CONTENTS
Monday, March 25, 1996
Bill C-14. Consideration resumed of report stage 1144
Division on Motion No. 18 deferred 1145
Motion No. 19 negatived. 1145
Motions Nos. 22 and 26 1145
Motions Nos. 71 and 74 to 82 inclusive 1146
(Motions Nos. 22, 26, 81 and 82 agreed to.) 1146
Motions Nos. 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 agreed to. 1146
Division on Motion No. 23 deferred 1149
(Motions Nos. 56 and 70 negatived.) 1150
Motions Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 1150
Division on Motion No. 57 deferred. 1152
Motion No. 67 defeated 1153
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.) 1161
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1162
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1165
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1166
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1166
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1166
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1167
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1167
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1167
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1167
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1168
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1168
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1168
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1168
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1168
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1169
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1169
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1169
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1169
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1169
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1171
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1171
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 1173
Bill C-244. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1173
Bill C-245. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1173
(Bill deemed read the second time and referred to acommittee.) 1173
Bill C-7. Motion for third reading. 1174
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1186
Bill C-14. Consideration at report stage 1197
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 58; Nays, 90 1197
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 37; Nays, 112 1199
Motion No. 2 negatived on division: Yeas, 2;Nays, 146 1200
Motion No. 29 negatived on division: Yeas, 2;Nays, 146 1201
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 58; Nays, 90. 1201
Motion No. 38 negatived on division: Yeas; 57;Nays 91 1202
Motion No. 4 negatived on division: Yeas, 21;Nays, 127. 1203
Motion No. 17 negatived on division: Yeas, 23;Nays, 125 1204
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 23; Nays, 125 1205
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 37; Nays, 112 1206
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 23; Nays, 125 1206
Motion No. 24 agreed to on division: Yeas, 146;Nays, 2 1206
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 21; Nays, 127 1207
Motion for concurrence 1207
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas: 91; Nays: 58 1207
(Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.) 1208
1135
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 25, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend Part XXIV
of the Criminal Code-Dangerous Offenders-to provide:
1. that where an offender is convicted of
(a) a sexual offence involving a child, or
(b) an offence set out in
(
i) section 271 (sexual assault) that has been proceeded with by way of
indictment,
(ii) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or
causing bodily harm), or
(iii) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault),
or an attempt to commit any of these offences, the offender shall, before being
sentenced, be examined by two psychiatrists to determine
(c) in the case of sexual offence involving a child, whether the offender is likely
to commit or attempt to commit such an offence in the future, and
(d) in the case of an offence referred to in section 271 that has been proceeded
with by way of indictment, or section 272 or 273, whether the offender is likely
to cause or attempt to cause death, injury or serious psychological harm to
another person through a failure in the future to control his or her sexual
impulses; and
2. that where the psychiatrists conclude
(a) in the case of a sexual offence involving a child, that the offender is likely to
commit or attempt to commit such an offence in the future, or
(b) in the case of an offence mentioned in section 271 that has been proceeded
with by way of indictment, or section 272 or 273, that the offender is likely to
cause or attempt to cause death, injury or serious psychological harm to another
person through a failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses,
the Attorney General of the province in which the offender was tried shall
direct that an application be brought to have the offender declared a
dangerous offender.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the safety of all
Canadians. M-116 is a motion to amend part XXIV of the Criminal
Code regarding dangerous offenders.
The motion is a culmination of an effort by my colleague the
hon. member for Calgary Southeast and myself, to find a way to
protect Canadians from sexual predators. This motion will make
Canadians safer in their homes and in their streets.
With this motion an individual convicted of a serious sexual
assault against an adult or any sexual offence where the victim is a
child must be examined by two psychiatrists. If the two
psychiatrists conclude that the convicted offender is likely to
reoffend, the attorney general must direct that a dangerous offender
application be initiated. The convicted offender would then
proceed to a dangerous offender hearing. The offender would be
declared a dangerous offender if the crown proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the offender was likely to reoffend.
There is nothing draconian about this motion by any stretch of
the imagination. This motion would only apply to individuals
convicted of serious offences. By having a convicted offender
reviewed by psychiatrists, we are providing the crown and the
courts with the most comprehensive information possible about the
likelihood of this offender reoffending. There is nothing arbitrary
or unconstitutional about this. The motion respects accepted
judicial practice while protecting Canadians against dangerous
offenders. What this motion would do is perhaps identify a Paul
Bernardo, a Clifford Olson, a Fernand Auger or a Mitchell Owen
after they had committed their first sexual offence.
(1105)
Auger is the man who kidnapped, assaulted and murdered
Melanie Carpenter. I have already introduced a petition to the
House from the Melanie Carpenter campaign. Over half a million
people signed this petition calling on Parliament to enact
legislation to keep dangerous offenders, especially dangerous sex
offenders, off our streets.
What is particularly disturbing about Auger's murder of Melanie
Carpenter is that it could have been prevented. Almost 10 years
1136
before Auger killed Melanie, he was convicted of two brutal
sexual assaults on teenage prostitutes. Because the victims were
prostitutes, Auger only got a sentence of two years less a day.
It was not until some five years later, after being convicted on a
robbery charge and receiving a federal sentence, that Auger was
closely observed by psychiatric professionals. Once they had an
opportunity to assess Auger, they realized that they had a walking
time bomb on their hands but under our current laws he had to be
released. As a result Melanie Carpenter is dead. If Auger had
instead been assessed by professionals after his sexual assault
convictions of the two teenage prostitutes, maybe the courts and
corrections would have known what they were dealing with: a
dangerous offender.
This motion is a response to the demands of Canadians who are
fed up with the failure of our justice system to protect women and
children. We are not suggesting that we should randomly lock
people up. We are talking about convicted sexual predators.
Another example is Mitchell Owen, the man who murdered 16
year old Pamela Cameron in October 1994 just two blocks from my
constituency office. Owen had previously been incarcerated for the
brutal sexual assault of a female in an underground parking lot.
When he was sentenced the judge called him a walking time bomb.
When he was released Corrections Canada advised that he was at
high risk to reoffend. Would Pamela Cameron still be alive today
had the contents of this motion already been in place?
What about Clifford Olson? Here is a man who had a lengthy
criminal record before his murderous rampage which left 11
Canadian children dead.
It is time for the justice system to consider the seriousness of
sexual assault and realize that this type of behaviour is a clear
indicator of a pattern of future violence. We are not trying to lock
people up and throw away the key. A dangerous offender
designation simply means that an offender is kept in custody until
the parole board is convinced that the offender does not pose a
serious threat to society. Parole eligibility would be after three
years and then every two years. If rehabilitation and treatment were
successful, the offender would not be incarcerated forever.
Motion M-116 would increase the odds that we would capture
those offenders who pose a serious threat to the safety of every
Canadian should they be released prematurely. This motion ensures
that the correctional system is not pressured to release offenders
who show no potential for rehabilitation.
Motion M-116 meets the Reform Party's objective of ensuring
public safety. I would expect the motion to receive considerable
support by all the parties in this House who are concerned with the
safety of Canadians.
The Bloc Quebecois justice critic has frequently expressed her
concern for the safety of women and children. I hope she is as
concerned with protecting them from sexual predators as she is in
protecting them from firearms.
I must admit that when we debated this motion on December 13
last year, I was very surprised by some of the comments from the
government side. It seems the government member for
Hamilton-Wentworth does not see the need for this motion
because he ``cannot accept that a Paul Bernardo necessarily will
offend again''. I found these comments from the government side
to be shocking. I am not sure what could possibly make the
member utter a comment like this. I am certain that Canadians are
relieved he is not sitting on the National Parole Board. I doubt there
are many Canadians who believe Paul Bernardo should ever be
released because the member for Hamilton-Wentworth believes
that he may not reoffend.
(1110 )
Then we have the comments of the member for Kingston and the
Islands who criticized me and the Reform Party for our obsession
with law and order issues. I do not apologize for my so-called
obsession with crime prevention and the protection of Canadians.
Perhaps if some of the government members were obsessed with
law and order issues, they would be more willing to support
motions such as this to protect Canadians against sexual predators.
In its red book the Liberal government devoted an entire section
to safe homes, safe streets. It surprises me that the government
would not wholeheartedly support Motion M-116 which is
designed to protect Canadians and to ensure their homes and streets
are safe. In fact, we are actually helping the government to keep its
own red book promises.
On page 84 of the red book the Liberal government claims:
``Dealing with the growing incidents of violent crime will be a
priority for a Liberal government''. According to the red book:
``Every person has a right to personal security and a Liberal
government will move to protect that right''. Also on page 84 of the
red book, the government claims to be particularly concerned with
protecting women and children against violence. This motion
would help the government fulfil its own promise. Motion M-116
specifically targets sexual predators and pedophiles.
Given this, I do not see any reason why the government would
not strongly support this motion. Once again this government plays
partisan games rather than putting the interest and safety of
Canadians as a priority.
Unlike some of his colleagues, the Minister of Justice did
express concern about the situation of dangerous offenders in our
communities. According to the minister, the government is in
agreement with the objectives of this motion. The minister
indicated by his comments on this motion that the government
recognizes there is a problem with dangerous offenders being
released and possibly reoffending. He said that the courts may
1137
indeed need extended powers to deal with these cases in order to
protect the safety of Canadians.
I am pleased to see the minister at least recognizes that
Parliament needs to enact legislation to protect Canadians against
sexual predators. Given that the minister recognizes the need to
protect Canadians against violence, we would expect the
government to be eager to support this motion.
Motion M-116 will prevent tragedies where sexual predators
reoffend. If this motion were adopted, perhaps Melanie Carpenter
and Pamela Cameron would still be alive today.
Motion M-116 reflects the view of the over half a million
individuals who signed the Melanie Carpenter Society petition and
the hundreds of thousands of Canadians supporting the Peace and
Justice for Canadians Association. They believe as I do that
dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles belong behind bars and not
on our streets until such a time as they will no longer pose a risk to
Canadian society.
Canadians have had it with our judicial system which fails to
protect Canadians against sexual predators. Motion M-116 would
be a start in reforming our justice system to recognize the rights of
women and children to the protection they deserve by the judicial
system.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
motion by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South
Langley is a reflection of the Reformers' reactionary mentality
since their first day in this House. The motion we are examining
today would force the government to amend the Criminal Code so
as to declare all individuals convicted of sexual assault dangerous
offenders.
Such an amendment would, to all intents and purposes, eliminate
all crown discretion. It would oblige the attorney general of the
province in which the offender was tried to direct that an
application be brought, each time there was a conviction, to have
the offender declared a dangerous offender. This obligation would
arise each time two psychiatrists concluded that there was a
likelihood of re-offending. What the hon. member is proposing
amounts to letting psychiatrists usurp the roles of the prosecutor
and of the judge. This is tantamount to turning the justice system
totally upside down.
(1115)
It is clear in the hon. member's mind that the way to eradicate
the problem of violence in Canada is to overload our courts and
crowd our penitentiaries. The third party is never one to propose
anything innovative, nor anything with a potential for consensus
among the members.
The Reform Party persists in clouding the issue by fiddling with
crime statistics in order to justify their ill-advised interventions.
Where the law is concerned, these hypocrites claim to be defending
victims' rights, but in reality they are making political hay at the
expense of the sufferings of victims of crime. Like Don Quixote
jousting with windmills, these extreme rightwingers will do
anything to get attention. As I said last week, demagogy has no
place in criminal law.
I wonder: what is the justification for such a motion? Has there
been a sudden sharp upswing in violent crime? No, on the contrary.
The latest statistics available indicate the crime rate dropped by 5
per cent during 1994, the third year in a row that it has gone down.
In 1994 as well, the figures for violent crime were down 3 per
cent, the greatest annual drop since 1962. In fact, without
exception, all categories of violent crime were down in 1994.
There was a 10 per cent drop in sexual assaults, regardless of
type. The homicide rate was the lowest recorded in the past 25
years. The combined total of homicides and attempted murders
continued to account for less than one per cent of violent crimes.
In the light of these statistics, we cannot help but wonder about
the seriousness of the member's motion. The existing procedure for
declaring an offender dangerous works very well. I am not alone in
saying so; it is the opinion of all the provincial and the federal
attorneys general.
But what about the existing procedure? Section 753 of the
Criminal Code allows the courts to declare an individual found
guilty of a serious personal injury offence or a sexual offence a
dangerous offender.
Once the accused is found guilty of one of the offences in section
752, the court hears the evidence by the crown and bases its
decision on the following: demonstration of the offender's inability
to restrain his behaviour; a substantial indifference on the part of
the offender respecting the consequences of his acts and the
behaviour of the offender associated with the offence is so brutal
that normal standards of behavioral restraint would be insufficient.
The court gives its decision following conviction, but before
sentencing. The court declares the offender dangerous and then
imposes a sentence of detention for an indeterminate period in lieu
of any other sentence. This is one of the harshest sentences a court
can impose, as the offender is not automatically entitled to parole.
An individual's file is then reviewed three years after conviction
and every two years thereafter.
1138
In practice it is merely a pro forma review, since, only in very
rare instances do the case management officers of the National
Parole Board not recommend continued detention.
My colleague has already proposed a bill whereby the whole
legal proceeding would be repeated just prior to the conclusion of
an individual's sentence. Clearly, the least we can say is that she is
single-minded. The only question this motion raises is that of
relevance.
