entry into the Canadian film distribution market. However,
according to Canada's policy on the film industry, Polygram does
not have the right to enter the Canadian market.
In this context would the Minister of Industry not agree that he is
sending a message to foreign investors that Canadian cultural
policies are negotiable?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an odd question. Does the hon. member think that
the people of Quebec or the National Capital Region, or Edmonton,
Vancouver or other parts of the country, if they could get about a
billion dollars invested in the semi-conductor sector, would not
want the Minister of Industry to approach companies that would be
able to make that kind of investment? It is very important for us to
attract investment.
As for Polygram, I did not discuss the matter with Philips, and it
was not on the agenda at our meeting.
(1445)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, obviously we would never object to the billions of dollars
of investments to which the minister refers, unless they are
intended for his riding. We might have some questions in that case,
but if they go anywhere else, they will be most welcome.
However, one wonders why not the minister but Investment
Canada is negotiating Polygram's entry on the Canadian film
market, although it does not meet any of the requirements in this
respect?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an application has been filed with Investment Canada. No
decision has been made as yet, and I do not want to discuss the
matter because the decision is still up to the minister.
I may add, as I said in Bromont a few days ago, that there are
probably five or six locations here in Canada where we have the
industrial base for a semi-conductor industry. One was in Quebec,
in Bromont.
I want to ask the hon. member this: Is she not interested in the
fact, on behalf of her party here in the House of Commons, the
Canadian government is doing everything it can to try and find a
base to create a genuine semi-conductor industry here in Canada?
That is the real issue. They have no industrial policy other than
asking for subsidies, as the hon. member did earlier. To us, it is
more important to look for international investment.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food regarding Bill C-38, the farm debt mediation act.
This government is committed to program delivery to be more
cost efficient and effective. How will this new act be an
improvement on the 10-year old act of the Farm Debt Review
Board?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new farm debt mediation act
will maintain the essential features of the old legislation including
a stay of proceedings and a review and mediation process. At the
same time it will avoid a good deal of overlap and duplication. It
will streamline the administration of the whole program. It will
provide a new appeal mechanism which was not provided for in the
old law. It will provide farmers with flexibility to engage their own
financial advisers rather than just taking those advisers that may
5738
otherwise be imposed upon them. It will create a new proactive
financial counselling service.
I am very pleased to say that the proposed legislation enjoys the
very strong support of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the youth
minister went on seaside holidays, bought a fur coat and charged it
all on a government credit card. Then she signed an expense form
claiming that these expenses were ``incurred on official business''.
The Prime Minister said this was only a small mistake and
shrugged it off saying: ``She paid it back in weeks or days''.
My question is about the guidelines on this issue. In the part
where the guidelines give ministers permission to use government
charge cards for personal use, how long do they have to pay it
back? Is it interest free? Do they have to pay it back even if no one
ever finds out?
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
already answered that question last Thursday, and the answer
remains the same: government travel cards should be used only for
official government business. Whenever they are used for other
purposes, all personal expenditures must be fully reimbursed. This
is the case here, and I must point out that all but one payments was
made even before the access to information request.
The ethics counsellor has been consulted, and conversations
have taken place with the member involved. As a result, all
personal expenditures have been reimbursed. The hon. member has
agreed not to use government credit cards in future for anything
except government business.
(1450)
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister of
course did not answer my question at all. He just reiterated the
garbage we got on Thursday. We already knew this.
My question was on the guidelines. Are the guidelines on
personal use of government credit cards clear? How long do
ministers have to pay back personal expenses? Is it interest free?
Do they have to always pay it back or only if somebody finds out
about it? Those were my questions before and I still want answers.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
my view the guidelines are clear. I indicated clearly and slowly
what they were. In this case the guidelines were followed and the
personal expenses were reimbursed. That is the end of it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Last week, the Minister of National Defence made an excellent
suggestion, when he said that General Boyle should not be singled
out. We agree that his case should be the basis for a new policy of
transparency, like the one adopted in Quebec, and that the minister
should therefore release the amount of the generous separation
payments made to General Boyle with taxpayers' money.
Since he refuses to disclose the total amount awarded General
Boyle in separation pay, will the minister at least tell us how much
General Boyle has received in discretionary benefits from the
government?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
benefits and other amounts paid to individuals by the Government
of Canada in such transactions represent personal, privileged
information covered under the Privacy Act. This act clearly states
that personal information must not be disclosed without the
consent of the individual concerned.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
remind the minister that this does not apply to discretionary
benefits.
I would also like to remind the minister that the government is
using taxpayers' money to make these separation payments. What
the people want and have the right to know is how much was paid
to General Boyle.
Why is the minister hiding from the public the total amount of
the separation package paid to General Boyle?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
answer is quite simply: we do what the law requires.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Harvey Milne, who was declared a dangerous offender in 1980 for
sex crimes against young boys, was paroled in 1993 because
officials deemed him to be rehabilitated. Milne now faces five new
charges for sexual offences, apparently again committed against
young boys.
5739
It is clear that Milne was and continues to be a sexual predator.
He should never have been released. Will the minister hold the
parole board accountable for its mistakes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the individual in question is still before the courts. This is certainly
a matter that was taken very seriously. If I am not mistaken, this
decision was made some years ago before the current provisions
with respect to the parole board were in place. I know this matter is
being investigated and certainly any necessary action will be taken
to try to prevent a repetition of whatever the problem is found to be.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are talking again about the accountability of the parole board, the
bungling of its decisions. Harvey Milne was deemed to be a
dangerous offender but this minister's handpicked parole board set
him loose so he could again prey on young children.
Canadians need a guarantee that this man will never again make
victims of our children. Will the solicitor general move
immediately so that repeat violent offenders are locked up for life
with no parole?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member knows, the parole board is an independent
quasi-judicial tribunal. At the same time, I point out that as far as I
am aware, the decision on paroling Mr. Milne was made in 1991
before this government took office.
(1455)
There is proposed legislation before this House to tighten up the
provisions with regard to dangerous offenders. The debate on this
measure, which I hope the hon. member will support, will provide
further occasion for this issue to be considered.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the secretary of state for financial institutions.
The numerous provincial securities commissions in Canada
mitigate against efficiency of investment, mitigate against wealth
and job creation. This situation forces many emerging Canadian
companies to go to U.S. markets for financing.
Will the minister tell us what he is doing to establish a national
securities commission?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon.
member that to promote a strong securities industry in Canada, we
do need a Canadian securities commission. Based on initial
requests from the provinces, we have continued to discuss with
them the issues of developing a Canadian securities commission.
The hon. member is quite right to note that we need to ensure
that Canadian companies and Canadian investors are not
disadvantaged. A Canadian securities commission is not about
federal intrusion, but it is about reducing overlap and duplication.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last Thursday, rail workers in Montreal again raised the alarm
and demanded a moratorium on the dismantling of the rail network
in Quebec. During the year that is coming to an end, more than
2,000 jobs have disappeared in Montreal, bringing to over 10,000
the number of jobs lost in the past 10 years.
What will the minister do to stop this hemorrhage resulting from
the federal government's iniquity?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is true that jobs are being cut in the rail sector in Quebec
and elsewhere, but I must say to the hon. member that these cuts
were not as bad in Quebec as they were in the rest of the country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister of this land said two weeks ago that he was not going to
buy votes. The very next day, he gave an $87 million interest free
loan to a corporation with assets of $6 billion, cash in the bank of
$290 million, and profits of $107 million for the previous year. And
he said he was not going to buy votes.
Because this is other people's money, taxpayers' money, I would
like to know which minister approved this loan. What criteria were
used to make this loan?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to receive that question. I approved the
loan. I recommended it to my colleagues.
It is an $87 million investment in research and development
repayable on a royalty basis as aircraft are sold. We will make
money on that loan.
5740
Not only that, I am surprised to hear such a question from the
Reform Party days after its fresh start. Reformers put their
document out saying that a Reform government will recognize the
crucial place of research and development in our economy by
what? By increasing current levels of funding for research and
development for industry. I agree with that.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Today the task force on disability issues released its report. Of
the 52 recommendations, many were similar to those of the
subcommittee on human rights and status of disabled persons
which this government had previously rejected.
(1500)
One of the key recommendations is that a Canadians with
disabilities act be brought forward and enacted. It would ensure
that persons with disabilities would have broad interpretation of
citizenship in areas affected by the federal government.
What steps will the government take to respond to those persons
with disabilities and provide an act like that and enact it before the
next election?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for an important question to all Canadians.
First, this is a very important issue to the Government of Canada
and to society as a whole. We think that people with disabilities
should be active members in our society.
We just received the report that was made public this morning.
We intend to make the recommendations a major part of our
discussions with the provinces. I want to take the opportunity to
thank the member who was responsible for the report, the member
for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, for his fine work.
At the same time, I would say to members opposite that is about
time in this House that we got a question that really meant
something to Canadians besides the nonsense across the way.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
It seems the Trent-Severn waterway's plan to raise $200,000
from water lot licences may leave marina operators open to an
additional million dollars in municipal taxes. Surely it is not the
government's intention to be a tax collector for municipalities.
What is the minister doing to help the Trent-Severn operators in
this matter?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last March the minister committed that both the
Trent-Severn waterway and the Rideau canal would undertake a
comprehensive consultation with the stakeholders in regard to
commercial water lot fees over the summer months.
The input from these consultations has resulted in a significant
change in the original fee proposal and the results of these
consultations will be made public very shortly.
The minister shares the member's concern for the marina
operators and the minister has asked for clarification from the
Ontario government with regard to the appraisal services branch.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members
the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the Parliament of
Finland. It is led by my sister Speaker, Riita Uosukainen.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I move:
That Peter Milliken, member for the electoral district of Kingston and the Islands,
be appointed Deputy Chairman of committees of the whole House.
(1505)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
motion moved by the government House leader is out of order
because he has not given the House 48 hours' notice.
I understand that on the opening day of Parliament or on the
opening day of a new session this motion can be moved without
notice because on those occasions no notice can be given since the
House is not yet in session. In addition, since the opening day is
known and is publicized in advance, technically there has been
notice given that event will occur.
This is not an opening day of Parliament or a new session. I
believe that notice should be required for this motion.
5741
The Speaker: A point has been raised by the hon. whip of the
Reform Party. It is the practice of the House that such a motion
in the past has not needed 48 hours' notice. I would refer the hon.
member to the annotated standing orders on page 18 for a fuller
explanation. I am going to allow the motion to stand.
This motion is debatable.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to debate
this motion. I have sent a letter to the Prime Minister, I have sent a
copy to the government whip and I have talked to the nominee for
the position of Acting Speaker.
I made the Reform Party's position very clear on this. We are
looking for an opportunity for the government to live up to its
promises. I have nothing against the hon. member whose name has
been put forward. We all know he knows the rules of the House as
good as anyone. We all know in committee his reputation is to be
fair and even-handed. We appreciate that.
During the election campaign the Liberal Party campaigned on a
red book promise. The nominee for the position of deputy speaker
co-authored a paper that was quoted in the red book as the way
things should be run here in the House of Commons. In that red
book it says that two deputy speakers should be appointed from the
opposition parties.
(1510)
The hon. member will remember that report because it came on
the heels of the 81st report of the Standing Committee on House
Management, which was presented in the 34th Parliament in 1993.
That report dealt with presiding officers. It also recommended that
two deputy speakers be appointed from the opposition benches.
During the last couple of days we have been subjected to the
Prime Minister's tally of how many promises he actually kept. He
says that he has kept 78 per cent of the promises. That is the same
number which described the scratchy old records that the House
leader may at one time have listened to.
In the 1993 election 198 specific promises were made by the
government. Government members say 197. Maybe this is the one
they want to forget. They promised to reform the institution of
Parliament. One of the reforms was that two of the deputy speakers
would be appointed from the opposition benches.
I do not have the years of experience which the hon. House
leader has. He has been here for more than 30 years. The Prime
Minister has been here for more than 30 years. The hon. member
for Kingston and the Islands, who has been nominated, has been
here forever. He thinks he has been here forever, but he has been
here for a good long time. The former whip of the party, now a
minister of the crown, has been here for a long time. They all
signed their names to the document which said that two of the
deputy speakers should be appointed from the opposition side of
the House.
We had the 81st report of the Standing Committee on House
Management which was presented in the 34th Parliament. They
were a part of that report. They took part in that debate. The
suggestions were theirs. In that report they suggested that this is the
way it should be done.
During the weekend the Prime Minister said there were several
promises which he has not yet been able to keep, but they are
promises in progress. They will be completed at the earliest
possible date.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Squeezed.
Mr. Strahl: He will squeeze the truth out of them.
This is not an ``if, and or but'' question. This is not a question of:
I wonder what the Liberal Party meant? It is absolutely crystal clear
that two deputy speakers should be appointed from the opposition
benches.
The member for Kingston and the Islands co-authored the report
which suggested that should be the case. The Prime Minister signed
the red book promise which said that will be the case. The Prime
Minister said that he would honour the red book commitments
which have not yet been completed as soon as possible. That was
on the weekend. I was at the convention to hear that.
The first opportunity to complete one of those promises is today.
Today the government can say: ``We are about to complete more of
our promises. Today is the day that we put our money where our
mouth is''. What is it he said? We do not just talk the talk, we walk
the walk. To use another analogy, this is where the rubber meets the
road.
Suddenly a position is open in the House of Commons. It is a
very important position. Mr. Speaker, you had the best of health
before they took your best of health away, in a sense. Your good
right hand man is now the government whip. We appreciated his
work in the Chair. We always supported his work, but he is no
longer here. Now there is a vacancy.
The symbolism of this comes down to the integrity of the Prime
Minister, the promises made during the election and the promises
made by the proposed deputy speaker. The hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands has a decision to make in the next few
minutes or in the next few days. What is his response to a specific
proposal that he himself proposed, that he himself endorsed, that he
himself submitted as the red book position, the Liberal Party
position on how deputy speakers should be appointed?