The hon. member acknowledged herself in the House that her
earlier bill applied to very few individuals. The problem posed by
repeat offenders is much greater and requires solutions much
broader than those proposed by my colleague.
(1120)
The hon. member puts excessive emphasis on isolated cases
when she claims that her motion would be the solution to this kind
of problem. The fact is that her motion proposes impractical
solutions and targets dangerous offenders who represent only 0.5
per cent of Canada's current inmate population in federal
penitentiaries.
By the way, in 1994, Quebec only had one dangerous offender. A
second one was just added to the list. The vast majority of inmates
considered to be dangerous offenders are in Ontario and in western
Canada. From 1985 to 1994, only one dangerous offender was
paroled every year. That number always remained constant.
The difference between Quebec and the other provinces is easy
to explain. For several years now, Quebec has had an effective
medicolegal system in place to deal with court referrals, including
dangerous offenders. The system works well and people suffering
from mental disorders get adequate psychiatric treatment. All in
all, the Quebec initiative is a proven solution to the problems
experienced in the rest of Canada, and other provinces should have
the wisdom to follow our example.
The current situation certainly does not justify an intervention as
drastic as the one proposed by the hon. member. Moreover, the
proposed reactionary measures are uncalled-for, because the courts
already have effective tools to decide whether an offender should
be declared dangerous. A judicious application of the Criminal
Code would greatly alleviate the problem.
It is not enough to merely react to public opinion fuelled by
gutter papers trying to improve their sales. Nor is it enough to
target a very small number of individuals. The government must, in
co-operation with the provinces, have a comprehensive approach to
detect repeat offenders and ensure that society is better protected.
The Quebec model should be followed.
One step was taken with the federal, provincial and territorial
task force on violent high-risk offenders. The hon. member should
carefully read the report released last year. She will find interesting
suggestions and, more importantly, a more realistic picture of the
current situation.
It goes without saying that, unfortunately, I will not support her
motion.
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Motion No. M-116 is identical to motion numbered M-461 debated
during the last session. It did not win approval of the House. I note
that the hon. member keeps trying on this subject.
At the outset, I do not believe that the hon. member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley has thought this idea
through, either in terms of its legal impact or its practicalities. Let
us be clear on exactly what this amendment to the Criminal Code
would require if it were approved.
First, every criminal who is convicted of a serious sexual
offence, namely sexual assault under sections 271, 272 and 273 of
the code would have to be examined by two psychiatrists in order
that the risk of reoffending be determined. If they conclude that the
risk is high, then a dangerous offender application would, of
necessity, have to be launched. There would be no discretion on the
part of the judge and certainly not on the part of the crown
prosecutor.
Under the present system, the judge considers relevant
information about the offender's criminal history and the mental
state of the offender at the time of the offence. This usually takes
the form of a formal pre-sentence report. Of course the perspective
of the victim is considered.
In other words, in a normal case a whole range of information is
taken into account in order to determine the appropriate sentence.
If this motion were to be adopted, every convicted sex offender
would be remanded to a psychiatric facility for a thorough
examination by two psychiatrists. These psychiatrists could give a
precise prediction of the risk presented by every criminal.
(1125 )
Under current law the crown attorney and the judge are the
authorities who decide whether to seek the opinion of psychiatrists
on the danger posed by a convicted person. It is not the other way
around. The psychiatrists do not tell the officers of the court
whether to proceed with a dangerous offender application.
There is good reason for giving the crown and judges the
discretion to seek a detailed psychiatric examination of the
offender and to initiate a dangerous offender application. It is
because the dangerous offender process is essentially and primarily
a legal one, it is not just a question of psychiatric prediction.
1139
The crown attorney has to decide whether the dangerous
offender application will meet the legal standards set out in part
XXIV of the Criminal Code. For example, section 753 of the code
requires the crown to show that the offender ``by his conduct in
any sexual matter, including that involved in the commission of
the offence for which he has been convicted,'' has shown a failure
to control his sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing serious
injury in the future.
This is a legal test, as the courts have repeatedly pointed out.
There is no point in making an application under part XXIV if it
has no chance of succeeding.
I do not wish to denigrate the role of psychiatry in this process.
Indeed, dangerous offender rules require that psychiatric evidence
be presented for both sides at the dangerous offender hearing.
I also note the references which the hon. member made in the
last debate on this issue to the work of Dr. Robert Hare in
predicting the risk of recidivism by psychopaths, including
psychopathic sex offenders.
The ability of psychiatrists and psychologists to assess the nature
and degree of risk of offenders has certainly improved in the last
decade. I have heard Canada described as a leader in this field. I
further note that the Correctional Service of Canada employs a
wide range of clinical and actuarial testing in its intake and case
management programs for federal inmates.
The proposed amendment to the Criminal Code has the balance
wrong. It would compel the crown to bring a dangerous offender
application every time a pair of psychiatrists reach a medical
conclusion about risk. Perhaps if the motion called for discretion, it
might receive more support. However, the motion advocates a
sweeping measure that would diminish the role of judges and
prosecutors and indiscriminately force every case of sexual
offending to proceed through a lengthy and expensive examination
by psychiatrists, even when there is little chance of those
psychiatrists labelling the offender as high risk.
I am glad that the hon. member has such faith in psychiatrists.
Perhaps she is unaware that the Canadian Psychiatric Association
has stated that there is already a shortage of qualified forensic
psychiatrists in Canada. The Correctional Service of Canada and
provincial departments of justice are already hard pressed to find
psychiatric advice even for priority cases.
I find it interesting that the Reform Party will spare no expense
in this area, even if the chances of winning a dangerous offender
case are thin or remote. To put this in context, I refer members to
figures which were recently released by Statistics Canada.
In 1994-95 the federal government spent $913 million on adult
corrections. The provinces and territories spent another $980
million. The capital cost of building federal penitentiaries
increased 70 per cent between 1990-91 and 1994-95. It costs
taxpayers $44,000 per year to keep a person in a federal
penitentiary. The per capita cost to operate the adult correction
system represents $65 for each Canadian.
Could we not be a bit more selective in where we focus our
resources? Did the hon. member do a cost analysis?
I would like to suggest there is a way to be selective and strategic
in the way in which our limited resources are employed. The
speech from the throne of February 27 of this year contains the
following statement:
The government will focus corrections resources on high-risk offenders
while increasing efforts to lower the number of young people who come into
conflict with the justice system. The government will develop innovative
alternatives to incarceration for low-risk offenders.
(1130 )
This motion is typical of measures that unselectively demand
indeterminate detention for crimes that should be targeted much
more carefully. I believe the important word here is carefully.
I trust prosecutors, courts and juries to pass the appropriate
judgments on sex offenders. We all expect that. The question that
must be asked is whether sex offenders are slipping through the
system. Are opportunities for dangerous offenders being missed?
Federal and provincial ministers of justice certainly agree the
dangerous offenders provisions are an extremely valuable tool if
used properly.
I note that during the last debate on this identical motion the
Minister of Justice made reference to the dangerous offender
flagging system. This system has been set up by the RCMP
working closely with the provinces. It allows police and
prosecutors to identify criminals who appear to demonstrate a high
and continuing risk of future violent conduct.
Police and crowns can then become aware of these individuals
through a flag placed on the data banks of the Canadian Police
Information Centre, CPIC. I am informed that most provinces and
territories have designated co-ordinators to operate the provincial
end of the system and that a number of offenders have already been
flagged. It is this kind of targeted measure that will make the
dangerous offender procedure more effective.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the dangerous
offender sentencing procedure as set out in part XXIV of the
Criminal Code is a well tailored scheme that meets the
requirements of the charter of rights and freedoms. The criteria are
reasonable and focus on a select group of high risk offenders.
If the sweeping, unselective amendments anticipated in this
motion were implemented there would be a considerable risk that
the entire dangerous offender scheme would be undermined and
discredited. I cannot support the motion.
1140
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to my hon. colleague who sits on the Justice committee with me.
I wonder if he feels that lawyers are the ones who should do the
psychiatric examination of people who have demonstrated by their
actions that they are dangerous to our children and other people
within society.
I rise to support my colleague's motion to amendment the
Criminal Code. If Motion No. 116 is adopted, the section of the
Criminal Code dealing with dangerous offenders will be altered to
allow for the examination of sex offenders by two psychiatrists to
determine their propensity to offend again.
If the psychiatrists conclude the offender is likely to commit or
attempt to commit another offence in the future, the attorney
general of the province may direct that an application be brought to
have the offender declared a dangerous offender.
On September 14 last year an article appeared in the Financial
Post containing figures from Correctional Services Canada. I
concur with the author's observations that these figures are
worrisome and clearly indicate the system does not protect the
public from convicted murders and other dangerous predators.
These figures demonstrate the need for my colleague's amendment
to the Criminal Code.
According to a chart furnished by the solicitor general to Diane
Francis, editor of the Financial Post, between 1989 and 1994 no
fewer than 78 people committed murder while on conditional
release.
If we had in place legislation allowing for the designation of
dangerous offenders prior to and following sentencing, if we had
eliminated statutory release and if we eliminated the patronage
appointment of parole board members, thereby ensuring only
qualified people are making the decision regarding the parole of
violent offenders, measures Reform has been advocating for well
over two years, we would have saved 78 lives in this five year
period, or at least the possibility of doing so would have been
present. We would have saved 1.3 lives each month during this
time.
(1135 )
We must move immediately to amend the Criminal Code to
ensure the public is protected from potential repeat offenders who
have demonstrated by their actions that they are a danger to our
children and members of society.
The same figures reveal that some 4,960 persons convicted of
lesser violent offences such as child molestation, manslaughter,
rape or attempted murder repeated their crimes while on
conditional release. These figures show we have a terrible record in
terms of judging whether a person has been rehabilitated after they
have demonstrated they pose a violent threat to members of
society.
Ms. Francis concluded that those figures are awful, and I agree
with her. Five thousand crimes against our children and other
innocent victims could have and should have been deterred or
prevented. Clearly the Criminal Code amendment my colleague
from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley has proposed will
assist in the prevention of these types of assaults.
The examination of these offenders and therefore the indefinite
incarceration of dangerous offenders will enhance public safety.
Sex offenders, especially child molesters, have a high rate of
recidivism. The only way to keep our children safe, the only way to
prevent sexual predators from taking victims and destroying the
life of another innocent child is to keep them locked up, to keep
them incarcerated indefinitely until there is absolutely no risk of
reoffending.
If we cannot protect society from those who have identified
themselves by their actions as dangerous to others, what chance
does our justice system really have?
A recent article in MacLean's reveals that psychologists and
criminologists agree that the best way to reduce recidivism rates is
by classifying offenders on the basis on the continuing risk they
represent to society, and in those cases in which the risk of
reoffending is high, classifying such offenders as dangerous.
Years ago the process of classification was fraught with guess
work but today research in Canada has led to vastly improved
techniques for classifying offenders. University of British
Columbia psychologist Robert Hare has developed a widely used
scale known as the psychopathy check list. Employing this list
during intense interviews with offenders, psychologists can with 75
per cent to 80 per cent accuracy determine whether an offender is a
dangerous psychopath.
This test is not only valuable in determining an offender's risk of
reoffending for the purpose of classifying them a dangerous
offender and thus providing for indefinite incarceration, it also
assists correctional services in determining how they may, if at all,
rehabilitate such offenders. Many experts agree the best way to
reduce the risk of repeat offenders is through intense counselling.
If Melvin Stanton and Joseph Fredericks had been examined by
psychiatrists, as recommended by my colleague, and if Daniel
Gingras had been subjected to Mr. Hare's test, the parole board
may not have had the opportunity to make such a disastrous
decision regarding the temporary absence or parole of this
convicted murderer and these two sex offenders.
In January 1988 Melvin Stanton, a violent sex offender, was
granted a temporary absence from an Ontario penitentiary and
within hours of getting out raped and murdered a young woman in
downtown Toronto.
1141
If Mr. Stanton had been classified a dangerous offender or if
the risk of his reoffending had been known, the parole board never
would have granted him leave and an innocent life never would
have been so violently snuffed out.
If parolee Joseph Fredericks had been recognized by the justice
system for what he really was, a sadistic pedophile, and
incarcerated accordingly, 11-year old Christopher Stephenson of
Brampton, Ontario would not have been abducted, raped and
fatally stabbed in June 1988.
If convicted murderer Daniel Gingras was not given a temporary
absence from an Edmonton institution in the summer of 1987, two
lives would have been saved. I urge members of all sides of the
House to vote in favour of this motion.
In the absence of such an amendment, Canadians will have to
take measures to defend their own lives and those of their children.
They will have to do what the mothers of Val-d'Or, Quebec have
done to protect themselves. They will have to plaster warning
pamphlets throughout their communities. They will have to keep
their doors locked and they will have to keep their children within
close range at all times; no bike rides through the park, no walking
home alone after school because they live in constant fear for their
children that they may fall victim to a sex offender.
(1140)
Convicted sex offender Joe Cannon, who is serving six months
for gross indecency and who has been convicted of six sexual
offences since 1988, will soon be eligible for temporary leave from
a prison in Val-d'Or. With no assurance from the justice system that
this offender will not strike again, residents can only minimize, not
eliminate, his chance of victimizing one of their children again.
In our judgment the only way the children of Val-d'Or can be
completely safe from this sex offender is if he kept in prison until
examiners, two psychiatrists, are absolutely certain he will not
reoffend. My colleague's amendment could provide that assurance.
The main objective of any proposed justice legislation or
amendment to the Criminal Code is to improve public safety. This
amendment meets that criterion. It will enhance personal security
by providing us with the assurance that sex offenders, those
offenders labelled dangerous, will not be released from prison until
there is an absolute sign that there is no risk of their harming our
children.
I urge members on all sides of the House to support this motion.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion. I have many
reservations about the motion which I will put on record.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley has
introduced a motion that calls for making it mandatory for the
crown, in all cases in which a person has been convicted of a sexual
offence involving a child or sexual assaults, to apply to the court to
have the offender declared a dangerous offender whenever two
psychiatrists are of the opinion that there is a danger the offender
will strike again.
The hon. member is asking the government to implement this
through an amendment to part XXIV of the Criminal Code, the part
that deals with dangerous offenders. Obviously the hon. member is
of the view that the dangerous offenders provision of the Criminal
Code needs improvement. Quite possibly it could be improved but
I am not sure the measure proposed by the hon. member would
carry the appropriate result.
I am not saying part XXIV should never be changed, but the
evolution of the dangerous offender concept and the restrictions the
charter of rights imposes on that concept indicate we should
proceed cautiously in broadening it or oversimplifying it.
The existing dangerous offender system has three components: a
focus on the most serious offences, a focus on the pattern of the
offender's conduct, and an assessment of the likelihood of the
offender's continuing his serious offending. These criteria must be
met if we are to justify locking up individuals indefinitely.
I will address one proposed change with which I disagree, a
proposal central to this motion, the mandatory aspect. The motion
provides that every time two psychiatrists determine that in effect
an offender poses a high risk of reoffending, the attorney general of
the province in which the offender was convicted shall direct that a
dangerous offender application be brought.
I do not support the elimination of the discretion of prosecutors
in the bringing of dangerous offender applications. It would be
unwise to do so. The criteria for a dangerous offender finding are
contained within the Criminal Code. This is a concept created by
criminal law and supported by criminal procedure.
It is true these criteria rely heavily on psychiatric prediction of
risk, but medical standards are not the only ones that have to be
met. Section 753 of the Criminal Code requires that the likelihood
of the offender's committing further harm must be established to
the satisfaction of the court. This is not entirely or even primarily a
matter of medical or statistical prediction but a legal decision made
according to criteria legislated by Parliament.
1142
The crown should possess the discretion, considering all
evidence available to it, to estimate whether an application will be
strong enough to meet this legal standard. If an application is
brought without meeting this legal standard, it is a waste of time
and resources and will not succeed.
(1145)
I also want to address the issue of broadening the scope of the
legislation. The motion would broaden part XXIV to capture any
sex offence against a child. This would include cases of sexual
interference under section 151 and an invitation to sexual touching
under section 152 of the Criminal Code. While these crimes carry a
maximum penalty of 10-year's imprisonment, individual offences
usually do not receive such lengthy sentences nor do they typically
involve the degree of violence envisioned in part XXIV. In
broadening the target group so much, the motion before us runs a
serious risk of conflicting with the charter and a 1987 Supreme
Court decision.
The current dangerous offender provisions came into the
Criminal Code in 1977 and replaced the habitual offenders
provisions that had been found to be too broad. These amendments
were designed to be more precise, to target the most serious
offenders and, similarly, to avoid widening the net too much. In
essence, Parliament was saying, let us target the worst offenders
without sweeping in the low risk and the nuisance cases.
The dangerous offender legislation passed a major hurdle with
the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Lyons in 1987. The
court ruled that the dangerous offender provisions did not violate
the charter of rights and freedoms. This case constitutes a firm
indication by the Supreme Court that any law that seeks to sentence
a citizen to an indefinite term in a penitentiary must be well
tailored and confined to the most serious circumstances.
In broadening the target groups so much, the motion before us
runs a serious risk of conflicting with this decision. I doubt that the
Supreme Court would find this much net widening consistent with
the charter, particularly when given the new rules prescribed
elsewhere in this motion. Crown attorneys would be forced to
launch many more applications. The court, as in the Lyons case,
would be vigilant to the potential for abuse in the overall structure
of the procedure.
In the same Lyons case, the Supreme Court also stated that it was
important for the crown to have some discretion in bringing
dangerous offender applications and that the absence of any such
discretion could lead to a conclusion that the law is arbitrary. That
could very well be the case if Parliament was to legislate according
to this motion before us today.
I would like to point out how successful part XXIV of the
Criminal Code has proven to be. Between 1977 and 1995
approximately 143 offenders were found to be dangerous offenders
and sentenced indeterminately to a Canadian penitentiary. Of that
number, 134 remain there still.
There are signs that the provinces are using the procedure more
often. Successful applications usually average eight or nine a year.
In 1993 there were 15 successful cases. In 1994 there were 13
cases. We all remember the recent designation of Paul Bernardo as
a dangerous offender.
I suggest that the current motion is not an appropriate way to
improve the dangerous offender legislation. I regret that I cannot
support this motion.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not pleased to speak on this bill today. As a matter of
fact, I am very upset that this Liberal government, which has a
majority in the House and has the power to enact laws to protect
our society, our families and our children and to follow through on
a promise of recognizing the need for safety in our society, refuses
to enact legislation that will do exactly that. It leaves it up to the
Reform Party, the opposition, to bring this type of motion to the
House of Commons.
While I am certainly anxious to support M-116, the motion of
the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, at the
same time I am really upset that it has been left up to an opposition
party to do this. Reformers have recognized the need to protect
society and are proud to do it.
(1150 )
After listening to the hon. members from the Bloc and the
Liberal Party speak, it must be said that we have just heard
members from these parties prefer to argue for the rights of sexual
offenders and sexual predators. They prefer to argue for those kinds
of rights as opposed to arguing for the rights of society as a whole
and the victims of these very sick people.
The motion the hon. member from Surrey-White Rock puts
forward seeks to amend the dangerous offender section of the
Criminal Code to ensure that sexual offenders, these predators, will
not be free to walk in society and offend again. They would be
declared dangerous offenders. This would happen if two
psychiatrists who are trained in assessing the character and the
mental makeup of the people who have committed these horrible
crimes stated that these people would reoffend again. The courts
would be bound to keep them in jail which is where they should be.
Being labelled a dangerous offender involves an indeterminate
prison sentence. There is a need for this amendment to the
legislation. One need only look back a few years to get a sense of
how poorly the justice system deals with people who sexually
offend.
It has been mentioned before but the House will remember the
case of Melanie Carpenter and her killer Fernand Auger, an
individual with a tremendously long history of sexual offences.
Before being released from prison a psychologist stated that
beyond a shadow of a doubt Mr. Auger would reoffend. The system
1143
knew he was going to reoffend but it let him go free. Now Melanie
Carpenter is dead because of it.
I am just amazed at these Liberal and Bloc members who, when
speaking against this motion, constantly refer back to the criminal
justice system as their rationale. The Canadian people know that
the criminal justice system stinks. It needs a complete overhaul.
Yet the Liberal and the Bloc members use it as their rationale to
speak against motions which will protect society. They say it
cannot be done because the criminal justice system states so and so
and they go on to relate what the justice system says.
The thinking that goes on in the minds of some members is
astounding. They try to defend the criminal justice system which
no Canadian would ever defend.
The present system is such that psychologists could have done
nothing to stop Mr. Auger's release. The system allowed this Auger
fellow to refuse treatment while he was in prison. This guy was a
sexual predator, a sexual offender. He was convicted. He went to
prison and he stated: ``I'm just going to stay for a while but I don't
need any treatment and I am not going to take it''. What happened?
The system let him out and he brutally killed someone.
Joseph Fredericks, a man with a long history of sexual offences
against children was released from a Toronto jail in 1988. Despite
the fact that there was a 99 per cent chance that he would reoffend,
the system let him go. The system put him back into society. The
system did not have the power to keep him incarcerated even
though the system knew he would reoffend. He abducted, raped and
killed Christopher Stephenson. The system let him go. Once again
the system failed. As a result the Stephenson's lost their son.
(1155 )
More recently, in my home town of Prince George, we learned
that Bobby Gordon Oatway, a twice convicted sexual offender, a
pedophile, a predator of little children, was being released from
prison on parole even though he had refused treatment in prison,
even though the corrections people, the parole people, knew
beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was most likely to offend again.
Out the door he walks. He was coming to Prince George.
Had it not been for a phone call from one of his victims in the
lower mainland of B.C. to Prince George letting people know he
was coming, he would have come back into our community
probably totally undetected. Chances are that he would have
committed an offence there.
After the citizens were warned that he was coming, on their own
and without the help from the justice system because the system let
this Mr. Oatway out in the first place, mounted a campaign and
distributed posters. This changed Mr. Oatway's mind and he did
not come to Prince George. Unfortunately he is in Toronto now and
they are faced with the same problem. They have a predator in their
community who is likely to offend again. The system failed. He
will offend against innocent children who are just enjoying being
kids only to be victimized by some sexual predator, some sick
person.
Canadians believe that the justice system is severely deficient
when it comes to protecting society from these sick, sexual
predators. M-116 goes a long way to addressing the situation. It
ensures that dangerous sexual offenders will be kept in prison so
that our streets, our playgrounds, our schoolyards and our
communities can be safe again.
Why should parents have to worry about where their kids play,
how they go to school? Why should parents have to worry about
their kids going to a playground and having a good time, like kids
are supposed to do? They have to worry because the justice system
lets people who are sexual predators out on the streets. That is
unfair.
The government has had lots of chances to improve the law as it
applies to this type of offender. When the Liberals passed Bill C-45
last year, my colleagues in the Reform Party put forward a number
of amendments to address sexual offenders and ways to fix the
system so that society would not have to fear these people.
Specifically, they argue in favour of a child sex offender registry
which would identify them so that citizens could take precautions
on their own where the justice system fails them.
As well, they argued in favour of sex offenders having to serve
their full sentence and undergo-this will come as a real shock to
Liberals-mandatory treatment while in prison. Needless to say the
Liberals did not adopt any of these proposals and society remains
vulnerable to these sick people who prey on little children and
commit other sexual offences.
The problem with the government, as mentioned in the opening
part of my speech, is that it is concerned more for the rights of
criminals. Victims' rights come second as far as the Liberals are
concerned. While a lot of bureaucrats sit around and muse over
how to protect criminals' rights, these offenders are wandering
around anonymously in our neighbourhoods.
(1200)
The Canadian Police Association got into the heart of the issue in
a submission given to MPs in 1993. It stated: ``We think we should
rethink the basic assumption that dangerous risk high offenders
must be released no matter what danger they pose''. Policemen in
our streets are dealing with these people on a daily basis. They
know these people. They know the chances of them reoffending.
1144
They want to keep them off the streets. That is exactly what Motion
M-116 addresses.
We must question the logic in simply allowing the justice system
to keep releasing these offenders. I might add that we have to
question releasing them when their chance of reoffending is very
high. Seventy per cent of all inmates who are dangerous offenders
have at least one prior federal sentence. These individuals are hard
core criminals and it is not overly difficult to identify them.
Similar to the Canadian Police Association position, the group
CAVEAT released a report called ``Safety Net''. It called for
dangerous offender applications to be brought against high risk
offenders in order to protect the public. This should be the ultimate
role of our justice system: the protection of society, our families
and our communities. Unfortunately, it seems as though it has been
turned on its head according to the Liberal and Bloc members, and
criminals' rights come first. That is a shame.
In November 1994 the supreme court ruled that sex offenders
could no longer be automatically banned for life from hanging
around parks, school yards and playgrounds. The justice system
says that people who prey on and victimize little kids cannot be
kept from areas where little kids play. That is a sign of a very sick
system. What is even more distressing is that the government
supports that decision.
I cannot support the government's position on this. I will support
Motion M-116. I urge all members who are concerned about the
public, the families and the children of the country to support it as
well.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, the hour for consideration
of private members' business has now expired. Therefore, the order
is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order
Paper.
_____________________________________________
1144
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from Friday, March 22, consideration of Bill
C-14, an act to continue the National Transportation Agency as the
Canadian Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the
National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act and to
amend or repeal others acts as a consequence, as reported with
amendments from the committee, and of motions in Group No.8.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Motion No. 18 relates to clause 98, which reads:
98.(1) A railway company shall not construct a railway line without the
approval of the Agency.
(2) The Agency may, on application by the railway company, grant the
approval if it considers that the location of the railway line is reasonable, taking
into consideration requirements for railway operations and services and the
interests of the localities that will be affected by the line.
These are excellent provisions, and an effort is made to take into
consideration the needs of the users, the company and the region.
All that is fine but incomplete. There are two other equally
important elements, which our motion is designed to include.
The first of these two elements is the environment. We are
surprised to note that the legislation does not state that, before
granting approval, the environmental impact must be considered,
given that constructing a railway line will obviously change the
urban or rural landscape and that an environmental impact
assessment is therefore required.
(1205)
The second element that was overlooked-and this clearly
reflects the general attitude of this government, which constantly
overlooks the interests, priorities and jurisdictions of the
provinces-as part of the process for granting the approval to
construct a railway line is consultation, the mere fact of consulting
the province or provinces affected before granting this approval.