(1515)
What the member for Kingston and the Islands said, and I know
him to be an honourable man, was that the position should not go to
5742
a government member. Those are his words. It should not go to a
government member. It should go to somebody on this side of the
House.
The conundrum facing the member for Kingston and the Islands
now is a serious one. All of a sudden, talking the talk and walking
the walk and doing what is right not only in Canadians' minds but
following through on the promises made by the governing party,
suddenly 24 hours after the Liberal convention is shut down we
find out that promises are like the Prime Minister's imaginary
friend, they do not really mean anything and they do not really
exist.
Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating at this time is symbolic
of the non-partisanship that you have shown toward this House.
The position of deputy chairman is an extension of yourself. It is an
opportunity, as the member for Kingston and the Islands
recognized in his report, to show that your position, Mr. Speaker, is
not partisan but is open to all members of the House. Not only that,
it has been promised as kind of a balancing act to show that very
thing.
At the convention that I sat through on the weekend there were a
lot of shoulder strains. A lot of Liberals were patting themselves on
the back and tore ligaments in their shoulder. At a convention, that
is their right to do that. They can pat themselves on the back all
they like.
The Prime Minister says ``we will not demand your vote, we will
not buy your vote'', although Bombardier would perhaps question
that, ``but will earn your vote because you will watch us and you
will see us fulfil the promises that I have made''.
What is one of those promises? The very first thing that the
Prime Minister can fulfil, acknowledged as an unfulfilled
promises, is the appointment of the deputy speaker. It will be the
test.
I do not want to politicize your position in the chair of course,
Mr. Speaker. I do not want to politicize the deputy chair, or
compromise his or her position. The Chair absolutely has our
respect. I should not say it has nothing to do with you, as I do not
want to cut you out of the picture, but the argument here has
nothing to do with your position which, of course, is without
disrepute. It is held in the highest esteem.
However, the promises of the Liberal Party of Canada and the
promises of the Prime Minister are at stake. Think of that. When
someone does not fulfil a promise and fills a role in the deputy
chair's position, a very important role, and that person gets to that
position in spite of a promise by the Prime Minister to the contrary,
what message does that send? It sends the message that the
promises of the red book are hollow, the promises of the red book
are only expedient, the promises of the red book whether they are
30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent are more of an accident of
birth than they are of a grand design.
(1520)
If the Prime Minister pushes ahead with this appointment, the
member for Kingston and the Islands will have to take a serious
second look at his acceptance of his position. He needs to do some
soul searching on this issue.
I spoke with the hon. member at the Liberal convention, and he
knows this. I told him this was going to come up if his name came
forward. I told him exactly where this was going: ``Your name has
been talked about here in the hallways and it may or may not come
up in the debate. But if it does, this is what I am going to say''. I
told him because he has been so outspoken on this issue.
It is not enough just to speak about it. He put together a report.
He argued persuasively on a position, basically saying this role
should not go to a Liberal, it should go to the opposition. It was so
persuasive that I have quoted it back to him on several occasions.
I said that the hon. member, the hon. House leader and the Prime
Minister have the experience and they have collectively endorsed
the 81st report of the Standing Committee on House Management
and have appended their own report to the Liberal red book saying:
``This is what we will do when we form government. We will give
the deputy chairman of the committee of the whole to the
opposition parties. You can count on it. You can rely on us. You can
trust us. You can know that we will not deviate from our red book
promises''. It is now bunk, bunk, bunk coming from the
government side.
It is not ``if the GDP exceeds 3.3 per cent we will consider this
option''. It is not one of those promises. It is not a promise that we
will somehow have a rolling target on deputy speakers. None of
that. As far as I know we are not going roll all four positions
together and call it the Canada health transfer subsidy. We are not
going to do anything like that. This is just a cut and dried promise,
succinctly put in the red book, appended, which says ``when we
form government we will make sure that the opposition party is
represented in the chair with not one but two deputy speaker
positions''.
If I had put together a report in a learned study as the member for
Kingston and the Islands had done and said that it was my opinion,
so take it for what it is worth, I think the government would say it
was an interesting thought, that it will look it over and maybe refer
it to a procedure and House affairs committee and maybe study it,
as opposed to precedents of other Parliaments of the world''. Who
knows? Study it until time ran out.
I did not submit the idea. It is not my idea. It did not come from
the official opposition. It did not come from the Reform Party. It
did not come from the independents. Where did it come from?
From the member for Kingston and the Islands, the very member
5743
who is being nominated today in contravention of everything he
has written about that position.
An hon. member: I would not want to use the word hypocrisy.
Mr. Strahl: I do not want to get into mud slinging or name
calling in any way.
(1525)
However, the principle that is involved here is one that will cast
aspersions where they should not be, on the most neutral position in
the House of Commons.
I am not sure whether the member for Kingston and the Islands
shaved this morning, but if he had looked in the mirror today he
would have seen someone who said ``what is happening here today
is wrong''. That is what he said-not me and not the official
opposition. The House leader knows it. He signed that paper too.
The Prime Minister knows it. He says he is going to walk the walk,
talk the talk and do what is right. This is not right.
It is unfortunate that the government has chosen to do this. There
have been no consultations, no words, not a second and not a
minute of consultations with the opposition parties. It has not even
asked the opposition parties whether they are comfortable with this
neutral position.
Mr. Speaker, you know you earned your position in a sense
because all members of this House voted for your position. You
have the support of the entire House.
However, on this issue not only has the government broken a
promise, but there has been no consultation and no discussion. It
has not been referred to any committee. There has not been a slate
of names put forward. There has not in any way been an attempt to
keep the promises the Prime Minister made during the election
campaign.
Whether it was 60 per cent or 78 per cent of the promises made,
it is dropping, dropping, dropping. It is now 68 per cent, 58 per
cent, wherever. When the government intentionally breaks the
spirit and the letter of its own book, its own law, then it has in
essence broken its trust with the Canadian people.
I move:
That the motion be amended by striking out ``Peter Milliken'' and substituting
``Daphne Jennings''.
The Speaker: We have an amendment on the floor by the hon.
member for Fraser Valley East and seconded by the hon. member
for Lethbridge. Procedurally the amendment is acceptable.
The debate will continue and it is on the amendment. I am going
to go to the parliamentary secretary to the House leader.
(1530)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my colleague's comments regarding
our friend from Kingston and the Islands.
The member for Kingston and the Islands has had a lifelong
interest in this place.
Miss Grey: You weren't even here.
Mr. Zed: If the hon. member wishes to participate in the debate,
perhaps she could wait until a courteous time and let me finish my
comments.
As I said, the member for Kingston and the Islands has had a
lifelong interest in Parliament. He knows the rules. He is fair
minded. He is experienced.
I find it somewhat amusing in the presumption the chief whip for
the leader of the third party has made in his comments in that there
has been some reference to the red book. Perhaps the hon. member
is not familiar with the fact that there are 24 months left in this
government's mandate.
The decision to move the motion which the government House
leader moved was given in view of what was in the best interests of
this House. I listened with great interest to the fact that the member
felt we should not want to politicize this. He said that we do not
want to cast aspersions upon the character of the member for
Kingston and the Islands. He said that we need experienced
members.
When one reads the resume and sees the background of the
member for Kingston and the Islands, it will be seen that he is one
of very few members who would adequately best serve the interests
of the House. Perhaps we could familiarize our colleagues in the
House, including members of the third party and indeed all
Canadians with what our friend from Kingston and the Islands has
done.
It is important to know that this individual was educated at
Queen's University, Oxford University and Dalhousie University.
When most young Canadians were involved with different
activities, he was involved with parliamentary procedure. He has
taken it as a lifelong interest, an interest that many Canadians have
looked at with great admiration.
As a new member of the House, I came to this place with an
appreciation for the importance and integrity of the Chair. What
strikes me as being very important, Mr. Speaker, is that members
look to the team that needs to support you in your activities. It
becomes very important for us to look to experience, to integrity, to
leadership-
Mr. Scott (Skeena): To look at the Liberal Party.
Mr. Zed: -to look at the Liberal Party. Thank you very much
for that.
The member for Kingston and the Islands is fair minded.
5744
When Canadians view the fact that we mean what we say when
we put forward commitments from the red book and the
appendices to the red book, we have already stood the test of
public opinion.
(1535)
I find it a little sad that the members from the third party came to
this place telling Canadians and all members that they wanted to do
things a little differently. Frankly, their interventions today
demonstrate that they are doing things a little differently. They are
coming forward and attacking the integrity of the process which
they do not like because it does not serve their interests, it is not
self-serving.
The former parliamentary secretary to the government House
leader, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, has served
this House well. He has served as the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader. He has served as the chairman of the
procedure and House affairs committee. He has served in many
capacities, in many committees, and has served the interests of this
House, which is the member's first love as many members of the
Reform Party have acknowledged.
I encourage members of the third party to view this appointment,
this nomination and this motion with the spirit in which it was
given. If they have a complaint about certain aspects of the red
book, I encourage them to stay tuned. There are 24 months left in
the mandate of this government. There are many months left for the
remaining 22 per cent of the promises that will continue to be met
as they relate to the red book.
I urge members not to use up government time or House time for
this matter. Canadians have other issues they want debated. There
are bills that need to be passed. I strongly urge that members
reconsider their amendment and that they consider supporting the
motion.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
hate to say that the hon. member who just spoke has missed the
point, but he has missed the point.
There is absolutely no doubt about the qualifications of the
member for Kingston and the Islands. I mentioned that repeatedly
in my speech. I realize he is a student of the parliamentary system.
I understand his interest in it. I understand his qualifications. But
the number one qualification he has is that he is a Liberal and the
Liberal Party promised that the number one qualification should be
that the position should go to an opposition party member.
On a point of clarification, I would like the member to admit up
front that I have not, nor has anyone in our party said anything
about the member for Kingston and the Islands to suggest that he is
not technically qualified for the job. What we have said is that it
does break a promise in a book appended to the red book which
said that the position should go to somebody from an opposition
party. That in essence is the argument.
We want to straighten out the matter. First, we have not been
picking on the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. That is
not the issue. Second, the promise was explicit. I could read the
promise to him but he has no doubt read it himself since it was a
promise. That of course is the nub of the debate today and the
argument comes down to that. Does the member believe that that
promise should be fulfilled?
(1540)
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, before I give a direct and succinct answer
to the question, it is important to go back to something my hon.
colleague just said. He said that the number one qualification of the
member for Kingston and the Islands is that he is a Liberal. That is
not true. The member for Kingston and the Islands has been
proposed because of his experience, because of his interest in this
place, because of his knowledge.
The other point is that the hon. member said there was a promise
broken. As I said in my speech, there are 24 months left in this
government's mandate and there are 24 months left in which to
complete the balance of 22 per cent of the promises that have not
yet been addressed or that are still in progress.
I believe the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is somebody
who is fair minded. I believe he should be intellectually honest
enough to recognize the reality of what in fact has happened.
In answering the hon. member's question, the number one
qualification for the member for Kingston and the Islands is his
integrity, experience, fair mindedness, his appreciation for the
House and his lifelong interest in this place.
Miss Grey: And he is a Liberal.
Mr. Zed: If because he is a member of the Liberal team
disqualifies him, then there are a lot of Canadians who would be
disqualified because there are a number of Canadians who support
the Liberal Party.
I do not believe we should be conducting the way we do business
in this House based on popularity. We should do it based on tough
decisions that are being made, important decisions and decisions
that are right. The right decision is being based on the experience
and fair mindedness of a member in this place who can serve the
interests of the House. That member is the member for Kingston
and the Islands.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there are
two issues I would like to touch on.
First, I would like to reiterate what my colleague for Fraser
Valley East mentioned. Not once in his speech did he say anything
derogatory about the member for Kingston and the Islands. The
member for Fundy-Royal should be aware of that and he should
acknowledge that we are not casting aspersions on the member. I
5745
worked with the member on the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs. He was chair of that committee and I did find
him to be fair. Should he become deputy chair, I would not have
any problems with that.
Second, for all the glowing comments the hon. member for
Fundy-Royal made, he should clear up this issue that we are not
picking on the individual's character and integrity. It is impeccable
and he would be a fine deputy chair. There is no question.
However with all those glowing compliments, with all those
glowing remarks and all the experience that the member has-and
those are the grounds upon which the Liberal government wishes to
put his name forward-why does the member not go one step
further and accept the advice of the member for Kingston and the
Islands, to accept the high degree of intelligence, accept the high
degree of thought and effort that he put into this idea as to who
should be deputy chair? Should it or should it not be a member
from the opposition parties? Should it not be a member from the
official opposition? Should there not be a second deputy chair from
the third party?
(1545)
That is what the member for Kingston and the Islands put
forward. With all his years of experience, with all his knowledge
and integrity and honesty, he said that was what the government
should do. It is signed with the signatures of the Prime Minister, of
the House leader and of the former whip. All of these people have
recommended that the two deputy chairs be appointed from the
opposition benches.
Why does the member from New Brunswick not recognize that
comment? Why does the member from New Brunswick not
acknowledge that it is a promise which was made? It is a promise
that should be kept. He knows it is a cop out to say that we still
have 24 months left. Why does he not just admit it?
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre has asked
a question. The question that I hear him asking is: Were there
certain issues that were raised in the red book which relate to the
Chair? That is how I understand the question. The answer is that
there was an appendix to the red book which contemplated
changing the way this place does business.
We have lived up to a lot of those promises. There were issues
regarding greater participation by members of Parliament,
changing the way the committee system works, referring bills to
the standing committees after first reading in order for members to
have greater involvement in legislation.
In replying directly to the member for Calgary Centre, it is
important to reiterate the fact that there are 24 months left on this
mandate. I hear them saying they do not believe this promise will
be kept. All I can say to them is stay tuned.