Yet, land use planning is specifically a provincial field of
activity, a provincial area of jurisdiction, either directly or by
delegation, because the development plans are prepared by the
provinces and approved by the provincial government under which
the municipalities come. In particular, corridors may or may not
have been provided or approved by the province in these plans for a
line to eventually go through the area.
If the allowance, the right of way was not provided for in the
development plan for a railway line to go through, it is obvious that
changes will have to be made. It is really unthinkable that the
federal government go ahead without even consulting the province
concerned. This is typical of the way the federal government deals
with the provinces, and that is why our motion adds that the
granting of the approval to construct a new railway line shall also
be subject to ``the obtaining of an environmental assessment and
compliance with zoning by-laws in the municipalities in any
province affected by the railway line''.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with regard to the Bloc motion, there is some merit in it in
terms of environmental considerations however, on reviewing this,
had it been worded a little differently it would have been easier to
support. The way the motion reads it is a cumbersome process
which would grind work to a halt. It is not workable.
1145
Motion No. 19 is also connected in some way to what the Bloc
raised, which were the concerns of municipalities within the
various provinces affected by rail activity. Railways have property
which must be crossed from time to time either by the
municipalities for infrastructure work or by utility companies in
order to supply service to the general public. Often permission is
required to make these crossings, either with an overhead crossing
or more often an underhead crossing.
The concerns raised by both the municipalities and utility
companies are that in the event of rail line abandonment or selling
off of the rail lines, they have no tenure on these crossings. They
would like something put into the bill which would ensure the
infrastructure would continue in the interests of the general public.
Obviously, it would be a great hardship for a municipality if
suddenly a water or sewer line which crossed rail property was
ruled improper and had to be rerouted.
I suspect it will be suggested by the other side that it could be
taken care of by getting an expropriation and that is right. The land
could be expropriated which would of course mean going to court
with lawyers and delays and uncertainty. This is not a company
benefit or profit for an individual or an individual company. This is
just something to address the needs of the taxpayers in the affected
area. It is worthwhile. It is not something which will be a hardship
to the rail lines. I ask that all members of the House give it serious
consideration.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened quite carefully to the amendment proposed by the member.
I should say that the government does not support the motion
because it is not consistent with the current environmental
legislation regarding circumstances and responsibilities for
conducting environmental assessments. While I understand where
the hon. member is coming from, he should realize there is an
inconsistency in the motion.
(1210)
With regard to the subject of local conditions, the hon. member
should read section 98(2) again. We believe that the consideration
of local conditions is already adequately covered in 98(2) and for
that reason we do not believe that this motion should be supported.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 18 in
Group No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I think colleagues there were not
sufficient members in the House at the time of the calling of the
matter.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do believe there
may be more than five who have come in now, but at the actual
time the fifth member was standing at the back by his desk.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no doubt at all. The member is
right. There are more than five now, but unfortunately when there
was the standing vote, there were not five and accordingly the
matter would fail then on division.
Motion No. 19 negatived.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-14, in Clause 106, be amended in the English version
(a) by replacing line 24, on page 46, with the following:
``ment, bailment, mortgage or hypothec or as a lessor or'';
1146
(b) by replacing line 31, on page 46, with the following:
``tions under the security agreement, bailment, mort-''; and
(c) by replacing lines 33 to 35, on page 46, with the following:
``(b) any event that occurred before or after the scheme was filed and that
constitutes a default under the security agreement, bailment, mort-''.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-14, in Clause 133, be amended in the French version, by replacing
line 14, on page 61, with the following:
``sur ses lignes-et, le cas échéant, sur des dis-''.
(1215 )
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-14, be amended by adding after line 11, on page 94, the
following:
``CN Commercialization Act
210.1 Subsections 3(2) and (3) of the CN Commercialization Act are
replaced by the following:
(2) Nothing in, or done under the authority of, this Act affects the operation
of the Competition Act in respect of the acquisition of any interest in CN.''
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 275.
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 276.
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-14, in Clause 278, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 37, on
page 120, with the following:
``278. If this section comes into force before the day fixed by order under
section 24 of the Budget Implementation Act, 1995, then the definition
``Agency'' in section 2 of the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act is replaced
by the following:''.
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-14, in Clause 279, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on
page 120, and lines 1 to 6, on page 121, with the following:
``279. If this section comes into force before the day fixed by order under
section 25 of the Budget Implementation Act, 1995, then''.
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 280.
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 281.
Motion No. 80
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 282.
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-14, in Part I of Schedule IV, be amended by replacing, on page
135, the following:
``Central Butte M 44.0 Riverhurst (M 110.5) 66.5''.
with the following:
``Central Butte M 44.2 Riverhurst (M 110.5) 66.3''.
Motion No. 82
That Bill C-14, in Part II of Schedule IV, be amended by replacing, on page
135, the following:
``Gretna-La Rivière Gretna (M 14.1) Altona (M 21.4) 7.3''.
with the following:
``Gretna-La Rivière Gretna (M 14.1) Altona (M 6.8) 7.3''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, all these amendments are essentially
technical. They are to bring the French text in conformity with the
English and vice versa on a number of motions, that is Motions
Nos. 22 and 26.
Furthermore, these amendments reflect the fact that other pieces
of legislation in draft at the time this bill was first tabled before the
House have now been proclaimed, for example the Budget
Implementation Act, 1995 or the CN Commercialization Act.
Therefore there is a need to bring it into conformity with what
has been passed, Motions Nos. 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80.
The final group, Motions Nos. 81 and 82, is to correct geographic
references to branch lines identified in schedule IV of the bill.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 22. All
those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Agreed to by unanimous consent. I therefore declare Motions
Nos. 26, 81 and 82 carried.
(Motions Nos. 22, 26, 81 and 82 agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be unanimous
consent to have that vote applied to Motions Nos. 71, 74, 76 and
78.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the whip for the Bloc Quebecois
agree?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: Agreed.
Mr. Althouse: Agreed.
(1220 )
Motions Nos. 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 agreed to.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 112.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-14, in Clause 112, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 49, with
the following:
1147
``must be commercially fair and reasonable to all parties.''
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this clause
has been quite contentious among the users in the grain industry.
They have some difficulty with the phrase ``commercially fair and
reasonable'' which clause 112 contains.
This is not something that I alone was concerned about in the
House. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster had also
attempted to move a similar motion, hence the support by my hon.
friend from Lisgar-Marquette.
The problem is that the provisions of this clause are to provide
an interpretive direction to the Canadian transport agency when it
is setting rates or conditions of service as they apply to carriers.
Since the clause now reads ``a rate or condition of service
established by the agency under this division must be
commercially fair and reasonable'', a lot of the witnesses who were
before the transport committee, including the prairie pools, the
National Farmer's Union, the three prairie provincial governments,
indicated they could not support such a provision because there was
no clear definition as to what constitutes fair and reasonable.
It was also indicated that clause 113 was to serve as a general
guideline for the NTA. If that were the case, this kind of guideline
should be conveyed to the agency through means other than
legislation.
In their submission to the transport committee the three prairie
governments stated clause 113 provides yet another potential
avenue for railways to delay the process and to appeal rates
established by formulas for interswitching and competitive line
rates.
Since a large number of the people who will be affected by this
clause think it should be dropped, I am in agreement and propose
this amendment to strike this clause from the legislation.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we support this amendment because of the overwhelming
request for that by all the people who intervened at the committee
level.
As I said earlier in debate, I do not see why the Liberals would
hold committee meetings, paying for interpreters, paying for all the
technicians, paying for the research people, the clerk and all the
others who come before the committee if they are not prepared to
listen to those who come.
One of the people who came before the committee was Mr.
Ashley from the National Transportation Agency. I specifically
asked him the meaning of ``commercially fair and reasonable''. His
response was there is no specifically defined position since it may
mean rather than it would.
This was to cause a lot of uncertainty for shippers who wish to
bring their cases before the agency. It also means a great boost for
the law profession, as it argues the two opposite extremes of this
definition.
(1225)
It was not there before. The vast majority of people who came
before the committee do not want to see it there now. We have not
seen any evidence to suggest it serves a useful purpose. We would
like to see that taken out and we are very happy to add our support
to the hon. member for Mackenzie in his attempts to have this
removed.
Motion No. 24 ties into the same thing. It is an amendment to
what is now clause 112. It is not necessarily a good amendment. It
would be ideal to have the clause removed completely, in which
case Motion No. 24 would simply disappear.
If the government intends to use its majority to push through a
decision that was unpopular among shippers, among the majority
of people who came before the board, and that was not even
supported by the National Transportation Agency, with great
reluctance we will probably support Motion No. 24 because it is the
equivalent of losing only a finger or two when you had been
threatened with losing your entire arm. I do not think it is that good.
It is probably more like losing it above or below the elbow. That
would be a more appropriate analogy.
Motion No. 24 does not make much improvement. If the
Liberals are condescending enough to allow us to have that little
crumb and will not do what is right, we will have to take whatever
is left over.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the words of my friends opposite, although I
believe we should put this in the context of the examination that
has taken place in committee.
It is true that our committee members, including opposition
members, are bound to listen to and consider any position brought
forward. However, this is the difference between this side of the
House and the other. It is not simply the weight of people who
arrive as witnesses that determine the outcome.
We do not believe we can have our role as government, as
representatives of the people of Canada somehow suspended
because a group of people, a large number of people, come on one
side or the other. We have to analyse the merits of what is said and
not simply count up the number of people who oppose or support a
particular measure.
With respect to Motion No. 23, the committee did that. It
considered the representations made and it came to the unanimous
conclusion that this section of the bill did not require immense
substantive amendment. In its view a regulatory decision must be
accepted as being in good faith and must be considered fair and
1148
reasonable. We cannot accept the intent of this motion which
implies the opposite if we have any confidence whatsoever in the
regulatory bodies the House sets up.
We do not support this motion, although I can assure hon.
members it was carefully considered. The intent put forward is
taken care of by the wording of the current bill.
With respect to Motion No. 24, the words listed are ``must be
commercially fair and reasonable to all parties''. Obviously this is
a government motion which we support for the following reasons.
The provision gives guidance to the agency when it takes over from
commercial negotiations between the parties so as to impose a rate
or a level of service on the railway.
It is assumed that at the point when it takes over the commercial
deliberations between the two parties have broken down. At that
point the agency must have the guidance of this section, and it will.
It must look at balance to ensure that when it examines the rate it
will be fair and reasonable to all the parties.
Some stakeholders have said this phrase is unclear and will
create excessive litigation. I do not believe so at all. In my view the
average person in the public, the average person watching the
televised proceedings of the House today will have pretty good idea
in their own mind of what is fair and reasonable.
I think excessive use of the courts to get the lawyers to argue
something which is not fair and reasonable, not the common sense
meaning, would not succeed when we have a good regulatory
agency such as the NTA.
(1230 )
Some litigation is inevitable with any new piece of legislation. It
happened with the major transportation bills in 1967 and again 20
years later in 1987 and it will happen with this one. There will be
challenges, of course. It happens every time there is a legislative
change.
As to the claim that there are going to be hundreds of cases, let
me just observe that the costs of litigation make that prohibitive,
costs not only in terms of dollars but also in terms of time. These
costs fall on all parties. Railways and shippers know that after one,
two or three key cases they will have all the clarity they need from
the NTA and the courts. What we will get as a result of the change
are more successful commercial agreements for the rail service,
which is the objective, where both parties and the entire Canadian
economy wind up as the winners.
Clause 112 in the Canada Transportation Act, that the rate
imposed by the agency be commercially fair and reasonable to all
parties, is important and indeed vital for rail renewal in Canada
which is obviously in the interests of producers and shippers as
well. This will help put the required new balance into the formula
for the benefit of all Canadians. Therefore, we definitely support
Motion No. 24, just as we must oppose Motion No. 23.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to speak to the amendment by my colleague from the NDP and to
the support he has received from the Reform Party.
This is an important discussion. I sat on the committee and from
my railway experience I can say that this is obviously something
that has stacked up against the railways for a number of years. If we
are going to have a successful railway industry and a transportation
sector which will deliver the services required, there must be a
significant balance.
In 1987 when the Tory government brought in the NTA, it
brought in some regulatory changes but stacked them on top of
each other. Because of that stacking there were some problems with
the act which these amendments are trying to change. The rationale
is that if we are going to go to a more commercially driven
transportation sector, the process must be in place for it to be
successful.
Most intriguing is that on the one hand the Reform Party has
continually said that governments should not get in the way of free
market enterprise and allow companies to make decisions on their
own. We all know that commercially fair and reasonable means
that agencies are given the objective of making decisions on behalf
of two complainants. For instance when a shipper disputes what the
railway would like to charge there must be some form of criteria
laid out in order for them to make decisions and arrive at a result.
The process in the amendment the minister has added which affects
all parties is intended to make sure that the parties are relatively
successful in Canada.
One thing the opposition has failed to bring forward so far in the
discussion but which came forward in committee is that since 1987
the line rates and the cost to the railways have increased 30 per
cent. In fact railway companies in this country have had significant
problems in making a profit. I know the NDP are suggesting this
but I am quite surprised that the Reform Party is in agreement. If
they are suggesting that the government bail out the railways every
time they do not make a profit, we can then go back to the
regulatory system which is in place now.
(1235 )
People would go to the agency only for one reason. The agency
would make a decision on whether it is fair and commercially
viable for the railway to up its cost per commodity. Under the
present system, that has not taken place and therefore, there have
been problems with it all along. The intent of these new regulations
and changes is to put the balance back where it belongs. It is the
same argument with labour-management relations. If there is not a
good balance then it does not work. The same thing occurred with
the 1987 amendments. Of course, the grain farmers and shippers in
1149
western Canada are opposed to this. There will be stronger,
businesslike discussions and debate which will go on before they
go to the agency.
I reiterate that when I was in committee not everybody agreed
that this was a bad thing as the member who spoke previous to me
suggested. There were different groups of thought. If we go to a
commercially based industry and system and if the government
stops subsidizing the railway industry, it would have to have the
means and the capability to be successful. That is what this
rebalancing does.
The amendment the government has proposed will prove over
the years that this is good for Canada in the long run. It is not going
to be successful if we use the short term arguments of the
opposition. We will be revisiting this as we did in the 1920s, in the
1940s and in the 1970s and bailing out railway industries because
we have not allowed them the tools to be successful. That is why
this amendment is so important to the overall viability of the
industry itself and of course to all of us who need to get our
products to market.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question on
Group No. 10?
Some hon. members: Question.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 23. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the proposed
motion stands deferred.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 39, on page 68, the following
new clause:
``146.18 On the coming into force of this Division, sections 268 to 270 of the
Railway Act shall apply to the provision of passenger-train services only in the
following circumstances:
(a) the passenger train service have been determined by the Agency to be in
the public interest; or
(b) the Governor in Council has declared a route or segment of a route of Via
Rail Canada Inc. to be a protected route.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you talking about Group No. 12 or
Group No. 11?
The Deputy Speaker: Group No. 12.
We considered Group No. 11 last Friday, at which time we also
deferred the division on these motions.
[English]
Perhaps I should read the motion. It is in the same group.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could you advise
whether we dispensed with Motion No. 24 in Group No. 10?
The Deputy Speaker: The matter of Motion No. 24 will be
disposed of after the deferred vote.
Mr. Zed: Motion No. 24 as well?
The Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 23 was deferred and its rise
or fall depends on what happens with Motion No. 23.
(1240 )
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-14, in Clause 185, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 86,
with the following:
``(2) Sections 264 to 267, 344, 345 and 358.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, cut to its most simplistic form, this motion
would require the agency to determine whether or not a passenger
train service was in the public interest. It would say that the
governor in council has declared a route or segment of a route of
VIA Rail to be a protected route. Essentially it would require the
agency to determine whether a line that carries passengers should
be protected, particularly in areas such as northern Ontario where
80 per cent to 90 per cent of the customers along the route have no
other access to their destinations except by rail. The basic
difference is that this would be required, instead of a clause where
the agency may use these as considerations.
While Motion No. 70 lists a bunch of numbers, essentially it
would make the proper corrections. Since this amendment would
deal with sections 268 to 270 of the Railway Act, Motion No. 70
would simply drop those numbers from the succeeding clause in
the bill because that would no longer be necessary. Motion No. 70
is simply housekeeping contingent upon Motion No. 56 passing.
1150
The question here is whether a fully deregulated system can in
fact perform a function for isolated areas. I note that some
witnesses from the coalition for service to northern Ontario began
their commentaries by saying that they began their work over a
year ago believing strongly that they would seek market driven
solutions to the ills that plague transport rather than once again
looking to governments to save the railroads.
This spring however the coalition reluctantly came to the
conclusion that when it came to rail passenger service, services in
northern Ontario were no different from rail passenger services
elsewhere in the world and that specifically, northern Ontario
services understood that the passengers by themselves were not in a
position, nor were they willing to pay for the full cost of such rail
based service. Someone other than the fee payer would be needed
to pay the difference in cost. They went on to point out the amount
of subsidy which has been paid to maintain some of the lines in
northern Ontario. I suspect we would find subsidies being paid to
maintain service in other parts of the country as well when it comes
to rail passenger service.
The intent of this amendment is to recognize that there are some
places which will not be able to pay for the service on a user pay
basis, that those parts of the country are important and that
therefore we all should pay a little bit in order to maintain access to
those regions for the people who live there. That is after all what a
country is supposed to be about. It was the original rail service
requirement in the Constitution to link the various colonies and
regions of the country together.
Even though we are going to a deregulated system, there will
always be some parts of the country in which full deregulation will
make absolutely no sense, such as the many communities in
northern Ontario. This particular amendment would require the
agency to take that into consideration before it decided whether to
provide a service.
(1245 )
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am going
to speak against this motion for some very obvious reasons. The
NDP are still stuck about the 1920s. Its members do not seem to
have been able to take a good look at what this bill intends to do.
The bill is intended to take the public interest out of a mode of
transportation. It treats railroads just like truckers or shippers or
anybody else. That is not to suggest that the agency is the final
arbitrator of the public interest.
The legislation states that if there is something in the public
interest it can be taken to members of Parliament. They are there to
fight for a particular rail line if it is being subsidized. It will be a
transparent subsidization that will be dealt with based on the
merits of a certain region.
To send it to a non-elected body which on the one hand looks at
the commercial side of issues but on the other hand what Canada's
public interest is and what the beliefs are of the government of day,
suggests to me that it is skewing the whole process of having
successful transportation systems.
Section 48 permits the minister to enter into support agreements
for the continuation of rail passenger service. From my experience
and knowledge, that is what has been done in northern Ontario. I
take offence at the member's suggestion that all of a sudden the
government is going to leave northern Ontario in the lurch.
The other issue is one I have mentioned before. I believe the
people who should deal with the public interest are those of us in
the House. The agencies are there to make sure that the
transportation system functions and runs properly. That is why the
public interest scenario has been taken out of the bill.
I suggest to members that we get into the modern age and
understand what is the intent of a rail transportation system. It is to
get product to market as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Rail
transportation, as far as passenger service is concerned, is a
different issue and should be dealt with in a different arena which
happens to be this one here.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Group No. 12,
Motions Nos. 56 and 70. All those in favour of the Motion No. 70
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare Motion No. 70 defeated on division. Therefore Motion
No. 56 is defeated.
(Motions Nos. 56 and 70 negatived.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: We now go on to Group No. 13.
Mr. Paul Mercier (for Mr. Guimond) moved:
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 147.
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 148.
Motion No. 59
1151
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 149.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 150.
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 151.
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 152.
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 153.
Motion No. 64
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 154.
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 155.
(1250)
[English]
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 66
That Bill C-14, in Clause 155, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 21, on
page 72, with the following:
``(2) The Minister shall lay before the House of Commons a report
concerning the review made under subsection (1) within thirty sitting days after
the review is completed.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will defend Motions Nos. 57 to 65 together. They have
the same purpose, are related to clauses 147 to 155 and are not
intended to amend them. The sole purpose of the motions is to
delete these clauses from the bill.
These provisions are back, with special benefits for Western
grain transportation. We are opposed to such benefits. Let us
remember that just a few days ago, in this House, the hon. member
for Frontenac expressed his disagreement with the fact that dairy
subsidies had been eliminated, with no compensation for dairy
producers, while the same had not been the case for Western grain
transportation and production.
These clauses deal with the introduction of a maximum rate and
special conditions for the transportation of Western grain. These
provisions were introduced in the 1987 legislation, when the
Western Grain Transportation Act, the so-called WGTA, was
repealed and the subsidy eliminated. But Western farmers were
generously compensated, to the tune of close to $3 billion, for the
elimination of the subsidy and the WGTA. In this bill, the
government is reintroducing the provisions introduced in the 1987
legislation.
Western farmers have been very well compensated, unlike their
counterparts in Quebec, as I have just mentioned. They should
therefore be able to cope with the new conditions for transportation
in the West, and to adapt to a rail system operating on a strictly
commercial basis, as is the case here.
Treating Eastern and Western shippers on an unequal footing can
only result in an inequitable development of the rail system by
adversely affecting the resources that shippers in the Eastern
network can invest. It is for these reasons that we are asking that
these clauses be deleted from the bill.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to make a couple of short observations.
If this motion is passed, it will negatively impact on western
grain transportation. If Bloc Quebecois members were to rise in the
House and say that they are a regional party, interested in specific
partisan points within the province of Quebec, then their motion
would be perfectly understandable.
However, for them to say that they are a national opposition
party, the official opposition, and vote on such partisan views is
totally unacceptable. We will not be supporting this motion.
(1255 )
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
grouping of the motions includes one from me. It states that Bill
C-14 on page 72, section 155, requires a review where:
-the minister shall, in consultation with shippers, railway companies and any
other persons that the Minister considers appropriate, conduct and complete a
review of the effect of this Act, and in particular this Division, on the efficiency
of the grain transportation and handling system and on the sharing of efficiency
gains as between shippers and railway companies.
As we go further through section 155 which creates this study in
the future, nothing requires the study to be made public. This
motion has the effect of requiring that the results of such a study be
laid before the House of Commons within 30 days of the
completion of the review.
This is quite common and normal for reviews structured under
acts of Parliament. I presume it was an error on the part of the
government and it was simply missed. I expect that the government
will be supportive of this since it has a similar kind of clause in 48
which deals with extraordinary disruptions to the system and those
extraordinary disruptions are reported to the House of Commons.
As well in clause 43, the minister tables the annual reports of the
Canadian Transport Agency.
On such an important issue as this review of whether the whole
system of deregulation has or has not worked, it is obvious that the
House of Commons would and should be interested. I am sure it
was simply an oversight on the part of the government and I expect
the motion will be supported at the time of the vote.
1152
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 57. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The deferred division will also apply to Motions
Nos. 58 to 65.
[English]
Mr. Althouse: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I understood that
you had included Motion No. 66 in the last group. It was not
decided how to deal with it.
The Deputy Speaker: The question on the member's motion
will only be put depending on how the vote comes out on motion
No. 57.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP) moved:
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 25, on page 72, the following
new Clause:
``155.1(1) After consultation with such participants as the Agency deems
appropriate, the Agency shall, on or before March 31, 1997, on the basis of the
most recent calendar or crop year for which appropriate costing information is
available, complete a review of and determine, for that year, the volume-related
variable costs of the railway companies for the movement of grain and the
line-related variable costs of the railway companies for grain-dependent branch
lines as designated by the Agency pursuant to section 41 of the Western Grain
Transportation Act.
(2) In carrying out the review and making the determination referred to in
subsection (1), the Agency shall
(a) take into account all costs actually incurred that are directly related to the
provision of an adequate, reliable and efficient railway transportation system
that will meet future requirements for the movement of grain;
(b) compute the costs of capital and adjust that cost by any amount it deems
justified in light of the risks associated with the movement of grain;
(c) exclude the costs of capital and depreciation in respect of branch line
assets provided under the Prairie Branch Line Rehabilitation Program and in
respect of railway cars that have not been funded by the railway companies;
(d) exclude the costs incurred by the railway companies in providing for and
holding public meetings referred to in section 56.1 of the Western Grain
Transportation Act;
(e) reduce the additional costs directly attributable to the joint line movement
referred to in sections 49 and 50 of that Act by an amount equal to the
additional revenues derived by the railway companies pursuant to those
sections; and
(f) reduce the additional costs directly attributable to the acquisition by the
railway companies of railway cars for the movement of grain other than box
cars or hopper cars by an amount equal to the additional revenues derived by
the railway companies pursuant to sections 51 and 52 of that Act.
(3) The Agency shall, on or before March 31, 1997 and on or before March 31
of every fourth year thereafter, complete a further review and determination of
costs in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) on the basis of the most recent
calendar or crop year for which appropriate costing information is available.
(4) In carrying out the review referred to in subsection (1) and further review
made pursuant to subsection (3), the Agency shall assess the appropriateness of
the level of the contribution to the constant costs of the railway companies
referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition ``estimated eligible costs'' in
subsection 34(1) of the Western Grain Transportation Act and make
recommendations to the Minister thereon.
(5) In assessing the appropriateness of the level of the contribution referred
to in subsection (4), the Agency shall be guided by the following objectives:
(a) to ensure that the overall revenues of the railway system are adequate to
meet its long-term needs; and
(b) to ensure that the contribution to constant cost provided by the movement of
grain is fair in relation to the contribution provided by other commodities.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion falls neatly behind the one I
spoke to just a few moments ago. It fleshes out a little more the
kinds of consultations the agency should engage in when doing a
review. It is for an earlier review than the one required under the
previous motion. In the previous motion the review was to be
completed by 1999. This sets out similar guidelines for a review,
which I suppose if one was a social scientist, an economist or an an
accountant, would say that this establishes the base line for the
future review. It establishes the same parameters and the same
requirements. It looks at the same things the review in 1999 will
look at but does it on the first year of the agency's activities. We
will see in 1999 whether progress is made.
(1300)
It will be very difficult to do a proper job of the review in 1999 if
there is no base study done now. This sets up the opportunity for the
agency to conduct such a base study. It will clearly establish the
real costs of the system as of this coming year. When we have the
review in 1999 we will know whether progress has been made and
whether the act is a success or a failure.
1153
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 67. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare
Motion No. 67 defeated.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the divisions at the
end of report stage.
Call in the members.
The deputy whip for the government party has requested a
deferral until 6 p.m. tonight. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
On the Order: Government Orders:
March 14, 1996-The Minister of Transport-Second reading and reference
to the Standing Committee on Transport of Bill C-20, an act respecting the
commercialization of civil air navigation services.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation
services, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to refer the
civil air navigation services commercialization act to the Standing
Committee on Transport. As members know, the navigation system
is the network of air traffic control services, flight information
services, aviation weather services and navigational aids necessary
for the safe and expeditious movement of aircraft across the
country.