Seventy-eight per cent of our promises have been kept. The other
22 per cent is in progress. I look forward to the day when we
campaign in the next general election, when we put our stock on the
table and let Canadians decide whether they feel our promises have
been kept.
I know that the integrity of the hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands is not questioned by any member of the House. What
members are questioning is the process. I know that all members of
the House share my interest in supporting the motion for the
member for Kingston and the Islands.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government House leader is a very experienced man,
so I am sure he is not surprised to see his motion give rise to what I
would call very interesting discussions.
Unfortunately, the official opposition will vote against the
amendment of our friends in the third party for a very simple
reason: If this House did break with tradition and decide to appoint
a Deputy Chair who is not a government member, it is clear to me
that this Deputy Chair should come from the official opposition. I
am convinced that our colleagues from the third party can only
agree with our arguments.
We, however, feel sorry to have to do this. The government party
is just emerging from a convention where everything was
hunky-dory.
(1550)
I imagine that during the convention there was no discussion as
to whether or not the government should keep its promise to fulfil
an important responsibility and appoint an opposition member to
assist the Chair in carrying out one of its most basic, if not its most
basic duty: the orderly conduct of House business and, ultimately,
good governance.
Of course, there was no question about this, but it would have
been a good idea to appoint an opposition member as the new
Deputy Chair.
We will also vote against the motion. Yet, we will do so with
regret. We will do so as a matter of principle because everyone of
us recognizes that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
has but one flaw: he is not a member of the official opposition. He
has excellent judgment. He is well mannered. Every time he had to
assume committee management responsibilities, he met the
expectations of both government and opposition members.
I can assure the man who will likely be the next Deputy Chair
that he will, of course, have our co-operation because we are
confident he will be do a very good job of moving House business
along.
5746
I therefore move an amendment to the amendment. I move:
That François Langlois be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees of the
Whole.
The Speaker: Hon. members, we have an amendment to an
amendment by the hon. member for Laval-Centre, seconded by the
hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. In my opinion it is not in
order because it is not an amendment to an amendment but an
alternative amendment. There is a difference. For these reasons,
this amendment is not admissible at this time.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to make a brief comment because this is an issue that has come up
before. There is no question that the House is not dealing with the
credentials of the nominee.
The issue has to do with the status of an appendix that was
included in the red book, a report which was authored in part by the
nominee. The report included a recommendation. I had an
opportunity to speak with the member earlier about the wording. It
was suggested that the positions may be filled by opposition
parties. I asked why it was parties and he explained to me that if
there was a small official opposition it might be appropriate to look
to a third party.
(1555)
The results of the last election came as a surprise to many
Canadians and certainly were unknown to members of the House at
the time this report was written. The fact that a party reflecting a
position that Canada should separate became the official opposition
put the context of that report in a much different light than the
member's report may have indicated.
I am assured that the Reform Party would be the first to object if
the government were to nominate a member of the Bloc to fill this
position.
I have a question for the hon. whip of the Bloc. Although it is
true there are 24 months in the mandate, does the member
understand that it would probably be inappropriate, given the view
of Canadians at this time, to appoint a member of the official
opposition as a speaker of this House?
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an
elementary rule in this House that the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker
and the assistant deputy speakers are people who must remain
neutral, and I think it is really too bad that the hon. member
opposite should question our ability to be logical and consistent as
a servant of this House, referring of course to our position on the
Constitution.
I find it rather difficult to understand this attitude, and I would
like to give the hon. member the assurance that as
parliamentarians, members of the official opposition have
exercised their duties with a great deal of professionalism, and I am
convinced that one of our members will be perfectly able to take on
the role of deputy speaker of the House, although this person is as
firm a sovereignist as I am.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when we
listen to the arguments put forward by the Liberal Party in the
debate on this motion, we find that the arrogance sometimes comes
out which we should not have in the House. I refer to the comments
by the member for Fundy-Royal who said that we should not be
attacking the process of appointing this particular person. Surely
when motions are made in the House we are entitled to debate
them. For them to even insinuate that we should not be debating a
motion I find rather offensive to the democratic process.
He went on to say that we should not be using up House time.
Again, I find it rather offensive that he would be opposed to using
House time to debate a motion.
I would like to quote from the annotated Standing Orders of the
House of Commons, page 19, regarding precedents for this: ``The
members appointed to the position of Chairman, Deputy Chairman
and Assistant Deputy Chairman have almost always come from the
government side of the House. The only exceptions came in the
13th, 29th and 31st Parliaments when in each case an opposition
member was appointed as Chairman''.
It does not say a member of the official opposition. It just says an
opposition member was appointed as chairman. There is real
precedence for the point we are trying to make.
I would also like to quote from the Liberal red book that has been
waved in our faces so often over the last three years. Let me quote
from Reviving Parliamentary Democracy; the Liberal Plan for
House of Commons and Electoral Reform.
(1600)
It states:
Mounting criticism of the House of Commons and its proceedings reflects the
frustration of citizens and parliamentarians alike with the continuing failure of
Parliament to address effectively the problems that face us.
Canadians, including those who are elected to serve in Parliament, expect the
House of Commons not merely to discuss openly the problems of the nation, but also
to advance solutions. They expect the Commons to explore Canada's problems
rationally and to establish policies for resolving them. These expectations are not
being met.
The House of Commons must take immediate steps both to enable itself to do
what it is supposed to do and to be seen to be doing it.
5747
For the member for Fundy Royal to say that in three years they
have fulfilled 78 per cent so give them two more makes a mockery
of the red book where it states that the House must take immediate
steps.
Let us again talk about the red book's statement concerning
familiarity with Parliament. Let me quote the Liberal red book:
In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the
level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party, two of the
junior Chair officers should be from the opposition, so that the four presiding officer
positions are shared equally by government and opposition.
I would again like to point out that in that quote there was
nothing about official opposition, just opposition. If I may go on to
quote again:
One of the most significant results of the McGrath round of procedural reforms
was the decision that the Speaker should be elected by secret ballot by all members.
This has gone a long way toward assuring members of the independence of the
presiding officer.
The three deputy Speakers, however, remain in effect government appointees. As
a consequence, when one of the junior officers is in the Chair, his or her
independence and authority is less well established. Their authority would be greatly
enhanced and the non-partisan nature of the Chair greatly augmented if the British
practice of alternating the Chair positions between government and opposition were
adopted. Thus, if the Speaker were from the government party, the Deputy Speaker
would be from the opposition, the next officer from the government and so forth.
The red book talks about electing the Speaker. You, Mr. Speaker,
have done a marvellous job in the independence and integrity that
you have upheld so well in this House. We would like to see that
your colleagues in the Chair would enjoy the same independence
and integrity without being tainted by being appointed by the
government shall we say.
It was for that very point the Liberal red book promise was to
alternate Speakers by secret ballot, next from the opposition, then
back to government and so forth, simple, and it said it should be
done immediately. Here we are three years later and the
opportunity has presented itself today.
By the looks of it we are going to have division on this
appointment which is unfortunate because the process that is being
proposed is flawed and the process that is being used flies in direct
opposition with what the Liberals proposed at election time. I
would suggest to the member for Kingston and the Islands that
should the amendment lose and we vote on this particular position
that he seriously consider whether he does enjoy the confidence of
the House.
This is unfortunate because he does have the qualifications and
as an individual member of this House he enjoys an excellent
reputation. However, if there is division in putting him in the Chair,
then we have concerns about the perception of integrity,
impartiality and independence if this is forced upon us. The
perception is important if we are to ensure the integrity of this
House. That is why I would think that the member for Kingston and
the Islands would seriously consider whether he does enjoy the
confidence of the House in the chair's position if he were voted in.
(1605 )
That is why the Liberal government should acknowledge the
policy it wanted to introduce immediately and should support a
nominee from this side of the House, which is the motion before us
right now. It would ensure that its promise is upheld.
The person we have nominated, the hon. member for
Mission-Coquitlam, has integrity, has a long experience of public
service, perhaps not all of it in this House. She is a person of
competence. While she may not have had years of experience here,
I am quite sure there have been others who have had the privilege
of sitting in the Chair as having been appointed to that position who
have not had years of experience in this House and they have
performed quite adequately. Therefore I have no fear whatsoever in
saying that the member for Mission-Coquitlam would perform
admirably in the Chair as well.
I suggest that the government seriously consider now that there
is opposition to its nominee, that its proposal which was supposed
to be implemented immediately can be implemented now. I am
quite sure there would be no problems with the appointment of the
hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's intervention and he
certainly put his points across in a very clear manner. My
comments deal with some comments that were made during this
debate.
Earlier the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore was
heckling our hon. whip when he was trying to speak. She was
asking which page of the red book we were referring to. Obviously
for someone who ran on that red book and the promises contained
therein, I would have expected that she would have known that we
were actually referring to an appendix to the red book, a report that
was appended to the red book.
Ms. Augustine: You always have to find someone to attack.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): My hon. colleague
referred to the actual committee report.
The hon. member is insistent on heckling still. We are going to
try to figure out at some point if she actually does know what is
contained in the red book which she ran on but perhaps that will
have to be on another day.
5748
At this point it is very clear from the intervention made by my
hon. colleague what we were referring to. It actually is a promise,
much to the consternation of Liberal members, another broken
promise.
I also refer to a comment made by the hon. member for
Mississauga South. The only defence he could come up with for
this appointment was that somehow the Liberal members who put
forward the report that suggested the two deputy speaker positions
should be from the opposition, that somehow that was done before
the election. There were such astounding results in the election
with the election of Bloc Quebecois members as well as Reform
Party of Canada members that somehow it negates the commitment
made in the red book to have the two deputy speaker positions
actually filled from the opposition. He was looking for some little
avenue that he could use to get out of the commitment made in the
red book.
I wonder if my hon. colleague would like to comment on that.
The only excuse the government can use is so pathetically weak:
that we simply cannot allow a separatist member to be a deputy
speaker. It is pretty pathetic to have to use that as an excuse for
breaking a promise.
(1610 )
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
comment by my hon. colleague.
The Liberal government in the red book did not give any
qualification regarding their point number 10, the independence of
the Chair. There was no qualification in the fact that it said: ``The
House of Commons must take immediate steps both to enable itself
to do what it is supposed to do and to be seen to be doing it''.
That was before the election. That was the policy that those
people ran on. The Canadian people elected them on this and their
other policy of jobs, jobs, jobs which was trashed along the way as
well.
Regardless of the fact that we ended up with an official
opposition who are separatists and of course we felt there was no
way that the separatists should have been the official opposition.
Again, this government had the right to choose after the election. It
could quite easily have chosen a party that was represented in five
provinces, that had 2.5 million votes and ran candidates in
practically every province in the country versus a provincial party
that only was represented in one province and that wants to break
up this country. However, the government appointed that party as
the official opposition.
That aside, there was no qualification. There was nothing said in
the election that the government would break a promise under
certain conditions. The government was quite emphatic that this
red book is the plan. This past weekend the Prime Minister was
waving the results of the plan and talking of 78 per cent
accomplishment.
This is one promise that the Liberals said they were going to
implement right away after the election. They had an opportunity
to implement it right away after the election when the Speaker and
the deputies were initially appointed. If I may be so bold, the
government had an opportunity to fulfil their election promise
when you, Madam Speaker, received the appointment to the Chair.
Now we have the same debate once again and once again the
government is going to break the promise that it said it would
introduce immediately. That is why my colleague is upset. That is
why the people in this House are upset. That is why unfortunately
we have got partisanship on this motion. It is quite unfortunate.
The independence of the Chair is fundamental to the governance
of this House. That is why, if the subamendment is defeated and the
member for Mission-Coquitlam does not take the position and the
main motion is then debated and voted upon, I would hope that the
member for Kingston and the Islands would withdraw his
nomination.
We do want to ensure the integrity of the Chair, which you
occupy, Madam Speaker. To quote from pages 18 and 19 of the
Annotated Standing Orders:
The names put forward have met with opposition only on rare occasions. In 1911,
the choice of Mr. Blondin, a Quebec nationalist, as chairman, was hotly debated-
It was suggested again today that a member from the Bloc would
be hotly debated too. It goes on further:
-while in 1918, one member objected to the appointment of Mr. Boivin, a Quebec
member who had opposed conscription. On only one occasion however, in 1962,
was a motion to appoint a chairman ever brought to a recorded vote. In fact, in most
cases the appointment passed with only a few laudatory comments about the
nominee's special capacities for the post.
We have had laudatory comments about the member for Kingston
and the Islands which I would support as well.
The point is partisanship, because the government has abused the
process which has entered into the debate. The principle has not
been upheld. Democracy has not been upheld. The policies on
which they were elected have not been upheld. That is why we
should have new nominees or we should elect the member for
Mission-Coquitlam.
(1615)
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, would the hon.
member for St. Albert comment on a comment made by the hon.
member for Fundy-Royal who said we are wasting the time of the
House by debating this very clear matter of principle.
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, the point is this House debates
democracy. We are here to uphold democracy, to talk about
principle and to challenge the government's point of view. For the
member to stand up and say we are wasting the House's time
5749
talking about something this important is an affront to everyone
who sits in this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After
consultation with the representatives of the other parties in this
House, I have the unanimous consent of the House for the hon.
member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans to table the
official report by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I thank members of the House for their
unanimous consent.
As chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I
have the honour to present the third report of this committee.
This report deals with the famous question of what was called
family trusts, in which the committee examined Chapter I of the
auditor general's report of May 1996. This report reflects the
opinion of the Liberal majority within the committee, and includes
dissenting opinions by the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party,
as well as a supplementary opinion by the Liberal member for
Brome-Missisquoi.
In closing, I would like to say that, in my capacity as a member
of the Bloc Quebecois, I subscribe to the dissident minority report
by the members of the Bloc Quebecois, particularly the following
recommendation: that a special commission of inquiry independent
of the government be struck, with the mandate of fully
investigating all of the events surrounding the decision of
December 23, 1991, and the subsequent use of this tax loophole by
other rich Canadian families.