It is customary for the underlying principle of a bill to be debated
before it is referred to the committee. That debate usually occurs at
second reading. However, in the case of this legislation the debate
has taken place over the course of the past two years, and a very
extensive debate it has been.
The government first announced it would study
commercialization of the air navigation system in the 1994 budget.
Hon. members debated the merits of commercialization at that
time.
The not for profit model set out in the legislation was chosen by
an advisory committee composed of users, unions and other
stakeholders. The committee studied seven different options for
commercialization. It consulted with interested parties across
Canada. Many Canadians from coast to coast debated the merits of
commercialization during the consultative process. I pay tribute to
the energy and dedication displayed by members of the committee
from all sides of the House in that exercise.
The government announced its decision to proceed with
commercialization of air navigation in the 1995 budget. Hon.
members were again afforded the opportunity to debate this
decision. There has been already considerable debate on the
underlying principle of this bill. Because so many have been given
the chance to contribute there is today broad support for this piece
of legislation.
(1305)
As the House knows, Nav Canada was incorporated in May 1995
under the part II of the Canada Corporations Act for the purpose of
developing, operating and maintaining the air navigation system.
Highly successful negotiations have resulted in an agreement in
principle between the government, Nav Canada and the involved
unions. Under this agreement Transport Canada will transfer the
navigation system to Nav Canada for $1.5 billion. This will make a
significant contribution to the government's deficit reduction
efforts, efforts to which the governor general in the speech from the
throne paid tribute a few weeks ago.
Subject to the review and the approval of Parliament and the
receipt of royal assent, this transfer is set for July 1 this year, a very
significant date in Canadian history.
Nav Canada will receive all the assets used by Transport Canada
in the provision of air navigation services. This includes land,
equipment and other items required to ensure the system's
continued safe and effective operation.
After the transfer Nav Canada will be responsible for providing
all of the air navigation services currently provided by Transport
Canada including air traffic services, community aerodrome radio
services, aeronautical telecommunications, aeronautical
information services and aviation weather services.
Transport Canada will be responsible for ensuring the continued
safe provision of these services. The new safety regulations
developed specifically to address the commercialization of the air
1154
navigation system will be in place before the transfer happens.
Transport Canada will monitor and enforce these regulations in
much the same way it now does with the air carrier industry.
Nav Canada will be required to have an internal safety
management program. In addition, the corporation will not be
permitted to reduce the service it provides where it would
jeopardize safety. Furthermore, the Aeronautics Act which
establishes the regulatory framework to maintain safety in the
aviation industry will always take precedence over the
commercialization legislation.
I mentioned a moment ago that we have reached agreement in
principle with all parties in this project. I underline this includes
unprecedented support from the very people who will be most
affected by commercialization, the employees working in the
system itself. Their support is outlined in a memorandum of
understanding between Transport Canada and the employee
bargaining agents. Under this memorandum, which was signed last
September, current collective agreements will continue to apply.
Bargaining agents will have successor rights until Nav Canada and
its employees reach their own agreements between each other.
Those who use the air navigational system have likewise
endorsed this legislation, and no wonder. The government projects
that costs will come down, possibly within two to three years, as
private sector management principles take hold of the system, as
subsidies are phased out and as the regulations governing the air
navigation system are streamlined.
There are concerns of isolated communities and they are
reflected in this legislation as well. The act ensures continued
provision of air navigational services to northern and remote
communities. It also includes a process to involve provincial and
territorial governments should any service reductions be proposed
by Nav Canada in the future.
Following established practice and in keeping with Nav
Canada's national role, the provisions of the Official Languages
Act will also apply throughout Nav Canada as if it were a federal
institution.
(1310)
Nav Canada must maintain services to humanitarian or
emergency flights in the event of any work stoppage that might
occur.
The commercialization of the air navigation system is a key part
in the government's efforts to modernize the Canadian
transportation system. It complements our other transportation
initiatives including the commercialization of federal airports,
seaports and harbours, the privatization of Canadian National
Railways, the commercialization of ferry services and the
conversion of Transport Canada's motor vehicle test centre to a
government owned but contractor operated facility.
Commercialization of the air navigation system is consistent
also with international trends such as those in Australia, New
Zealand, Germany, South Africa and Ireland. All those countries
have opted for some form of commercial air navigation during the
past decade.
This transaction is one of the largest commercialization
initiatives undertaken by the federal government. It is a model of
the co-operation required between public and private sectors. It is
also a very visible demonstration of the government's commitment
to streamlining its operations and reducing its expenditures as well
as its determination to stop providing services that can be better
provided by the private sector.
That is a good deal for all Canadians, for taxpayers, by making a
$1.5 billion contribution to reducing the federal deficit. It is good
for the industry by maintaining safety while increasing the
system's ability to respond to changed demands and new
technologies.
It is good for users by providing more efficient and cost effective
operations. It is good for the system's employees by offering them
the opportunity to continue to work and contribute in a new and
challenging work environment. It is also good for Nav Canada by
setting the stage for it to operate one of the world's best run and
safest air navigation systems.
I urge all hon. members to approve the motion to refer the civil
air navigation services commercialization act directly to
committee. Let us speed up the process of ensuring continued safe,
efficient and flexible air navigation services for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-20, which is before us
today. Our position is clear: we are not, opposed to the principle set
out therein, that is to say providing the public with better and more
affordable service. In today's difficult times, I believe this
principle must be everyone's objective.
We are, therefore, in agreement with the principle of Bill C-20,
but we have many questions on the way the government has drafted
it, has worded the underlying principles.
For instance, it is all very well to say that Nav Canada is to be a
not for profit corporation. Fine, no problem with that. Now, if we
look at who will be on the board to preserve the rights of users, we
find there will be 15 representatives of the aviation sector, both
commercial and non commercial, the unions, the federal
government, plus independent members. Here again, I find this
praiseworthy.
When we thoroughly examine who those members will be,
however, we find they will be only the major carriers. The small
ones will not be represented, although a number of those consulted
by the members of the task forces on this intended government
1155
measure expressed a wish to see small carriers hold at least one seat
on the board.
They did not get it in the legislation, for all practical purposes. Is
that a sign of how things will be later on? I hope not. Surely they
will have the chance to remedy this, and we will stress that point
when the bill goes to committee.
(1315)
Therefore, we support the principle, but we have some questions
about the wording. We have some concerns about safety as well.
I heard the minister introduce this bill at this particular stage,
and he said we would have to leave it up to the agency to check the
homework the government had done to find ways to save money,
and all with the aim of user safety. I do not think the bill stress
safety enough. I agree that savings have to be made, but, as far as
safety is concerned, I do not think anyone, especially in the field of
aviation, is going to ask the government to make savings at the risk
of safety.
The preamble to this bill should make the message very clear to
the agency that will be managing these things in the future. Safety
is vital, and, at this point in time, I think the bill is lacking in this
regard. We will also make sure the matter comes up for discussion
in committee.
There is the matter of employment as well. The agency, which
currently manages all navigational services, has some 6,400
employees. It is therefore very important in terms of the jobs in this
agency that legislation be passed by Parliament to promote or
attempt to keep as many jobs as possible, while lowering costs.
I heard the minister earlier assuring the House that union
members had been consulted, that there was no problem continuing
labour contracts and that everything would go smoothly. Yes, for
the time being. However, there is a series of collective agreements
to be renegotiated between March 1997 and October 1998, I
believe. If the objective is to save money, some jobs will certainly
be lost in the process, whether we like it or not.
This bill should perhaps include a detailed list of what the
government would like the corporation to keep. Now is the time to
do it while we are reviewing this bill and setting up this
organization. We as legislators and members of the House of
Commons will set the guidelines, and I think it is important to do
so right away.
I look forward to hearing union representatives testify about
these collective agreements before the committee and explain to us
how they see the future in terms of privatizing, so to speak, all
civilian air navigation services. This is a very important point.
I have another point to make that is extremely important,
especially for some regions. I represent the riding of
Berthier-Montcalm, which unfortunately does not have a major
airport although there are some on the outskirts. My colleague from
Trois-Rivières, for his part, is lucky enough to have a major airport
in his riding. I think it would be important, in this bill, to make the
regions feel secure, to help small airports get equal, if not special,
treatment because local economies are often directly or indirectly
linked to transport facilities, including airports.
However, in its drive to save money, the non-profit corporation
may not see things the way I do today. It will not necessarily think
about the regions in deciding to eliminate or modify jobs or even to
close air transport services. Now is time for us, as the legislators
now considering this bill, to include in it some very specific
provisions outlining what we as parliamentarians want from this
non-profit corporation.
The corporation will buy this for $1.5 billion. This is all well and
good, but then if there are problems or if the regions encounter
some difficulties, we will not come out ahead in return for $2
billion.
(1320)
It is time that to stand up for the regions, because they are
important. They are important to Quebec and to Canada as well.
Nowhere in this bill do I see any assurance that these services will
be maintained.
Another important element is small air carriers. There is a direct
link between small carriers and small airports. Small carriers and
major carriers view things quite differently; take for example, in
Part III, the air navigation charges set by NAV CANADA.
Major air carriers would like fly over fees to be lower than
landing fees, which is quite normal. On the other hand, small
carriers are calling for just the opposite. Why? Because they are not
on as strong an economic or financial footing as major carriers.
If we want small air carriers to be able to survive in their regions,
this point must be stressed in the legislation. Nowhere in Bill C-20
is this philosophy, this attitude of the government regarding small
carriers reflected.
We get the distinct impression that the bill was dictated by major
carriers and that it is intended to serve their interests. Granted, It is
for reasons of economy and to have better service in the future. But
we know that the signal was sent by the major carriers.
It is important for small airports and carriers, as well as for the
regions, to send the message today, through Bill C-20.
Bill C-20 is complex because it deals with a number of issues.
However, many terms used are vague. A principle of law provides
that, when drafting a piece of legislation, the legislator must be
clear. It uses terms that are as clear as possible, to facilitate their
interpretation by the courts.
1156
However, some expressions in this bill are quite vague,
including three in clause 2(4), which will have to be improved on,
hopefully in committee. There are expressions such as interested
party, persons designated by the minister, demonstrable consensus
and transparency. These expressions are not very clear in the bill.
In the end, we do not really know the purpose of this legislation.
These things will have to be clarified in committee so that we
can support this bill. In principle, we agree, but we must also end
up with an act which will mean something and with which we can
agree.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will start by telling the government I am recommending
to my party that we support this bill going to committee after first
reading, which is contrary to our normal policy.
When the House first started the concept of sending legislation
to committee after first reading, it sounded like a great idea. It was
supposed to be easier. Nobody would get their back up in the House
before the bill went to committee. However, we were blind sided by
that because once a bill got to committee, we found that it was
treated in a very autocratic manner.
I opposed Bill C-101, which later became Bill C-14, going to
committee after first reading. Of course the Liberals used their
voting might to ram it through. In all fairness at committee level,
notwithstanding the fact there were still things in the bill which I
did not like, it was dealt with in a much more open handed manner
than had previously been the case.
I see no advantage in debating the bill at this point. Debate does
not answer questions. It postulates each of the various positions,
but it does not answer questions. I have some questions which need
to be answered and this can best be done at the committee level. I
would like to see the bill go to committee so we can start dealing
with the real questions that have been brought up. Before I proceed,
I would like to put the government on notice on some things I am
concerned about and will be looking for answers to in committee.
(1325)
I would like to comment on one of the remarks made by the
member from the Bloc Quebecois. He talked about his concern that
the anticipated formula will charge more for aircraft landing than it
will for aircraft overflying. I should tell the hon. member that
unfortunately for him, he does not seem to know very much about
the air traffic control system.
An aircraft that overflies, probably in the high level air space,
stays under the control of a series of sectors but in one spectrum of
the air traffic control system, high level control. Where an aircraft
landing may have started in high level control when it came into
the air space but had to descend through low level control, then into
terminal control and then ultimately airport control, there is a much
greater workload, more people involved and more equipment
requirements. Therefore, there is a rationale for this.
If the member has small airlines or operators who are concerned
about this, if he cares to share those with me, I would be happy to
talk to them. I have talked to a lot of large and small operators as
well as all the other players in this and I have not found this
particular opposition. It does not mean I am not open to hearing it if
he has something to bring forward.
The minister in his opening remarks talked about this great
windfall of $1.5 billion that is going to come in. He suggested that
it will be used to reduce the deficit. If he does I just hope he keeps
in mind that it is not going to come in every year. It is not going to
do much for deficit control. It is just a little short term thing. The
reality is that it is probably not going to be used for the deficit at
all. It is probably going to be used to try to buy off some provinces
where they are signing on to the new GST scheme.
I am in favour of a lot of things about the program as it stands
now, for example the not for profit corporation as opposed to the
crown corporation which I had the impression the government was
pushing and pushing rather hard at the beginning. In fact, I could
see a lot of senior bureaucrats jockeying for a high level position in
the new crown corporation.
I am very pleased to see that the various users involved in this
did get their act together and sat down and presented a united front
to transport and did manage to bring in the not for profit concept. I
am sure it will work much better than a crown corporation ever
would. It is good to get it out of government hands, not only out of
transport but out of the crown corporation concept as well.
Under the previous government control we have seen something
known as RAMP, the radar modernization project. That has been on
the go for a decade and it is now way behind schedule. It is over
budget. After over 600 software applications, it is still not fully
operational. That is a good example of government efficiency. I
hope to see much better being done by the private sector.
A number of questions need to be answered and I will just touch
on a few. One of the things the new corporation is banned from
compensation for is anything the government does by way of an
international agreement. I do have some concerns there. We can
certainly expand on this in committee. I raised my concerns at the
briefing we had on this and I will be taking this further.
I have a concern that the corporation had a very vested interest in
taking this over. It is their own organization that impacts on it
more than anyone else and consequently they want to have a say in
this new operation. Therefore, it was incumbent upon them, one
way or another, to ensure that they were successful in taking over
this privatized or commercialized air traffic control entity. I have
some concerns that they may have been in a situation of negotiating
with a gun at their heads as several of the airport authorities did and
1157
now find after the fact that they do not have enough capital to
operate properly.
In talking about capital, the Nav Canada corporation has
advertised that it is now going to go for a bond issue, seeking
possibly as much as $2.5 billion to $3 billion. One question I have
not heard answered is about the pension fund the government has
turned over to Nav Canada for the pension earnings and positions
of all those people who have current pension time earned. That
pension fund has to be invested if it is going to grow and continue
to have enough revenues in it to pay the pension obligations that the
various employees have earned. Can that pension money be
invested by Nav Canada in the Nav Canada bond issue? A lot of
employees in the organization would like to know the answer to
that as well.
(1330)
I have concerns about a couple of other areas. One is northern
operations. When and under what conditions can Nav Canada be
required to continue to operate in the north when it seems to be no
longer practical to do so? If it is ordered to continue when there is
no commercial sense in being there, will there will be any
compensation, and if so, in what form?
I come to the AWOS, the automated weather observation system.
I assume this will come, at least partly, under the parameters of the
new Nav Canada corporation. I am very concerned about how this
will be handled. AWOS is a dangerous piece of equipment. It has
been installed in 60 locations. The former Minister of Transport
acknowledged that it has problems and decommissioned it at two
airports, but still left it in 58 others.
Why are the lives of the people at two airports where it was taken
out more important than the lives of the people at the other 58
airports where it is still in service? How does Nav Canada fit into
the AWOS system and what are its plans for it?
There is also the matter of the Hughes contract. This new
computerized concept of radar is way behind schedule, away over
budget, but the government rewrote the contract so that it is now in
theory back on schedule and back on budget. It did that by giving a
considerable time extension to Hughes, along with an increase in
what it is going to pay for a system that is going to have most of its
major features removed.
The government cannot stand up and say the Nav Canada
corporation loves this because it is paying $1.5 billion. These were
gun at the head negotiations and someone has to speak on its
behalf. I will be raising that issue in committee.
I will give the government the opportunity to prove that it is
being more open minded, that it is going to follow with the intent
that it stated when it brought up the original concept of going to
committee after first reading. I trust that it will be as open in
committee this time as it was to some degree under Bill C-101. If it
is, then perhaps we will support going to committee after first
reading several times in the future.
On the other hand, if the government does what it did on Bill
C-89, which was to ignore all the input, all the amendments and
ram the bill through the way it was, then I can assure the House that
this will be the last time that we support this concept.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure and an honour to speak in support of this motion being
referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
As my colleague opposite mentioned, not necessarily today but
also in committee, air navigation technology is changing rapidly. I
have just returned from New Zealand and I met some members of
Canadian companies on that tour that are involved in the transition
of the New Zealand navigation system. It is attempting to privatize
but also to upgrade navigation technology.
My report to the hon. member and to this House would be that
things are going very well. We have agreed to stay in touch and
hopefully we will get some reports on this side of the Pacific on
what and how that is all unfolding.
This is a very important bill, putting into place a crucial element
of the government's overall strategy to modernize Canada's
navigation and transportation system. It comes at a time when
governments around the world are getting out of the business of
providing services and concentrating instead on setting policy and
enforcing safety. That has to be of paramount concern to all of us in
this House.
(1335 )
It also comes at a time when governments are recognizing that
they can no longer meet all of the needs of modern air navigation.
Many user groups, such as the Air Transport Association of
Canada, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association and the Canadian
Air Traffic Control Association, have all said that the current
government operated air navigation system does not meet the needs
of the aviation community and its expanding role.
There is no doubt that the time for a government operated civil
air navigation system has passed. Once there was a need for
governments to be involved in every aspect of air transportation.
The present system had its beginnings in wartime when in 1944
member countries of the International Civil Aviation Organization,
ICAO, signed the Chicago convention. Article 28 of that
convention called on all members to provide airports, radio
services,
1158
meteorological services and other air navigation facilities to
facilitate international air navigation.
In Canada, the Department of Transport, known today as
Transport Canada, assumed responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of the principal airports and the non-military air
navigation system. For over 50 years the department met the
responsibility of developing aviation facilities and, in particular,
providing air navigation services to civil aviation.
Starting in the seventies and continuing today, governments in
the developed world began to reconsider their involvement in
providing services that could be better provided by the private
sector. As a consequence, many government began to reduce their
involvement in various sectors both as regulators and as owners.
With government downsizing and public sector restraint in full
swing both here and in other countries, there is no longer any
justification for a government operated air navigation system, just
as there is little justification for governments to own railroads or
airports. The aviation sector is mature. It no longer needs extensive
government involvement to grow and prosper.
Canada has undertaken its review of the role of government in
the aviation industry. As a result the federal government has
eliminated much of the economic regulation of commercial
aviation. It has divested itself of ownership in the airline industry
and in the aircraft manufacturing industry and is moving away
from operating airports.
The government's review of the air navigation system showed a
number of reasons to change: the present system is not flexible
enough to respond to changes in demand, and greater efficiency,
lower costs and increased accountability are needed.
Safety, once seen as the justification for state control and
management of air navigation systems, is now viewed as an
integral part of managing the system. This, combined with the
increasing fiscal pressures on governments, has led to the
conclusion in Canada and around the globe that the system can be
run along commercial lines, subject to appropriate government
regulation.
Consequently, the government has acted decisively to alter its
role in providing air navigation services. The current bill provides
the legal means to transfer Canada's civil air navigation system
from Transport Canada to Nav Canada, a private non-profit
corporation, for $1.5 billion.
Canada, in its leadership role in the aviation industry, is at the
forefront of many changes. Many countries, such as New Zealand,
Australia, Ireland, Austria, Portugal, Germany and Great Britain
have already commercialized their air navigation systems. This
bold move has been carefully planned and developed to meet
Canada's unique needs in aviation requirements. The separation of
government will provide the commercial freedom necessary to
meet customer needs and increase system efficiency.
The challenge however is to be able to maintain a functional
system in the remote parts of Canada that are lacking in some of the
resources required to keep a safety component very reliable.
Nav Canada, as a user oriented corporation, will be able to
respond efficiently to the needs of the system with effective
government regulation and maintain the high, established level of
safety. Transport Canada is sharing the experience gained in this
project with other countries, departments and agencies. Its
experience will serve as a model both nationally and
internationally. The commercialization of the air navigation system
is a key element of the government's comprehensive strategy to
modernize and prepare for the next century.
The commercialization of the air navigation system will provide
many important benefits: first, for taxpayers, by making a $1.5
billion contribution to reducing the federal deficit. This was the
amount that the previous speaker mentioned. Second, for the
industry, by maintaining safety while increasing the system's
ability to respond to changing demands and new technologies;
third, for users, by providing more efficient and cost effective
operations; fourth, for the system's employees, by offering them
the opportunity to continue to contribute to a new and challenging
work environment; and fifth, for Nav Canada, by setting the stage
for it to operate one of the world's best run and safest air navigation
systems.
(1340)
I ask that all members support the motion to refer the bill to the
Standing Committee on Transport before second reading. This
initiative has already been the subject of extensive consultation
across the country, as well as internationally. It is in the interests of
all Canadians that we move forward with due speed.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to Bill C-20, I would like to begin by pointing
out the scope of its proposed reforms.
Air navigation services are delivered via seven regional control
centres. There are 44 control towers and 86 flight information
stations. It is important to point out the human element: 6,400
people are currently involved in supporting the air navigation
system.
1159
There is a very general agreement in favour of
commercialization, and we too are in favour. It was recommended
by independent studies, a departmental task force and the October
1992 Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation,
and supported by those working in the field, air carriers, private
operators, the air controllers' union and so on.
I shall begin with a word about the corporation created by the
bill. The bill provides the framework for handing over Transport
Canada's civil air navigation services to NAV CANADA, a not for
profit corporation incorporated under Part II of the Canada
Corporations Act. This is a follow up to the agreement in principle
signed December 8, 1995 by Transport Canada and NAV
CANADA, selling the air navigation system for $1.5 billion.
The fact that this corporation will be one of a kind places it in a
monopoly situation of concern to us. The federal government will
need to monitor its performance, but abuse of monopolistic power
must be avoided.
The new corporation must ensure that those with little if any
representation on the board, such as the small carriers or the
general aviation sector, are not discriminated against. New
companies must not be at a disadvantage either. It would appear at
first glance that NAV CANADA has not respected the wishes of the
small carriers, for only the big ones are represented on the board.
There is, for instance, no representation of the Association
québécoise des transporteurs aériens.
In committee we will be proposing amendments relating to
better safeguards against arbitrary power and to maintaining
services to outlying areas.
Where safety is concerned, Transport Canada has established
security regulations and standards that will apply to the new
corporation, and operations will be monitored to ensure
compliance. It would be important, however, on a more general
level, to ensure that public safety takes priority over profits. The
bill does not include any safety standards. It would be important to
include in the preamble the point that safety must take precedence
over profits, and that passenger safety will always come first,
ahead of any commercial considerations, whenever the two are in
conflict.
(1345)
We must also ensure that those who will be designated to
implement the legislation will not be chosen arbitrarily. We are told
it will be established by the minister, but on whose
recommendation? Nobody is saying. Who should be consulted?
Whose advice should be taken into account? Nobody is saying. For
our part, we want to be sure there will be no political patronage in
the selection of employees and that the more active union leaders
will not be left on the shelf because of their activity, and we will
make amendments in this regard.
In addition, some changes will have to be made to the legislation
in favour of remote areas, whose economic performance, naturally,
could be considered less significant.
The minister can designate northern or remote services which
will be given special treatment under the legislation. That is
excellent, but we feel there must be a list first approved by the
standing committee of the House, which will hold public hearings
on this. Accordingly, small airports such as Sept-Îles or
Rouyn-Noranda will be able to make representations if they need to
to protect their interests. It would be just too easy for the new
corporation to cut services for reasons of profitability in remote
areas.
Still on the subject of remote areas, the legislation provides that
the corporation may, despite rejection of the proposal by a
provincial government, change or close northern or remote
services. This is not acceptable. It must take the opinions of the
provinces into account.
Big and small carriers do not share the same opinions on charges
for air navigation services, as my colleague for
Berthier-Montcalm pointed out a few minutes ago. Major carriers
want the cost of overflights to be less than the cost of landing, and
the small carriers want exactly the opposite. In view of the
importance of regional transport in the regions and in Quebec, we
cannot agree with the way the legislation deals with this.
On the other hand we agree with the principle in Part IV on
employees. At first glance, there is no employer-employee
problems. The working conditions will be the same as those in the
public service for the life of the collective agreement, which
terminates on a date set by regulation, as approved by cabinet.
However, with the closures anticipated and the cuts in service,
there will probably be lay-offs in a few years. It would therefore be
appropriate to have the union leaders appear before the committee,
in order to get their opinion on the matter.
In conclusion, we agree with the legislation in principle and will
support it if the amendments we will propose in the spirit I have
just described are considered. Furthermore, we do not oppose its
being sent to committee.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in support of this motion to refer Bill C-20 to the
Standing Committee on Transport before second reading. Before I
proceed, I want to speak to the comments made by the hon.
member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke in which he made
reference to ramming something through. I understand his
frustration but it is with democracy and not with this place.
In any event, the bill carries out the decision taken by the
government as announced in the February 25 federal budget to
commercialize the air navigation system. It provides for the legal
means to transfer Canada's civil air navigation system from
1160
Transport Canada to a private, not for profit corporation called Nav
Canada. I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate to the
House that safety will not be compromised with that transfer.
Canada's civil air navigation system is a network of air traffic
control services, flight information services, aviation weather
services and air navigation aids that allow for the safe and efficient
movement of aircraft. This system handles more than six million
aircraft movements a year. Its annual budget is about $550 million
for operations and maintenance and $250 million for capital
improvements for a total budget of some $800 million.
(1350)
Transport Canada has managed this system well for more than
50 years during which time air travel and air navigation have
modernized becoming evermore complex and evermore necessary.
Times have changed and governments everywhere are finding it
increasingly difficult and less necessary to operate transportation
systems.
Transport Canada's mission is to provide for a safe,
environmentally sound national transportation system that is
consistent with a competitive economy and the achievement of
Canada's goals. However, the new Transport Canada is moving
away from operating the system to focus on setting the standards
and regulating for safety and security. The department has been
receiving strong messages from many quarters that the air
navigation system needs improvement. It is unlikely these
improvements can ever be made if the system stays under the
government's wing.