In closing, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is
asking the government to table a comprehensive response to the
report.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if the House gives its consent I move that the membership of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be modified
as follows: Bob Kilger for Don Boudria.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I see
the humour in this situation in listening to members of the third
party, listening to hot air coming once again into this Chamber.
We are talking about promises and I recall the leader of the third
party rising in this House and calling this Parliament one without
precedent. He called the make-up of this Parliament one without
precedent. They told us they were going to do things differently.
Canadians and members of this House know that they broke that
pledge. It is reflected in the opinions of Canadians when they are
asked what they think of members of the third party.
(1620)
If there were intellectual honesty in the motion proposed by
members of the third party they would support a member of the
official opposition's filling the position. That is not what they
proposed. They proposed that one of their members should fill the
position of deputy chair.
I would like to respond to the hon. member for St. Albert. We
had an election for the chair of the public accounts committee. That
position has by tradition gone to a member of the official
opposition. I recall how vigorously they opposed and filibustered
to stop that appointment from taking place. Now they are standing
in the House talking about what they would like to be done. They
are not dealing with reality.
Let me repeat that if there were intellectual honesty in their
position they would be talking about a member of the official
opposition's filling the position.
There is no question that the member for Kingston and the
Islands is an excellent choice. He will serve the House well. He will
serve Canadians well. He will carry out his duties in a very judicial
fashion.
Clearly there is no question that if members of the third party
had any intellectual honesty they would not have been self-serving
and would have suggested that the position be filled by a member
of the official opposition.
Canadians know that those members have been lusting after the
status of official opposition. They have had opportunities. They
have campaigned across the country in byelections. They said to
the electorate in different constituencies: ``We are the Reform
Party. Elect us to Parliament so we can become the official
opposition''. They have gone to the electorate across the country
time and time again. The electorate has said no, and with good
reason. It is because of the string of broken promises, promises
they did not fulfill when they got to the House of Commons. I am
5750
disappointed, along with many other Canadians, that they have not
fulfilled those promises.
I applaud the nomination of the member for Kingston and the
Islands. He will serve the House and Canadians well.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the member
very eloquently talked about keeping promises. It is very
interesting that when you are in the government you are able to
fulfill your promises, if you will.
(1625 )
It would be wonderful if the member would listen to the
question, as he is often not even in his seat as the commentary is
unfolding. Would the member support the Reform Party motion if
we called for a member of the official opposition to occupy the
position of deputy chair?
Mr. Telegdi: Madam Chair, I would like to thank my hon.
colleague for agreeing with me about the hypocrisy of their party's
position in putting forth one of their own members and then
making the kinds of arguments they have.
As I said before, the motion to appoint the member for Kingston
and the Island is an excellent motion. I said that he would serve the
House and Canadians well.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I noted that the hon. member for Waterloo declined to
answer the question from my colleague from Macleod. He did not
make any attempt to actually answer the question, which does not
surprise me.
This member referred several times to remarks about intellectual
honesty in referring to the Reform Party of Canada. Somehow he
feels that because we put forward the name of one of our members
to occupy the position it means that we are dishonest and that we
should put forward a name of a member from the Bloc Quebecois.
If he had taken the opportunity to actually read the appendix to
his own Liberal red book at some time over the last four years, he
would have found that this proposal put forward by four members
of the Liberal caucus, one of whom is the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands, states: ``In order to enhance the
independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the level of
partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party two
of the junior chair officers should be from the opposition so that the
four presiding officer positions are shared equally by government
and opposition''. That is the promise, the recommendation, the
proposal.
We note that it does not say official opposition. It says
opposition. The last time I checked we remain an opposition party,
perhaps for another year. However, at the whim of the Prime
Minister we will be the government.
The hon. member also said that he was appalled that the Reform
Party said it was going to do things differently when it ran for
Parliament. He obviously does not feel that opting out of the MP
pension plan is different. I would ask the hon. member for Waterloo
if he opted out of the pension plan. That is where he could have
shown some leadership to his constituents of Waterloo on an
important issue. However, he has declined to do so.
We could go on like this all evening. I would argue quite strongly
that we have kept our commitment and we are doing things
differently. One thing we are doing differently is standing on
principle, which is something unknown to Liberal members of the
House.
Mr. Telegdi: Madam Speaker, there were a number of questions
asked. I will respond to four of them.
The member said I did not answer the question. I made an
observation on intellectual dishonesty. I said that is what was
coming from the Reform Party by way of what it proposes to
accomplish. That was an observation and I make that same
observation again.
I have already said that I support the nomination of the member
for Kingston and the Islands.
Second, he made reference to the appendix of the red book.
(1630 )
Let me commend the hon. member for reading the indexes of the
red book. I presume he must have read the main body of the red
book also where we talk about not pitting region against region, not
pitting Canadians against Canadians. We take a national
perspective, recognizing that this country has diversity in its
population, diversity in its culture, diversity in its make-up. The
member should go back and re-read that part of the red book. Once
he finishes that part of it, we will talk about its appendices.
The other issue that he talked about is opting out of MPs'
pensions. A promise was made in the red book. That promise was
we would set an age limit before members of Parliament could
collect a pension. We went beyond that and lowered the payouts in
the pension plan. We went beyond what we said in the red book.
Those members from the third party should be applauding the
government because we did what we said we would do. As a matter
of fact we went beyond it.
Let me also say that, in terms of fourth issue he raised, the matter
of principle, on this side of the House we do not need lessons in
principle from members of the third party. They would pit regions
against regions, Canadians against Canadians. They would do
anything to become the official opposition. They stood in the
House, aiding and abetting the Bloc during the referendum when,
on this side of the House, we were trying to keep this country
5751
together. We do not need lessons from members of the third party
on the issue of principle.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, for the hon. member to suggest that the Reform Party is
aiding and abetting the separatists in the House is absolutely
ridiculous.
Surely to goodness after three years Canadians understand which
party it is in this place that is assisting the separatists, the Bloc
Quebecois, to break up the country. It is certainly not the Reform
Party of Canada. It is the Liberal Party of Canada.
Every time we turn around in the House, it is supporting the
motions of the Bloc. It allows the Bloc to be not only the official
opposition-it supports its cause that way-but on every single
standing committee in this place, including the standing committee
on national defence of Canada.
The Liberals support the separatists to be the alternate chair
positions on committees. It is absolutely astounding that the
member for Waterloo would stand up and accuse us of aiding and
abetting the separatists. It is his party that continues to do this on an
ongoing basis day after day.
Mr. Telegdi: Madam Speaker, I never cease to be amazed by the
interpretations of the members of the Reform Party and also how
twisted their arguments become. A minute ago, they asked me if I
would support a member of the Bloc for the position of deputy
speaker. I said in my statement that I support the member for
Kingston and the Islands.
I told them that if they were intellectually honest and consistent
in their position, they would have nominated a member of the
official opposition. Then they ask me if they nominated a member
of the official opposition, whether I would support it. I said: ``No, I
am consistent, I support the member for Kingston and the Islands''.
The opposition members then turn around and accuse me of
supporting positions in committees that tradition dictates they
hold.
(1635)
It is not good enough for members of the third party to be lusting
for power and lusting to be the official opposition. There is a way to
do that. They had the opportunity during the byelections. They
have to win those byelections. They have to do that the old
fashioned way, by earning it.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, before
I begin my comments on this issue, which I think the members on
the government side are slowly starting to forget, the member for
Waterloo talked about intellectual honesty. If he wanted to be
intellectually honest he would have answered the question of my
colleague from Macleod when he asked whether the member for
Waterloo would or would not support a member from the Bloc
Quebecois as a deputy chair. He refused to answer and squirmed
around it.
When someone talks about intellectual honesty and expects it,
why would that person not simply answer a question yes or no?
That was not a question that required a five minute conversation off
topic.
The essence of this motion moved by the House leader of the
government is the independence of the Chair. The person whose
name has been put forward is also a person who has impeccable
qualifications, is extremely qualified to sit in the position of a chair
and who has worked for years in understanding the standing orders
which are the rules of this House that speakers in the chair must
apply when rendering decisions.
A lot of times, because of a lot of issues and the partisan nature
of politics in this country, there are divisive issues and ideas and
people need to have rules. The standing orders are there for us to
follow. When we step out of line the Chair must rule.
This individual is the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is
his name that was put forward by the House leader of the
government. However, the issue is linking the two, the individual
himself and the independence of the Chair.
The member for Kingston and the Islands has said that he
believes in secret ballots for the election of Speakers because in
that way all the members of the House can then enhance the respect
and any of the rulings by the Speaker of the House.
Furthermore, the member for Kingston and the Islands was on a
committee when in opposition which wrote the Liberal plan for the
House of Commons and electoral reform that was titled ``Reviving
Parliamentary Democracy''. The opposition members of that
committee were the current Minister of Health, the Minister of
Labour, the member for Kingston and the Islands whose name has
been put forward to be the deputy chair, and the former party whip,
the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who is now also a
cabinet minister of francophonie and intergovernmental affairs.
These people have worked hard to earn their positions. They had
ideas in opposition and even though politics is part of that
sometimes we can find agreement.
In this case the Reform Party agrees with a lot of the democratic
reforms that have been put forward by the Liberal members when
they were in opposition. They now have an opportunity to do the
things they fought for and believed in so hard in opposition.
While in opposition the Liberals said that this House was
dysfunctional. They came forward with 18 recommendations, all
the way from committees, taxation, new rules for question period
so that it would have some meaning. They suggested things like
limiting the questions and the answers, telling the government side
to answer questions. The joke around here is that this is not answer
5752
period. It is question period, so they do not answer. There are a lot
of good ideas in this document.
(1640)
Reformers are not bringing this forward to put the member for
Kingston and the Islands down. It is brought forward to
compliment the member for Kingston and the Islands and to say
that his ideas and his suggestions, especially this one, have a lot of
merit.
He is pushing for the independence of the Chair. That is
important. When the battle is heated we do not want any partiality
to be a part of the decision of the Chair. Therefore it is very
important. The fact that the McGrath round of procedural reforms
decided that the Speaker should be elected by secret ballot has gone
a long way toward assuring members of the independence of the
presiding officer. Here is the important point. We are talking about
deputy chairs.
``The three deputy speakers, however, remain in effect
government appointees as a consequence. When one of the junior
officers is in the Chair his or her independence and authority is less
well established. Their authority would be greatly enhanced and the
non-partisan nature of the Chair greatly augmented if the British
practice of alternating Chair positions between government and
opposition were adopted''. It does not say official opposition. It
says opposition, as my colleague from Prince George-Peace
River mentioned.
Thus if the Speaker were from the government party, the Deputy
Speaker would be from the opposition, the next officer from the
government and so forth, back and forth like that.
This is the principle we believe in. This is a concept that will
further and help guarantee the independence of the Chair. The fact
that the person who made this recommendation, who signed this
proposal, is now the person being put forward it seems to me that
we should have an election for that position. We should put his
recommendation into practice. Rather than having the deputy chair
we should have one member from an opposition party as deputy
chair and not all of them from the government side.
This is the government's last opportunity to implement this
recommendation, to keep one of its red book promises so that it
becomes part of the glowing statistics about which the Prime
Minister has been telling us. Now is the opportunity to do this. It is
probably the best thing that a politician can do and accomplish in
his or her career in politics. It is to bring about systemic change, to
bring about changes in the system rather than just changing the
faces.
How can people respect politicians and the functions of this
House if nothing really changes but only the faces are changed?
Here are the very people who are recommending something that we
would support given the opportunity to actually make one of the
deputy chairs come from the opposition parties and the government
does not do it.
I would like to recommend to the hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands that he now has the opportunity, as my colleague from
St. Albert put forward, to say to his government because he
authored this, because he is a man of conviction, because he has
integrity, this is an opportunity. I know he would like to be in the
Chair. I know he would like to have the experience. I know that it
would be a great sacrifice on his part. The suggestion is why does
he not withdraw his name. Why does he not give a speech on this
issue? He has not spoken yet. Why does he not address this issue
and say that he believes in that report. To help the Prime Minister
keep one more promise why does he not recommend that a name
from the opposition be put forward? That is the way to decide this
issue.
That would be a way to help the government keep a promise. It
would be a way to help restore integrity and honesty to the system
of politics. It would be a way for this member to bow out of a very
embarrassing situation.
The excuse from the current deputy House leader is that the
government has 24 months left to keep its promises. Does that not
fly in the face of credibility when everybody knows that there is
going to be an election as early as possible in the spring or by June
or as late as October of next year? That is not 24 months.
Talk about intellectual honesty which the member for Waterloo
so proudly defends. There are a lot of discredited comments
coming from the government side.
(1645 )
This is what is wrong with what is happening here. Once again
we are continuing the form of patronage which does not take into
consideration commitments and principles that the government
believed in when in opposition.
The opportunity to change the system which is before the
government is also before this individual. There is nothing worse
than to see the government side hide behind excuses, to see the
government side flip-flop on issues. The list of broken promises is
pathetic on its part but a benefit to us.
We are happy and proud of the fact that the government stole a
lot of our ideas which are part of our platform. We are proud and
happy with the fact that when in opposition the Liberals were
against NAFTA and free trade. We told them, we argued and we
even had to vote holding our noses for another Conservative
government just to get free trade for Canada because their former
leader, John Turner, was against it. Now they sing and praise the
virtues of it. The very last vote the government had when in
opposition was on NAFTA and all the front benches voted against
it. All of them voted against it; not one voted for it and now all they
do is praise the virtues of it.
5753
An hon. member: Hypocrisy.
Mr. Silye: That is hypocrisy.
We know about that infamous promise on the GST. The Deputy
Prime Minister even quit saying that she had failed to keep her
promise. She ran again and got re-elected. It is an admission that
the government failed on that promise. But the Prime Minister will
not admit that. The Liberals have not got rid of the GST or scrapped
the GST.
I do not want to go on talking about broken promises because I
could debate that for another two hours. I will spend a little more
time on this motion.
The preface of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
The election of the Speaker-has given the Members their own Speaker in a
process that was designed to take the choice of Speaker away from the Prime
Minister and give it to the entire House.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The member
for Kingston and the Islands as the gander-to-be would not have a
problem with this notion. He is a parliamentarian, as I said earlier,
and one of the authors of the Liberal report for reviving
parliamentary democracy where they promised to elect two of the
chair positions from the opposition benches, two of the junior
member positions.
This nomination was moved by a cabinet minister, the deputy
House leader. A chair officer is not the puppet of the government
but an officer of this House. The person sitting in that chair,
regardless of party and regardless of stripe, is not working for the
government side. The position is to be neutral. The position
involves the application to the best of his or her ability the rules of
the House which are found in the standing orders, and they are no
longer a Liberal member or a Reform member or a Bloc member.
However, we do not have the opportunity to have a Bloc member
or a Reform member in the Chair. It is all from that side, which is
what we are trying to debate today. We should endorse the
recommendations of the Liberals when they were in opposition.
How does it look to have this nomination coming from the
government side, from the Prime Minister's office, just like a
patronage appointment to some government board, just like a
patronage appointment to the Senate where we have had 18
Liberals appointed?
How obvious is it when the Prime Minister appoints someone to
the Senate and says: ``I will select and I will appoint a person who
defends our party''. Is the purpose of the Senate, to defend the
Liberal government? He admitted that, he said that. That is a
paraphrased quote but it is pretty close to what he said.
We want competent people on all the 3,000 boards and
quasi-judicial boards. And yes, a lot of those people will be
Liberals. There is no question about it. But do they all have to be
Liberals? Are there no former Conservatives or Conservative
supporters who could serve on one of those 3,000 boards? Are there
no people who voted for Reform who could serve on one of those
boards?
I agree with the principle of putting those people into positions
on boards who have an identification or who have a rapport or who
understand the government's intent. I do not have a problem with
that. When the Prime Minister says that a lot of people voted for
Liberals, so therefore there should be a lot of people on those
boards who are Liberal, I agree.
(1650 )
However, at the very same time when he says that, the logic
inherent in that is what about those people who did not vote for
Liberals who are also competent and who also have the right to
run? Therefore the composition should not be 99.9 per cent Liberal
and .1 per cent other parties.
They mentioned names like the current president of the CBC and
a former Prime Minister who is living in a $3 million mansion in
Beverley Hills protecting Canadians down there. They take two or
three appointments to lift it to a level of integrity and to say ``see,
we do pick members from other parties''.
This government and this Prime Minister are guilty of duplicity
and hypocrisy. I would hate to have to add the member for
Kingston and the Islands to that list because he will have to sit with
cabinet ministers and make recommendations for democratic
reform.
They are in power. They have the right and the opportunity.
There are no ifs, ands or buts. Nobody is going to complain. In fact,
they have the encouragement and the endorsement of members to
do this. There would be unanimous consent to have an opposition
member as one of the junior speakers. That would be supported.
Will the government do that? I do not think so. Will it keep that
promise? I do not think so.
Now that I see my favourite cabinet minister opposite shaking
his head, the new minister of defence, saying ``you are right, Jim,
we are not going to change'', I know it will not happen. This man is
a man of his word. He is one person who has kept his promises. He
is one person who has done what he said he would do. I know that
he can hold his head up high as a cabinet minister. I have so much
respect for him that if he ever ran for leader, rather than the current
finance minister, I might support him.
There is a solution to this problem. I cannot do it in the form of a
motion, an amendment or an amendment to an amendment to a
motion. I do not want to waste the time of the House in doing that.
However, I would like to recommend for the government's
consideration after this subamendment is voted on and defeated,
after the amendment is voted on and defeated, and before we vote
on the motion, that the member for Kingston and the Islands
actually request that the government to do this. This is his moment
in history. This is his chance to bring about systemic change on
principles which I know the Liberals believe in. I do not understand
5754
why they will not follow through with it. It is not something major.
It will not shake the earth. It is a step forward.
The recommendation I have is this. Prior to the vote on the final
motion, why not allow the two opposition parties to each put
forward a name and have an election? We can have an election on
the two names put forward by the two opposition parties, one from
the Bloc and one from Reform. The House could vote for the junior
deputy chair position. It is, after all, a junior position. It is, after all,
following the principles of democracy. We want to retain the
independence of the Chair.
If we follow the model we used to elect the current Speaker of
the House, we are helping to endorse that independence. We are
helping to encourage and foster systemic reform and systemic
change which is of benefit to everybody. It is an opportunity for the
current Minister of Labour, the current Minister of Health, the
current Minister for International Co-operation and the Minister
responsible for Francophonie, and the member for Kingston and
the Islands to hold their heads up high, to boast, to brag and to tell
their constituents that they actually brought about a change in the
House of Commons which shows that it is independent, that it is
fair, that the form of debate we have is healthy and that the Chair is
not prejudiced, even though all the appointments after the election
of the Speaker are made by the government side.
It is very important for the government to think about what it is
doing. This is an opportunity for it to do something correct. It
would restore honesty and integrity. It would allow us to help the
government keep a promise and to show that it is not always
partisan and that sometimes we can work together to bring about
positive and constructive change for the good of everybody.
(1655)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as
follows: the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester-trade.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I found my hon. colleague's comments very enlightening;
suggestions for the Liberal government that make a lot of sense.
The Minister of National Defence is agreeing with me that his
comments made a lot of good sense. I am sure he is referring
specifically to the comments made about himself. I wonder if he
would comment further on the intervention that was made earlier
today on this very important subject. The debate we are having, as
impromptu as it is, cuts to the very essence of why we are in this
place.
If we cannot have an independent Chair in this place it begs the
question why are we here. What is the purpose if we cannot assure
that it is a fair and honest debate and we have Chairs with integrity?
Certainly that has been the case in the past, we expect that in the
future and we do not question that with regard to the hon. member
for Kingston and the Islands.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre put forward a very strong
case that perhaps the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
should review his decision to let his name stand for this position in
light of being a co-signer and co-author of this report.
As a citizen of this country I have seen too often in the past MPs
of the old traditional parties in this country, the Liberal Party of
Canada, the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats, try
as hard as they can to bring about systemic, substantive change to
the system of government in Canada. We are all aware of them.
What we see time and time again is that at some point when their
party becomes government those reforms fall by the wayside. They
become mere voices in the wilderness crying out for change. Time
and time again substantive change simply does not happen.
Contrary to what the hon. member for Fundy-Royal said earlier
when he chastised our whip for wasting the time of the House, for
wasting taxpayer money, if the government would have elected to
consult with opposition members prior to springing this motion on
us we would not be in this debate today. It is the government that
decided to foist this on us rather than consulting the opposition
members. This runs contrary to red book promises of more
consultation between all parties in the House of Commons.
Would the hon. member for Calgary Centre take a moment to
give us his opinion on whether this is truly a waste of money to be
debating this issue in the House today? I feel so strongly about this
as a matter of principle. I do not see that we are wasting time. If we
cannot debate this type of issue in this place, then anything else we
debate is really pointless.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon.
colleague, the member for Prince George-Peace River, for the
question. The answer to his question is that this is not a waste of
time. This is very important. It is an issue that tackles the very
essence of government and of politicians.
(1700 )
We are talking about integrity. We are talking about trust. We are
talking about believability. When you knock on doors and ask
people to vote for you, you stand for something. You have pride,
you have principles, you have goals and you have objectives. You
tell people that you stand for these things. You tell them that you
5755
would do these things if you were government. What frustrates me
is that once they get elected, once they get here, they do not deliver
on what they promised. They will not do what they said they are
going to do.
This is what frustrates the Canadian voter. This is what frustrated
me when I just voted and did not participate in the system.
Government is really controlled by a very few people. Very few
people participate in our political system, therefore there is a lot of
opportunity and chances for people to get here without much effort.
When they do get here, the system lends itself toward a democratic
dictatorship. We freely elect a dictator every four to five years.
We need some protection and control against that. This House is
the place where that is done. This House is where the government is
held accountable and responsible. Members are questioned on their
competence and integrity. Therefore, accountability, integrity and
competence are things for which we look and make sure they are
adhering to them.
The Prime Minister makes all these patronage appointments. We
call it patronage because there are 3,000-plus positions to which
the Prime Minister can appoint people without review. Yes, we can
object to them when the names are put forward. It appears that
every leader who is the head of a government appoints those people
who either have made the biggest contributions or who have
worked the hardest on somebody's campaign or who have had long
term, outstanding commitments to that party or who was a
candidate and did not get elected.
What is hypocritical about the current Prime Minister is this. If
that is the system and that is the way the game is played, fine.
Incompetence will surface and that person will eventually be fired.
When you are in opposition and you are the leader of the
opposition like he was for so many years, when he says on this side
of the House that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is making
patronage appointments, that he is only appointing his hacks, his
supporters, his contributors. Stop. When you get to that side, you
should not be doing the same thing. He did not change it. This is
part of politics as well. It is an opportunity for the member for
Kingston and the Islands and this government to have one member
from the opposition side as a deputy chair. We could have another
election on it. This shows that Reform is committed to systemic
change.
The member for Waterloo brought up the question of intellectual
honesty. The standing orders say that we are supposed to be given
48 hours' notice for a motion to be presented. We were not. They
say that we are wasting taxpayers' dollars. They are dictating to us
who goes where, what happens and when. Therefore the who,
what, why, where and when should not just be at the whim of the
government. It should be subjected to opposition commentary.
That is why there are rules in the standing orders that we should
get notice of what is going on. This government has invoked
closure more times than the previous government that it criticized
for doing it five times. This government has done it 19 times
already. We still have a year to go. According to the member for
Fundy-Royal, there are two more years to go before we have
another election. They have all that time to keep all these promises.
I am practising the finance minister's style. I need that pen.
He goes: ``Another thing, Madam Chair, I want to tell you about
this government. I want to tell you about the policies I made. I
didn't raise taxes. I know the tax base has gone up. I know I have
reduced exemptions. I know I raised excise taxes. They are up. I
have not raised taxes. We have done this through sound
government. We have done this through good government. The
members on that side don't know what they are talking about''.
Then they all clap and cheer.
The issue is about patronage. The issue is about partisan politics.
This is an opportunity to take partisan politics outside of it. We
have to be partisan. We have to fight for those goals and ideas that
we each believe in, even if we disagree.
That chair, the position that you are sitting in, Madam Speaker, is
a very important one. We have not questioned anybody who has
been in that chair so far. They have applied the standing rules to the
best of their ability. What we are saying is that here is a chance to
improve the system a little more.
I know the member for Kingston and the Islands would make a
good chairperson. I saw him work in the committee on procedure
and House affairs. That is not the issue. The issue is this. He said
that he believes that the junior chair should be held by a member
from the opposition. Therefore, here is his opportunity to help us
implement his plan and guarantee the independence of the Chair,
not only talk the talk but walk the walk or do the thing that they
should do which is right for Canadians.
(1705 )
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I want to
make my comments reflective of my party. I did hear from a
member opposite that Reformers are intellectually inconsistent.
I remember when this position was open to you, Madam Chair.
This exact debate went on at that time. We discussed the
independence of the Chair. We discussed whether or not the
commitment which was made in the red book should be kept. That
commitment is extremely important.
5756
Ms. Clancy: Oh, yea. How come you never agreed to do it,
Grant or Jay or whatever your name is.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): There seems to be a fair amount of chatter
in the House, Madam Speaker. I wonder if you might instruct the
loudmouth from Halifax to quiet down.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That is
definitely unparliamentary language and is not acceptable. Would
you please excuse yourself.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, back to the independence
of the Chair-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Would the
hon. member for Macleod please withdraw his words toward the
hon. member for Halifax?
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, I would be happy to
withdraw.
Ms. Clancy: Well done.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, back to the independence
of the Chair. As you will recall, this debate took place. We asked
for and continue to ask for a member of the opposition parties to sit
as deputies in the Speaker's chair. I suppose it will take another
government to come in from the opposition that really intends to
keep its promises for that to take place.
If the independence of the Chair was important in opposition,
why is it not important now? I speak to a lot to the youth in high
schools. Those kids have become cynical about the whole political
process when they hear promises made in opposition which are not
kept in government. How many promises have not been kept? We
could give a litany of those promises which have not been kept. But
this one for sure has not been kept.
How would Reformers be different? What could I say to a
youthful high school student in Cobourg, where I was last week,
about how could they be certain Reformers would keep their
promises? We have made a host of promises in our new platform
launch. For instance, we have promised that once the budget is
balanced $4 billion will be returned to health care and education.
A high school kid would ask: ``Why should I trust you? Why in
heaven's name would I listen to you? You are just saying that to get
elected and once you are elected, you would break your promises''.
Reformers have a guarantee on our promise which is very specific.
We believe and will institute a promise which is so important to the
kids across the country that I am going to say it as plainly as I can.
Reformers would submit to the Canadian public the right to be able
to fire a liar. That is as plain and as clear as I can state it. A promise
made in the fresh start campaign which is unkept will enable the
Canadian public to fire the liar.
(1710 )
The example I use in my high school class is one that relates
directly to them. I say to them, during the election campaign I, the
member for Macleod, decide that there needs to be a restoration
facility for old Camaros in a building that is currently unoccupied. I
found money from Japan. The Japanese love our old cars. They are
going to come over here and provide the money for this facility.
This facility, motor work, upholstery work, painted body work, will
all provide jobs for the high school students in this school. There
will be advertising and some tourism. We have calculated very
accurately that the total numbers of jobs will amount to 217. There
is also enough money in this promise to build a small hotel near the
abandoned and unoccupied old airport. That hotel would provide
for the purchasers of that Camaro a place to stay. They want to
come over and view their very own cars that go through the
restoration process before they take delivery of it. This involves
another 30 or 40 jobs.
There will be a spinoff from that. There will be bus tours that
will go from this facility and travel around the country. I promise
all these things if I am elected: Camaro restoration facility. We will
be there for sure.
Oh boy, they scrub their hands and say: ``Finally somebody
thinks about the kids''. They elect me and five minutes after
election I say: ``Ah, sorry kids, the money ran out. The Japanese
investors walked away. This is the hardest thing I ever had to say to
you as my electors, but I cannot keep my promise''.
I ask the students: What should happen to that politician? It does
not take them 15 micro seconds to answer: ``Fire the liar. Recall.
Turf him out. Boot him''. They look right at me and say: ``You had
better not make that kind of promise''.
Here we have that kind of a promise. ``In order to enhance the
independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the level of
partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party two
of the junior Chair officers should be from the opposition''. I will
state publicly that I would vote for a member of the official
opposition as a matter of principle on this issue. This is not a matter
of partisanship.
I was very pleased to first come into Parliament and have the
Speaker of the House elected. I considered that to be a significant
step forward in the democratic process. I was reasonably pleased to
see this commitment of the Liberals in opposition to take these
steps when in government.
One of the most significant results of the McGrath round of procedural reforms
was the decision that the Speaker should be elected by secret ballot by all members.
This has gone a long way toward assuring members of the independence of the
presiding officer.
The three deputy Speakers, however, remain, in effect, government appointees. As a
consequence, when one of the junior officers is in the Chair, his or her independence
5757
and authority is less well established. Their authority would be greatly enhanced and
the non-partisan nature-
-evidence if we had individuals from the opposition as deputy
chairpersons.
How long will it take to have promises kept? I suppose it will
take only as long as the Canadian public will put up with the sort of
unkept promises that we have had. How much spin can the
government put on the red book when its members say that 78 per
cent of the promises have been kept? I have gone over the major
promises in the red book. Let me list a few of them. The jobs, jobs,
jobs one I think is difficult to pin down. There have been some jobs
from the infrastructure program, temporary jobs though they were.
(1715)
Let us talk about a few of the other things: stable funding to the
CBC, not kept; day care spaces for Canadians, not kept; medicare
protection, $3 billion per year in provincial transfers dropped, not
kept; on and on they go, major promises, not minor promises.
This one I suppose could be called a minor promise. It is so easy
to keep. Simply accept a member of the opposition in the position
of deputy chair. I repeat, for those individuals who say no politician
will keep their promises, recall is the method to assure that
happens. If a politician does not keep his or her promise we should
be able to fire a liar.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to the member's speech. I heard him mention
the sort of related topic of when the budget is balanced the promise
that Reform had made to restore funding that the Liberal
government has cut for medical programs, medicare. I know that is
a major concern to Canadians. It is slightly related to what we are
talking about today. I would really like to get a clarification on that
from the member. It is something important that Canadians want to
hear.
I know they are disappointed and upset with the long waiting
lists in medical centres today. It is very difficult to get an operation.
I have a friend who waited about 18 months for an operation. This
all stems from a failure to keep a promise to protect an industry that
is very important to Canadians, just as is the failure to keep this
promise today regarding the junior chairs.
I ask the member if he could expand a little on this aspect of
restoring faith in a system that has been destroyed by broken
promises from the other side.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to explore that a little further. The reason I came to
Parliament was that medicare as far as I was concerned was under
some stress. I did pay attention very closely to the promise and
watched the funding reductions for medicare.
Reformers have quite a different view of deficit reduction. We
believe deficit reduction must have a purpose. That purpose is to
support and promote the most important social programs that we
have, medicare being number one, post-secondary education being
number two. As we reduce those funds down to zero and get the
interest payments settled down so that they are no longer an
oppressive burden, cutting things like the MP pension plan and
transfers to favourite businesses of the government, we can provide
more money for medicare.
The promise is straightforward and a promise that Reformers
will keep. When the budget is balanced we will put $4 billion of the
lost money back into medicare and post-secondary education.
I ask my colleagues across the way who have not kept their
promise on medicare to adopt that. Put that money back into
medicare. Take a page out of the Reform Party fresh start book.
Medicare is more important than partisan considerations.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I had the opportunity to work with the member for
Macleod in the health committee for a year and a half. We carried
out a number of studies. As I recall at that time, to follow up on his
comments that he just made about our health care system, how
valued our medicare program is to all of us in Canada, how dear it
is to the Liberal government and the Liberal members of this place,
we will continue to protect that and those principles that go with it
in every form, in every manner. We have exemplified that time and
time again in this House.
(1720 )
However, I recall a few months ago when the hon. member for
Macleod suggested that it was quite okay to have a two level
system in this country in health care, that it was okay to have
system in which those who had a fat wallet could get the best
service and those with no money in their pocket could get no
service at all.
It is gratifying this afternoon to hear the hon. member for
Macleod now say that he agrees with our medicare system and
wants to support it. That is a move in the right direction. That is the
first move in the right direction for that party and for the member
for Macleod. I am delighted to hear him say that.
I would ask him to comment on what has caused him to move to
this great revelation where he has suddenly realized the tremendous
benefit of the health care system and our medicare system
regardless of how many dollars Canadians have in their pockets. Is
the hon. member for Macleod aware of the agreement that was
made a year ago in the budget where the provinces were guaranteed
the amount of transfer for social programs and health care and
where through 1998 those increases will start to go forward and
where this is exactly what the provinces asked for and what they
wanted? I ask the member to comment on that. I am delighted to
see the
5758
revelation of this member and this party in this House on medicare
in Canada.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, it is nice to get some
praise from my colleague across the way.
Let me go back to the original promise from the Reform Party on
medicare. Our original promise was deficit reduction that would
not take a penny from medicare. As the deficit got worse, in our
taxpayers' budget we projected $1.5 billion from the Canada health
and social transfer, which the Liberals brought in as an obfuscation
measure in my view, over three years, while my colleagues cut $4.3
billion over two years.
As the deficit reaches the point where it gets to zero, as we are
able to take those funds that are currently going into interest
payments, as we shrink government down to a lean and mean
government rather than a fat, bloated government, we will be able
to preserve medicare. Reformers simply say to our colleagues let us
see them trim down the government so that we can save this
program.
They say their program will produce an increase of funds for
medicare. How much? How many dollars? Reformers have found
$4 billion per year to put back into medicare and post-secondary
education. Their promise is a paltry promise.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I know time is short for questions and comments but I
have a question for the hon. member.
Earlier the hon. member for Waterloo accused Reformers of
supporting the Bloc Quebecois and I endeavoured to point out that
the Liberals have been supportive of the separatists over the past
three years in this place. We can clearly show that on a number of
fronts.
Could the member elaborate further on his comment that in the
interests of non-partisanship he is prepared to support a member
from the Bloc Quebecois over a Liberal to the position of deputy
chair? The member for Calgary Centre suggested that there be a
full election. He suggested that there be one name put forward by
the Bloc, one name put forward by the Reform Party and that the
House be allowed to decide who the new deputy chair would be.
(1725)
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Madam Speaker, that is an excellent
suggestion. It is one which I believe most members of the House
would say is a step toward the democratic process.
Should there be a partisan consideration? There should not. The
Chair should be independent, and a free, open and democratic
election would be ideal.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, what is wrong with the House of Commons is
very well displayed by what is going on in the debate today.
When we came to this place in 1993 over 200 members of
Parliament were new. At that time we did something which all of us
remember well. We were all on the list for potential Speakers of the
House. In order not to be on the list of eligible Speakers we had to
indicate so and our name would be taken off the list. It was open to
any member from any party with any tenure.
The reality is for the most part the members with tenure in this
place, members who had been here in previous Parliaments, were
the most logical candidates to run for the position of Speaker of the
House. Therefore it was only logical when the voting took place
that we were voting for Liberal members.
It was a rather exciting evening in this place because the ballot
went to three votes. There was a tie ballot after the second vote. It
was a very exciting time. We made a choice and we have all lived
with that choice. The Speaker who was selected that evening is the
Speaker we still have today. We have all been very comfortable
with the choice we made that evening.
Now we are discussing the appointment of a deputy chair. Why
should deputy chairs be arrived at in any different form than the
Speaker? That is the core of the question. If deputy chairs are
strictly government appointments, then we are demeaning this
place.
I would like to endorse the comments of the member for Calgary
Centre. An appropriate vehicle in the current circumstances would
be to have a nomination from the Bloc and a nomination from
Reform. There is one vacancy. We could have an election. That
would be consistent with the recommendation that was made. It
would enhance the non-partisan nature of the Chair.
The British practice has been mentioned, which alternates the
Chair positions between government and opposition. Thus, if the
Speaker were from the government party, such as is the case now,
then the deputy speaker would be from the opposition, the next
officer would be from the government, and so forth.
The government knows that this debate is going on in the House
today. I hope there is someone who is empowered to make a
decision other than the nominee who was announced. It was
assumed, from all signs, that his appointment would be
immediately adopted by this House.
(1730 )
Who is making an issue out of this? The Reform members are.
Why are we making an issue out of this? I have explained some of
the background. Time after time in this House of Commons the
Reform caucus has done its job. Reform has done its homework
5759
and is representing the interests of Canadians. We are representing
due process, or what we see due process should consist of.
We have heard time after time that we are the third party.
Government members take great delight in calling us the third
party. As an MP from British Columbia, I know what a struggle it is
to represent all interests in this Parliament.
I believe in the last Parliament there were 43 or 44 members of
the New Democratic Party in this House of Commons. I have
talked to some of those members and I know what a difficult time
they felt they had in this environment to get their message out.
Under the circumstances Reform has done quite well in that regard.
I make that point because an effective opposition in this place is
very important.
There was a recommendation by an opposition member at the
time in developing party policy which then became a government
policy document. It was enlightened and would lead to one subtle
movement toward creating a more non-partisan and better
Parliament. We are seeing an attempt to cripple Reform and the
opposition at every turn because the government feels threatened.
This is quite inappropriate. There is a singular focus on Reform in
this case because it is recognized as the only party that can replace
the government.
Will the government accept the amendment the Reform Party
has put forward today? I have a great concern that it will not. Why
would I say that? Because the signs and symptoms are all there.
We have all had experiences at the committee level. I have been
through elections and consistently I have seen that no Liberals have
voted for adoption of a Reform vice-chair to any committee and all
Liberals have supported vice-chairs from the Bloc.
In my last experience with an election in committee, at the time
of the nomination of a Bloc vice-chair, I asked that the Bloc
vice-chair explain his position on the northern Cree in Quebec
should the PQ make a unilateral declaration of independence. That
was a litmus test as to the suitability and appropriateness of
whether or not that Bloc member should qualify as vice-chair. In
response the Liberals said that it was irrelevant and voted against
making it a debatable motion.
(1735 )
The government has shown on many occasions that it does not
want to share and it does not want to consult. I endorse the idea put
forward by the member for Calgary Centre that we have elections
from the opposition. We will see how that stacks up for this deputy
chair position, a non-partisan election, a free vote.
Why is it whenever the Liberals are held to debate on an issue,
that if they know they cannot win based on the logic of the debate,
they turn it into a procedural debate? That is what they did in
committee when I brought forward a motion for debate about the
northern Cree in Quebec. There was no attempt or any desire to
upset the Bloc or to upset the Quebec agenda but rather than debate
the issue, a procedural argument was brought in so that debate
could be avoided.
If government members cannot turn it into a procedural debate,
they turn it into a personality issue. We have seen that in the debate
we are having today. Or they turn it into a partisan issue; we have
seen that in the debate today; or fill in the blank. We just saw
another fill in the blank which was to turn it into a medicare issue. I
am puzzled as to how that relates to the election of a deputy
speaker, but that is where we ended up in this debate.
Two-thirds of the members were new to this House in 1993. We
have fallen a long way from that heady idealism of 1993. I would
like to see us move forward. I would like to see this amended
motion or some other compromise adopted, such as the one put
forward by our member for Calgary Centre. We should not put
ourselves in the position of entrenching that it will be done the way
it was done before because that is the way it has always been done.
That seems to be where the government is coming from at this
moment.
If we look at western democracies, when Canada has a majority
government it has every potential of having all the signs and
symptoms of an elected dictatorship. We do not have the checks
and balances of other western democracies. Looking to the south of
us, the U.S. president is given a veto power. That is done for a
reason. It is because they have a Congress and a Senate which act
quite independently. They do not have the entrenched party
discipline system we have seen from the old parties in Canada. It is
a two-edged sword. In the United States, this has a tendency at
times to handcuff the government but on the other hand, it makes
the government more responsive.
What implication does it have for Canada? The major
implication it has for Canada is that the party that forms the
government has an even larger onus placed upon it to fulfil its
election promises because we do not have all those other checks
and balances. This was recognized very early by the Reform Party.
It is why we set out such a detailed platform document prior to the
last federal election.
(1740 )
I believe it was that document which led to the development of
the red book by the current government. The Liberals had to have a
platform to respond to our platform. We are seeing that all over
again in the lead up to the 1997 federal election. Reform now has
its fresh start platform. We are setting the agenda and we are going
to see the Liberal Party once again do the same thing.
5760
My point is, this is a singular contributing reason why it is so
important that government-
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the
hon. member say earlier that the debate was going off track. I am
wondering how his comments relate in any way to the motion
before the House.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, in these debates we give
members as much latitude as we possibly can. I know that the hon.
member is going to tie in all his remarks and make his debate very
coherent.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the reason this is all so important is
that it is very important that the government meet its promises. It is
an election promise which is still outstanding. We want the
government to fulfil its promise.
In summary, I wish to endorse the idea put forward by the
member for Calgary Centre that we have an election for the
position of deputy speaker based on names put forward by the
opposition generically.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
North Island-Powell River raised a very relevant point in his
presentation in relating what is happening here today to what
happens with regularity in committee. That is the collusion of this
government with the official opposition to cause vice-chairs to be
selected by appointment, and there is no other word for it other than
appointment, rather than by election. We want the position under
discussion today be an elected one. We also want all other
important functions outside of the House, in committee, done by a
fair election, preferably by secret ballot.
Does the hon. member for North Island-Powell River think that
would be practical?
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that could be
done by committee. In the transition, I am sure some things which
are now done by appointment would be laborious for a committee.
However, once everyone recognized the ground rules, that all
parties would have access to all information relating to those
appointments, then I think it could be a very smooth process.
What could be better in terms of ensuring that blatant patronage
is taken out of the appointment process than ensuring that all
parties have a chance to blow the whistle on an individual if there is
a problem? In the long run it would be in the interests of the
government because it would lead to better appointments and it
would also bring buy-in from all political persuasions in terms of
who the appointed people were.
(1745 )
Therefore yes, I think democracy is hard work. We all know that.
However, this is a major move forward in terms of responsive
democracy if we could make the kind of changes that my colleague
has suggested.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the speech by the member for North
Island-Powell River and the point he raised regarding democracy.
I compare that to the point raised by the member for Fundy-Royal
earlier on this afternoon, complaining about using House time to
debate this motion.
There seems to be a fairly stark contrast between the concept of
democracy on this side of the House and the concept of democracy
on that side of the House. I think we believe in the concept that we
debate the issues, we come to a conclusion, we vote and we apply
the best exercise of our judgment.
On that side of the House members seem to say: ``Let us crack
the whip, everybody toe the party line and that is how we arrive at
decisions on votes in the House''.
My question for the member for North Island-Powell River is
as a parliamentarian and not as a politician. I think this afternoon
we are speaking as parliamentarians who are debating a motion
regarding occupying the chair which you sit in, Mr. Speaker, during
your absence. It is a very important role that the person would play.
We as parliamentarians should be very much concerned about the
decorum of this House and how we represent our constituents from
one side of the country to the other.
How does the member for North Island-Powell River feel or
think he would feel when he talks to the people in his constituency
and tells them that this place where we protect democracy, this
bastion of democracy and free speech, has been eroded by the
process that has gone on here this afternoon where we have had to
stand up and argue for a policy proposed by the Liberal government
and on which it ran in the last election and said ``if you elect us we
will deliver this''?
All we are asking is that the Liberals fulfil their commitment.
Yet we have had the complete and absolute refusal on their part to
acknowledge this.
Also, how does the member feel, not as a politician but as a
parliamentarian, back in his constituency when he is talking to his
constituents and the people of Canada asking if this House is being
debased or is this Liberal government really upholding the
traditions of democracy in this land?
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, how do we separate ourselves in this
Parliament from the democratic process and talk of ourselves in
terms of the political process? I believe that my colleague's
opening comment is probably the most appropriate. I believe that
the Reformers in the House have a very different view of
democracy than the other members in the House. Perhaps it is one
of the main planks in our platform.
I have been constantly amazed at how some of our fundamental
tenets, things that underpin us philosophically and resonate back
home, are still denied by the old parties in the House. There is still
a complete misunderstanding among many members in the House
5761
as to what a free vote actually means to a Reform member of
Parliament.
In terms of discipline, we heard my colleague talk about
cracking the whip. We have a much different view of discipline as
well. When it comes to the fundamental principles of democracy, I
do think we are talking about what appears to be a small item here,
when we are talking about deputy speakers. It is not a small item. I
have talked and I am sure every one of my colleagues has talked
about the behaviour of the Speaker or deputy speaker in various
circumstances that have happened over the last three years in this
House. Certainly not in your case, Mr. Speaker, but yes, there have
been some concerns about individual decisions or postures or
behaviours of various deputy speakers.
(1750)
There are times in this House when there are not firm guidelines.
There is free speech in this place and the deputy speaker does set
the tone when the Speaker is not in the chair. It is of fundamental
importance that the deputy speaker have all-party support in the
House of Commons.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
curious that with the comments my colleague just made I am sure
that he concurs with me that there is the issue of settling disputes
from time to time and the impartiality of the Speaker. In this case
that is not the issue with respect to the member we are talking
about.
What we are talking about here I believe is the issue, the most
fundamental principle, that this government made a promise and it
is not keeping the promise. That is what this debate is about. This is
a pivotal point in this Parliament, that the government once again is
not keeping its word.
The issue of the member for Kingston and the Islands, as my
colleague has said, really is not the issue. The member himself is
not the issue; the principle is.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad one of my colleagues was
listening so closely to the way in which something may have been
interpreted by someone reading Hansard .Yes, indeed, I fully
concur with my colleague's statements that we are not talking
about the calibre or qualifications of the member from the Liberal
Party who has been nominated. We are talking about the issue of
deputy speaker appointments.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are debating two
things simultaneously today. Primarily and foremost of course is
the matter of the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of
Committee of the Whole, but we are also discussing and have
discussed at some length the failure of the government to support
and live up to a promise which is contained in the famous red book.
There are some members opposite who have read it. There are
some who, we found by their own admission today, have not.
Nevertheless, this is the holy bible of the Government of Canada,
Le petit livre rouge du président, s'il vous plaît. I would refer to it
as the red book of musings, a list of promises to be kept if
convenient and ignored if inconvenient.
The other day we heard that 78 per cent of the promises in this
infamous document have been kept.
(1755 )
I had a rather interesting conversation on the day the
announcement was made with a very devout Liberal. I use the word
devout advisedly because every time the Prime Minister's name is
mentioned in this lady's presence she genuflects. Her exact words
were: ``My, but it must be nice to be able to write your own report
card''. That statement was made by a Liberal.
Let us forget about this fraudulent red book for a moment and
consider the public position of the hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands. He wrote a very scholarly report in which he
recommended, without reservation, that two of the deputy speakers
be chosen from among members of the opposition. There is no
equivocation about that. That was his professional opinion. I would
submit that it was a very sound opinion.
I have seen the hon. member sitting opposite. When this
particular matter is raised he laughs quite openly. His head is rolled
back and his hands are out. He finds it hilarious. I would submit
that rather than taking this as a big joke, perhaps he should be
reconsidering his contradictory position and withdrawing his name
for consideration for this appointment.
It has been suggested by members opposite that if the
government did accept the recommendations of the member for
Kingston and the Islands and appointed someone from this side of
the House that they would be duty bound to appoint a separatist
because they form the official opposition. I do not know where that
idea comes from. Certainly there is nothing in the standing orders
which would suggest that it would have to be done that way. As a
matter of fact, they have already bestowed an awful lot of
positions, benefits, goodies, whatever you want to call them, on
their dear friends in the official opposition by appointing every
single committee vice-chair from that particular caucus.
Rather than get into a cat fight over that particular issue, I have a
modest proposal, which is made on the assumption that the
amendment we are now debating will be defeated. The government
can do anything it wishes in the House. If our amendment is
defeated and if the member for Kingston and the Islands will
reconsider his contradictory position, my proposal is that this
appointment should be from one of the smaller groups in the
House. My modest proposal-and I hope it is not out of order-is
that consideration be given to the member for Yukon. I think that
5762
would be acceptable to all and sundry, certainly on this side of the
House.
That is not a motion. If it were it would be out of order. However,
if we did that it would eliminate the taint of blatant patronage.
Speaking of patronage, since we have veered rather steeply into
that area in this debate, I find it rather interesting that both my
Liberal opponent in the 1993 election and his campaign manager
have received very lucrative appointments to federal boards. How
does that square with the red book of maybes, or the red book of
possibilities?
(1800 )
I hope the government and particularly the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands will give some thought to what I have said
today. My proposal is made in all sincerity. If lightning strikes and
the heavens fall and our amendment is actually accepted by this
House, then my proposal will become redundant and will be of no
importance. Since I do not expect that to happen, I wish that in
order to instil a little more democracy in this place and a little more
respect-
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I
wish to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the
motion now before the House, at the next sitting I shall move,
pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further
adjourned.
The Speaker: The notice of motion is in order. I notice on my
clock that 60 seconds have elapsed. The member will have those
extra 60 seconds. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia on debate.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, the 60 seconds do not matter
because I was just winding up my speech.
In all sincerity I hope the government will give some
consideration to my suggestion that someone who is totally neutral
be appointed to the position and that that someone be an
independent. Perhaps it would be the person I suggested or perhaps
someone else. If such a procedure were followed, it would at least
do away with the acrimony and would give greater respect to the
office of deputy chairman.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the presentation of my hon. colleague from Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, the hon. minister made an
intervention which called for the extension of this debate at the
next sitting of the House. This intervention is quite interesting in
that there are no Liberal members presently debating the issue.
It is interesting because we on this side of the House view this as
a matter of principle, that the Liberal government would bring
forward an appointment at this time after three years in office
without even paying any attention to its own promise. Then it turns
around and tries to convince the Canadian electorate that it has
done everything humanly possible to live up to the expectations of
the Canadian public, the expectations that the Canadian public had
following the Liberal government's election in October 1993.
It is very disturbing to me that the Liberals consider this issue to
have no importance, that they will not even rise in this place to
debate this issue with Reformers. It is very disturbing. One of my
hon. colleagues points out, probably correctly, that it is simply
because there are no arguments. There is nothing they can say to
defend their position which runs so contrary to their own red book
promise.
(1805 )
My hon. colleague put forward as an alternative a proposal that
should our amendment to this motion for an appointment to the
deputy chair's position be defeated, as I am quite sure it will be,
perhaps the government would look beyond the partisanship of
appointing someone from the official opposition, from the Bloc
Quebecois, or from the Reform Party of Canada, and look at the
option of appointing one of the independent members.
It is certainly a very generous gesture on the part of my
colleague to call for that consideration. However would the
member consider the suggestion, in light of what the hon. member
for Calgary Centre suggested earlier, that if our amendment were to
fail, the government's first option be to have an open, honest and
clear election for that position with the only candidates coming
from the opposition ranks? Of course that would include the
independents as well. They could submit names and have an
election for that position rather than an appointment. Would he
consider that as the first option, with a fall back position of the
government appointing someone from the ranks of the
independents?
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, my generosity is exceeded only
by my eloquence and I do appreciate the comments.
I have to accept what has been said by the hon. member for
Prince George-Peace River. Certainly, the ideal would be to have
an election, as has been suggested by several members during this
debate. However I deal with realities. I know the government does
not like elections for anything. In this instance, if it could make an
appointment that would be more palatable on the basis of
non-partisanship, it would be a compromise. Certainly, if I had my
5763
druthers, I would like to see the position filled by an honest free
election, preferably by secret ballot.
With respect to the matter of the parliamentary secretary and the
request to extend debate, I hope he did that so that the hon. member
for Kingston and the Islands will have the opportunity to stand and
explain at great length and in great detail the contradictions
between his position while in opposition and his current position.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
wanted to double check with the member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia to make certain that he agrees
this debate is not about the qualifications or the standing of the
member for Kingston and the Islands. This debate is not about his
ability to fill the chair in place of the Speaker. We all know he is a
very decent chap.
During the summertime, he took a ride on the Rocky
Mountaineer Railway on the west coast from Vancouver to
Kamloops and beyond. He probably thinks he understands the west
now as a result of that trip. We all know he is a very decent chap.
He gives wonderfully enthralling speeches here in the House. We
really do like him.
I would like the member to actually confirm that this is not an
attack on that member but that this is really a strike-out for the
fulfilment of a promise made by the government and a strike-out
for democracy.
(1810 )
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, I would never dream of
attacking the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. In fact if
he does reconsider his contradictory position on this issue, we
would continue to enjoy his presence on the other side of the
House. If he does accept the position in the end, we will miss him
terribly. He is a man who adds a little bit of spice-I might say
frivolity but I will not-but I am not attacking the member for
Kingston and the Islands in any guise.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
today's debate arose from a situation the government created. It
was the straw that broke the camel's back when the government
failed to give the customary 48 hours notice of the motion it
brought forward regarding the junior chair. If the government had
not done that today, we would probably not have had this
opportunity to talk about the broken promise that we have on the
other side.
I would reiterate that this is definitely not an attack on the
member for Kingston and the Islands, although by his own
admission in this House he does not read the bills. Perhaps if he
were the Speaker it would be an opportunity for him to read the
bills, to follow every debate in great detail and to assist us with his
knowledge of the rules.
If it had not been for the fact that the government had failed to
keep a promise and then exacerbated the situation by not giving 48
hours notice, we would not be discussing this situation today.
The plain fact is it is a real mystery to the majority of Canadians
why this government continually supports or seems to act in ways
that support the official opposition instead of recognizing the
contribution that is made by the Reform Party of Canada which
represents a greater number of provinces and a greater number of
interests across the country. There is a good case to be made for
having a member from the Reform Party as one of the deputy
speakers. It would be a good idea to put it to a vote in this House.
I know it is not the motion before us, but support seems to be
gathering as we go through this debate today to have an election as
we did for the Speaker. Because it was done by a secret ballot,
whoever was elected through that process would have no idea who
cast the ballots that elected him or her and it would be guaranteed
to be impartial. Because of that, he or she would rely upon a good
relationship with the members in this House to retain that position
in to the future. I strongly support the idea of an election and I hope
we will move to that, if not in the short term, certainly in the long
term.
I refer to the report ``Reviving Parliamentary Democracy: The
Liberal Plan for House of Commons and Electoral Reform''. In
fact, the member for Kingston and the Islands was one of the
authors of the report. I have it here and I know I cannot use props so
I cannot hold it up. I quote from a passage on page 9 which is
headed ``The Independence of the Chair'':
10. In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce
the level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party, two of the
junior Chair officers should be from the opposition, so that the four presiding officer
positions are shared equally by government and opposition.
That position is actually supported by the member for Kingston
and the Islands.
It is a shame that this government has not put itself in the
position of keeping this promise. It is very disturbing and if the
government had not irritated us by failing to keep this promise, we
would not be in this debate today.
Perhaps in the long run it will turn out for the best because it has
brought attention to the issue. The government side has been
unable to put up any speakers to counter the arguments. It has been
incapable of defending its position and it has now done the
disgusting thing of moving notice of closure on this discussion.
The government is going to close us down so that we cannot have a
decent debate on the issue. Frankly, the government members do
not want to discuss it.
We have heard about the terrible reputation of the Mulroney
government in moving closure and closing down debate in this
place. This government that talked about more free votes, talked
about appointing junior chairs from the opposition, has moved
5764
closure four times as often as the Mulroney government. It is
striking out for new records in that respect.
(1815)
The Prime Minister loves to claim during question period that he
is only adhering to the well established traditions of parliamentary
democracy. Maybe he has not bothered to take a look at what is
happening in other parliamentary democracies in the 30 years he
has been here. He is still working under the same rules he learned
30 years ago.
If he had bothered to take a little look when he was on one of his
trips to the U.K., he would have noticed that it is quite common in
the mother of Parliaments for members to vote with members on
the opposite side. It happens a couple of hundred times a year.
There are no penalties for that. People do not get tossed out of
caucus. It is one of those things that has developed as Parliament
matured.
Unfortunately the Canadian Parliament is mired in the old ways
of doing things. It has not caught up with the information age. It
really is one of the most backward institutions in the world today.
As many members know, I am from New Zealand and there have
been dramatic changes there in the parliamentary system. It would
not be faced with a debate about filling junior chair positions from
the opposition benches. In New Zealand the government
introduced the initiative and referendum. It has a mixed member
proportional system of electing members and it has really shown
creativity in adapting the parliamentary system to the information
age.
Meanwhile, here in Canada we remain mired in the ways of the
past, in what the Prime Minister likes to call tradition. ``More free
votes'' he said. I guess if we had one he could say that he had
fulfilled his promise of more free votes. I do not think that is what
the Canadian people thought he meant by more free votes.
Certainly it has been a major disappointment.
I write a weekly column for a newspaper in my riding, the North
Shore News. I had already put together the material for next week's
report. It is just by pure coincidence that it dealt with promises that
had been made by this government. It is very appropriate that I
raise it today.
The promise that has been broken today by refusing to allow the
appointment of a junior chair from the opposition benches is just
one of a long list of broken promises. My colleague for Kootenay
East actually put together a list of the top 10 broken promises. I
think it is probably appropriate that there be some exposure of
those right here in this Chamber.
Obviously number one on the top of the list would be the jobs,
jobs, jobs promise which is in chapter 1 of the red book. Instead of
jobs, jobs, jobs we are stuck with 1.4 million unemployed, 500,000
Canadians looking for work, youth unemployment at 18 per cent or
higher, and polls showing one in four Canadians to be worried
about the security of their jobs.
Second on the list from the member for Kootenay East is
preserving and protecting medicare. We have already heard some
discussion in the debate today about the tremendous cutbacks there
have been in the transfers in support of medicare across the
country. Meanwhile, members of the government stride around the
country saying what a wonderful job they have done, paying lip
service to the protection of medicare while they busily cut the
funding, creating longer wait lists, probably creating the possibility
that people die while on those waiting lists.
If we look at the figures, by the 1998-99 fiscal year the present
government will have cut $7 billion from social transfers to the
provinces, completely contradictory to the promises made on page
74 of the red book.
It is just like the promise made about appointing deputy or junior
chairs-broken promises. As much as the Liberals try to say they
have kept their promises, even the ones we can kind of give them
some credit for keeping, are only kept in a sort of halfway manner.
When they talk about keeping their promises on the debt and
deficit, if we really look deeply we would find that they have cut
the heart out of some programs in order to give the appearance of
making progress, while at the same time increasing our total debt
by almost $100 billion in three years.
An hon. member: Shameful.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): That, frankly, as one of my
colleagues says, is shameful. They are trying to deceive the public
into thinking that things have been achieved and promises have
been kept when they really have not.
(1820 )
One of the favourite promises was to scrap, kill and abolish the
GST. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister made
good use of that on the campaign trail. Boy, did they whoop that
one up. When they were asked how would they do it, they just said:
``Wait till after the election. Do not ask me now. Ask me after the
election''. My goodness they did not take long to break that
promise.
Now we have this unsuccessful attempt to have every province
buy into a scheme to harmonize the GST with the PST and create
all sorts of new distortions and dissatisfactions like the tax on
books. We are faced now with all manner of new problems instead
of curing the basic problems that are there with the most hated tax
5765
in Canada, the GST. That just came from yet another broken
promise of this government.
I know there is one here that strikes a cord with a number of
people in my riding. One of the broken promises is stable
multi-year funding for the CBC. What a joke.
The Reform Party was attacked during the 1993 election for
telling the truth about the subsidies to the CBC and the need to cut
some of the fat out of that organization. What happens? The
government says it will never cut a thing, and cuts much more than
the Reform had ever said it would cut. How the government gets
away with breaking these promises I do not know.
Promise number six was to renegotiate NAFTA, red book, page
24. Two months after taking power the Prime Minister signed
NAFTA. Thank goodness he did. If we had not had free trade
helping this country stay afloat we would be in deep trouble today.
However, the Liberals made a promise and they did not keep it.
Then we have-my goodness, this is a hot one that we have had
fun with the last couple of weeks-a code of conduct for
politicians, red book, page 95. There has not been a new code. The
Prime Minister only uses his secret ministerial guidelines when it
suits him to do so. In the U.K. the guidelines are made public. In
fact the whip of the Reform Party had a copy of the guidelines from
the U.K. in the House just a week or so ago. It is a large book that
sets out all of the rules to which ministers of the crown have to
adhere in order to be ethical. What a change it would be here if we
had something like that.
If the Prime Minister wants to claim that he is keeping with the
traditions of parliamentary democracy, let him produce his ethical
guidelines for ministers. Let the public read them so that everyone
can understand what is happening on that side of the House.
Then we have number eight, appointments based on competence,
red book, page 92. I do not want to embarrass anybody by naming
names in the House. I know there are a lot of people can identify a
couple of hundred Liberal patronage appointments. I know the
member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia mentioned
this amazing thing that happened in his riding. Two people who
were Liberal supporters suddenly were qualified to take up
amazing jobs on parole boards and receive wonderful rewards for
their loyalty to the Liberal Party. We see that happening right
across the country. It happens in my riding. Liberal supporters are
being rewarded with blatant patronage appointments.
The number nine promise was more free votes with which I
already dealt earlier. I should mention the red book page number in
case there is anybody out there who has not used the red book for
firewood yet. They can read it on page 92. The Prime Minister has
only permitted one free vote in three years-
Mr. Epp: That was prearranged.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): That was prearranged, yes,
thank you very much to my colleague for reminding me.
The number ten promise was that the Liberals would eliminate
trade barriers between the provinces, red book, page 22. We know
that those have not been eliminated. In fact, those trade barriers are
still costing the economy between $6 billion and $10 billion a year.
We are back at the beginning again. A situation developed today
because the government did not keep its promise. Despite all the
hoopla at its convention during the weekend, despite all the
resolutions that were rammed through so fast that we all got wind
burn, as mentioned by the whip, we are debating an issue that is
very important. It is related to democracy in this House.
(1825 )
We really should object to this closure motion that has been
moved. We should request that the government stand up and
support democracy and allow a member of an opposition party to
be appointed as a junior Chair.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
found the member's comments in reference to this amendment
quite enlightening. It is always good to hear the performance of the
government.
An hon. member: Non-performance.
Mr. Hanger: Or the non-performance, as pointed out. I think the
member for Vancouver North expressed it quite well in outlining
all the broken promises.
I too had an opportunity to look at point No. 10 which was the
reason for this debate today. Point No. 10 deals with the
independence of the Chair and the reduction in the level of
partisanship. Those are certainly worthy statements to make.
I also looked a little further. As the member for Vancouver North
mentioned, in the early part of the Liberal red book it states that
mounting criticism of the House of Commons and its proceedings
reflect the frustration of citizens and parliamentarians alike with
the continuing failure of Parliament to address effectively the
problems that face us.
Here we have a statement in the red book with some definite
outlines which the Liberals say they are going to change.
Unfortunately, as the member for Vancouver North outlined, they
are not going to do that. They have already fallen short on their
promises and it has only been three years.
In the Reform Party's platform we outline two visions of
Canada, an old vision and a new vision. The old vision is about the
Liberals and the Conservatives and how they like big government,
how they like to spend, how they like to increase taxes and how
they like to feed the big spending machine that was created by
them.
5766
I would like the member for Vancouver North to outline the new
vision of Canada that Reformers would like to see. I would
encourage him to give in as much detail as possible the new vision
that we see for Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for North Vancouver has one minute left.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I wish I could
do this in one minute. The fresh start platform of the Reform Party
of Canada is worthy of at least a 20 minute speech. It is really
unfortunate that I am not going to have enough time to do that. If I
can relate it to one thing the member mentioned, it is this whole
issue of partisanship and the need to get rid of that. Part of the
Reform vision of Canada is getting rid of the partisanship. We want
to appoint people based on their skills and competence with open
tendering and a much more open style of government.
Partisanship leads to waste and to the sort of situation that we
saw last week with an $87 million interest free loan being given to
a company like Bombardier with billions of dollars in assets and
quite capable of funding itself. Eighty-seven million is a tiny drop
in the bucket to Bombardier. It is totally ridiculous to have a
situation like that going on. It is being done clearly for partisanship
reasons. Everybody in the country can see that is the reason. There
simply is no need for it. Reform would put an end to that.
_____________________________________________
5766
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the United States through the Helms-Burton bill
is seeking to expand its embargo against Cuba to other countries,
including Canada, by alleging so-called rights to United States
property in Cuba. The United States is holding itself up as the
censor of potential foreign investment in sectors which may
include former United States property.
(1830 )
The United States believes that the property formerly owned by
United States citizens cannot be freely used in Cuba and that it
truly belongs to those who live in the United States and is not and
will not be the property of the present Cuban government and will
at some time be renegotiated back to the American people.
It claims, moreover, that international law requires the
Government of Cuba to pay top, adequate and effective
compensation.
A constituent of mine, Dr. Tarjei Tennessen, has done some very
extensive research for me and this is why I have brought this
question before the House.
There is no United States property in Cuba as far as international
law is concerned. Ownership of such property was transferred to
the Cuban people through a process of nationalization in
conformity with international law, which was carried out through
expropriation by exercising the power of article 24 of the Cuban
constitution of 1940 and the corresponding articles of the
fundamental law of February 7, 1959.
Moreover, the property of the United States in Cuba was
liquidated under the International Claims Settlement Act of 1964
of the Cuba program of the United States Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission and converted into bonds.
We have been criticized unduly for coddling Cuba and for being
soft on the Cuban communist regime.
The document in this research indicates that the Americans are
bullying countries for trading, openly and fairly, with Cuba, that
they are using external legislation over extraterritorial matters
which were settled very legitimately some years ago through
international law.
In the months following the triumph of the revolution of 1959
the United States government began harassing the country in open
opposition. The nationalization of United States property began
again in 1960 in response to continuous attacks on Cuban economic
targets, combined with United States domination of all basic
sectors of activity in the country and the need, as the Americans
suggested, to consolidate the new economic, political and social
process in Cuba.
In 1960 the president of the republic and the Prime Minister
acted to provide jointly, through resolutions, the nationalization by
expropriation of property in Cuba belonging to natural or juridical
persons having the status of United States nationals.
The transparency of the procedure instituted by the Cuban
authorities is not only recognized by international law courts in the
United States itself, but it has been confirmed by the validity under
international legislation of the Cuban nationalization process in
law suits brought forward by United States nationals.
I would suggest that Cuba negotiated in a transparent and open
fashion the very timely payment of compensation through lump
sum agreements concluded and implemented with Canada, France,
Spain and Switzerland. Also, agreements were reached with other
countries.
This open, transparent nationalization of property by Cuba is
what the question is today. I ask the Minister for International
Trade are we soft on Cuba. Are we condoning a communist regime
in Cuba or are we trading in an open and competitive fashion?
5767
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is with a great
deal of pleasure that I rise to address this question on behalf of
the Minister for International Trade.
The question of the Helms-Burton legislation has been before
Parliament and indeed before the court of world opinion for the last
number of months. It is clearly the position of the Canadian
government, supported by the European Union, the Mexican
government and a number of international forums that this is an
extraterritorial application of U.S. law, that it is inappropriate and a
fundamental breach of international conventions and international
law.
The member raised some very interesting points and the
government would agree with the points she has raised. Number
one is that it is up to an individual state whether it expropriates or
nationalizes property. Indeed in the past and in the present day even
in Canada we have cases where the Canadian government or the
provinces or their creatures, the municipalities, can expropriate
under the Expropriation Act.
What is at issue here is not whether expropriation is legal and
should be undertaken, it is whether proper compensation has been
done.
The issues the hon. member raised are correct. The United States
government has followed a 30 year path of isolation with Cuba.
That simply has not worked. We have gone a different path.
In 1980 the Canadian government settled on behalf of Canadians
any outstanding issues of compensation for expropriation. Most
countries have done that. The U.S. has simply refused to do it.
At the end of the day, it introduced legislation which is in and of
itself a violation of international law. I would agree with the hon.
member opposite and would say to her that the actions that the
Canadian government has taken are to protect the interests of
Canadian companies which find themselves challenged or
potentially threatened by this extraterritorial application of U.S.
law.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly,
the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)