The potential of commercialization to improve efficiency and
maintain the safety of the air navigation system has long been
recognized. In 1992 the Royal Commission on National Passenger
Transportation recommended commercialization of the system.
Nevertheless, change is always unsettling. Some may feel that as
government withdraws from operating the system, safety may be
compromised. Nothing could be less true. None of the changes that
are being made to Transport Canada and the Canadian
transportation system will ever compromise the department's
commitment to safety. Safety and security will always come first
and Transport Canada will continue to ensure that the high
standards of safety and security that Canadians have come to
expect will in fact be maintained.
Safety was identified as the highest priority when
commercialization was first considered in early 1994. Transport
Canada's position was then, and continues to be now, that
operations under Nav Canada must be as safe as the current system.
This is not just a case of good intentions. When it comes to the air
navigation system, safety is an integral part of its management.
Nav Canada will be responsible for providing all the air
navigation services currently provided by Transport Canada.
Aviation safety and the safety of the public will remain the
responsibility of the Minister of Transport. This responsibility will
be exercised through the Aeronautics Act and regulations made
under that act. To do so the department is establishing safety
regulations and standards that will be monitored, audited and
enforced in much the same way as the department regulates air
carriers, airports, aircraft manufacturers and other commercial
aviation enterprises.
The new regulations developed specifically to address the
commercialization of the air navigation system will form part VIII
of the Canadian aviation regulations. Under these regulations Nav
Canada will be required to have an internal safety management
program. In addition, the corporation will not be permitted to
reduce the services it provides if doing so would jeopardize safety.
The Minister of Transport has the authority to direct Nav Canada to
provide services in the interests of safety.
Consultation on the new regulations has begun through the
Canadian Aviation Regulations Advisory Committee. They have
been published in part I of the Canada Gazette and should be
enacted into law early this year.
The Aeronautics Act which establishes the regulatory
framework to maintain safety in the aviation industry will always
take precedence over the Civil Air Navigation Services
Commercialization Act. Far from compromising safety, the new
arrangement is our guarantee that Canada will continue to have the
safe, effective, modern air navigation system it needs.
One of the reasons for commercializing the air navigation
system is to ensure that the system has the resources it needs to
continue to provide the highest level of safety possible. There is no
doubt we must have a modern air navigation system to ensure the
safe and efficient movement of aircraft, whether domestic or
international, in Canadian managed air space.
(1355 )
Governments cannot respond effectively to the modern needs of
air navigation. The downsizing of government services and public
sector restraint is incompatible with the dynamic needs of the air
industry. Outside of government the system will be able to operate
more efficiently. By increasing the system's ability to respond to
changing demands and new technologies, we will help to ensure its
continued safe operation. That means the system will have the
resources it needs to provide the best system possible and, with the
federal government overseeing safety and security, that means the
safest system possible.
In closing, I ask that all members support the motion to refer Bill
C-20 to the Standing Committee on Transport before second
reading.
1161
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.)
The Speaker: It being almost 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
1161
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to invite my
colleagues in the House to attend Business Connections '96.
Built around a change and technology theme, Business
Connections '96 promises to be a very exciting all day event. This
initiative promotes rural economic development, helping to secure
our future and guarantee the quality of life we value into the next
century. From agricultural research on the ground to the
information highway in cyberspace, my constituents are involved.
Over 50 exhibitors will display their products and services,
representing micro businesses, high tech, retail, service based and
large industries. Keynote speakers and panellists will share their
knowledge and experience.
Sponsors include Gibbard Furniture Shops, in its 160th year,
Celanese Canada, Goodyear Canada, Lafarge Canada, Municipal
Trust, Scotiabank and Strathcona Paper. We have also gained the
endorsement of four area chambers of commerce.
I am especially pleased that the Secretary of State for Science,
Research and Development will join us to discuss science and
technology opportunities.
We hope that everyone will come to Napanee on April 13. I
guarantee them an informative and exciting event.
* * *
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): One Canada.
All of its citizens equal before the constitution. Mr. Speaker, it is
almost too late to assure that equality is given to all Canadians.
The Nisga'a deal signed on Friday will create two classes of
Canadians: one class has its right to own land protected by the
Constitution, the other does not. One has its right to commercial
fishing guaranteed by the constitution, the other does not. It is not a
constitutional right for non-aboriginals to own land. If it is a
constitutional right for aboriginals to own land, so it should be for
all Canadians.
I appeal to the Prime Minister not to sign any binding agreement
now or in the future which would confer rights upon groups of
Canadians based on race. It is urgent because creating two classes
of Canadians carries with it the seed of the destruction of Canada's
peace and order. We implore the Prime Minister, on behalf of our
children, grandchildren and ourselves, not to finalize as it currently
stands the Nisga'a deal.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
more comments from a grassroots group in Peterborough riding
which is working to strengthen Canada. The group writes:
One of the problems-is that people not knowing each other, find it easy to
accept the stereotypes provided for them by manipulators whose steadfast goals
are destructive for us all. Yet in Montreal, English, French and other ethnic
groups work together with a good degree of harmony because they are face to
face. Social intimacy flies in the face of stereotypic attitudes.
We, and others like us, must extend some kind of invitation to our fellow
Canadians in Quebec that will bring us closer to that face to face ideal. Whether
that can be accomplished on the small scale by inviting francophone
acquaintances from various rural and urban areas to our homes-or-to initiate
chain letters which will attempt to establish an accord with those in Quebec who
feel alienated from the rest of the country, we do not know. We do know,
however, we must act to dispel such destructive stereotyping on the part of so
many English and French Canadians.
* * *
(1400)
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, congratulations
to the ice dancing team of Victor Kraatz and Shae-Lynn Bourne for
winning the bronze medal Friday night at the World Figure Skating
Championships in Edmonton.
My riding is very proud of Shae-Lynn, whose home is Chatham,
Ontario. The skating pair won Canada's first medal in ice dance
since 1988. Years of dedication and commitment to training hard in
their sport resulted in a medal.
1162
Shae-Lynn stated: ``It is such an amazing feeling inside that
grabs you at that moment when you know you are going to be
standing on the podium watching your flag go up. We are both
thrilled we did it in Canada''.
The entire nation is justifiably proud of the Kraatz-Bourne team,
and special praise to Shae-Lynn from all her friends and family in
Chatham and Kent county.
* * *
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the House should recognize and congratulate Taiwanese
President Lee Teng-hui for his victory in Saturday's first
democratic presidential election in Taiwan.
This event is the culmination of a series of democratization
initiatives in Taiwan going back several years. All the political
parties, the candidates and the electorate deserve praise for this
democratic success.
Four weeks ago China began conducting military exercises near
the island of Taiwan in an attempt to influence the outcome of this
election. Defiant voters were not intimidated by Beijing's threats to
destabilize their democratic initiative.
I congratulate the people in Taiwan and their political parties
which now collectively take responsibility for their future and for
Taiwan's relationship with Beijing and other countries in the region
and around the world.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today byelections are being held in six ridings across the
country. In two of those ridings I am surprised the Liberals have the
nerve to run candidates.
Excess power from Churchill Falls sells in the U.S. for $800
million a year, but Labrador and Newfoundland gets only $20
million of it. The trans-Labrador highway is in a deplorable state
and needs $75 million to rebuild it. That is less than 10 per cent of
the money lost every year due to Liberal inaction.
In Etobicoke North the Liberals cancelled the Pearson
development contract which cost metro Toronto ridings like
Etobicoke North 1,140 airport jobs, 560 direct off airport jobs and
3,000 indirect jobs as well as 14,000 person years of construction
work.
The voters have a chance to set things right. The Liberals should
hang their heads in shame and the voters in Labrador and Etobicoke
North should hang the Liberals out to dry.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today there
is a byelection in the constituency of the former minister of
external affairs. This reminds us that he is now head of Canada Post
Corporation.
Mr. Ouellet inherits a Canada Post plagued with service
problems. Cheques mailed from Saskatchewan to Edmonton take
more than two weeks, resulting in late payment and interest
penalties. I get reports of Christmas parcels still not delivered after
six weeks. Photos sent two years ago are still not received.
A weekly newspaper goes from Tisdale, Saskatchewan to Swan
River, Manitoba each week. The trip takes three hours by car, 20
hours by dog team, 25 hours on skis, 60 hours on foot and 288
hours by Canada Post.
May Mr. Ouellet find a technique to decrease the delivery time
faster than he increases postal rates.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois was amazed to learn that there is no
budget for the one million flag operation launched by the heritage
minister, and that it does not come under any existing official
program of the department. Nonetheless, 10 telephone operators
are working on this project and are taking orders from Canadians.
While the CBC's budgets are blithely being slashed, with 1,000
additional layoffs planned, while cuts to the National Film Board
will result in the dismissal of some 150 creators, it is disgusting
that the department has introduced a propaganda initiative without
any advance idea of the cost.
Are the people of Canada and Quebec entitled to know the costs
associated with the Deputy Prime Minister's propaganda? A
rhetorical question, obviously.
* * *
(1405 )
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Ford World Curling Championships are taking place in
Hamilton this week. All of Hamilton is pleased to be hosting this
event. We all extend our welcome to the athletes and the visiting
spectators.
1163
Thirteen countries are represented at the championships. Along
with Canada, there are also teams from Japan, Australia, the
United States, Scandinavia, England, Scotland and Europe.
Canada is represented by two teams, one led by Marlin Bodogh
of St. Catharines, Ontario, and the other led by Jeffrey Stoughton of
Winnipeg.
In the previous world championships the Canadian men came
first and the Canadian women came second.
The competition has been very exciting so far. Both Canadian
teams have won their first three games and are in first place.
Curling is now an Olympic medal sport and the order of finish in
these championships will help determine which teams attend the
1998 winter Olympic games in Nagano, Japan.
I wish the members of the Canadian rinks the best of luck and
continued success in the competition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I pay tribute to the CIEL de Lotbinière-Ouest, a
job initiative centre in Lobtinière-Ouest. This non profit
organization, run by volunteers, is concerned with job creation for
those aged 18-40. The centre has 376 members, and is composed of
individuals and companies. Its activities take in 12 municipalities
in my riding.
The 29 venture capital loans made in 1995 totalled $62,500. At
December 31, 1995, there were 33 active loans.
Since its inception 10 years ago, this organization has brought
about the creation or consolidation of 221 jobs in my riding of
Lotbinière. I am proud of this initiative and congratulate the centre
on a job well done.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this month Windsor lost one of its greatest citizens,
Charles Joseph Clark.
Recently inducted into the Order of Canada, Charlie Clark was a
fine lawyer, a community activist, a philanthropist and a
businessman. He was indeed a great community leader, one to
whom Windsor turned for counsel on many occasions such as when
the local CBC station was threatened, when the casino became a
reality and when we wanted to preserve our unique cultural and
natural heritage.
Charlie Clark was also a mentor to many young lawyers,
including the three current members of Parliament from Windsor.
I know all members will join me in remembering a great
Windsorite, Charles J. Clark, and in offering our most sincere
condolences to his family.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in Gatineau a woman died of injuries inflicted
by her attacker. Family violence is a crime just like any form of
aggression against a stranger. Gone are the days when society as a
whole preferred not to get involved in or pass judgment on cases of
violence to women or children, under the pretext that it was none of
the neighbours' business.
The major stakeholders in our judicial system are now more
aware and better trained to step in in situations of family violence.
When such a tragedy takes place, it is of concern to our entire
society, and we cannot remain unmoved.
Henceforth, we must work on lowering our tolerance for
violence and increasing our understanding and efforts to help those
who are suffering and have lost hope.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I received an
encouraging fax from a Canadian who confirmed the principles of
why I am here:
I once supported the Liberals until I read Pierre Trudeau's remarks that
Liberals will do anything, say anything and promise anything if it will get them
elected. I believed him then and even more now. Just look at how they promised
to kill the GST and broke that promise.
I supported the Conservatives but they abandoned me when they decided to
become a mirror image of the Liberals. I flirted with the New Democratic Party
but gave up when it became obvious the NDP is merely a collection of special
interest and radical fringe groups.
Then I gave up on politics until I discovered the Reform Party and found a
group of people like myself who believe our nation's future extends far beyond
the next election.
From the concept of equality for all Canadians to the concept of a secure
financial future for me and my children and their children yet to come, and
every issue and concern that lies between, I draw my reasons for supporting and
voting Reform.
Reform has seen the future and, unlike the three old-line parties, is living in
the present. That is why I am a Reformer''.
1164
(1410 )
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party's response to the government's national
unity proposals were nothing more than the same old tired
decentralization arguments spewed by right wing pontificators
everywhere.
The danger of Reform's approach is that it would leave Canada
without a sense of common national purpose.
The Reform Party's fifty plus one referendum standard revealed
its hidden agenda for separation. Upon realizing it could never lead
a federal government with Quebec as part of Canada, it opted for
this agenda. Through separation Reform hoped its future electoral
fortunes would brighten.
Voters in today's byelections in Quebec, Ontario and
Newfoundland will not be fooled by Reform's devious tactics.
Today the voters will say bye, bye to the Reform Party.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday a woman in the region of Gatineau who was a victim of
abuse for many years died as a result of a stabbing. Subsequently
her husband has been brought into police custody.
This case, like many others, once again brings to our attention
the unfortunate tragedy of domestic violence. Family violence is a
crime that affects all of us. It is a serious crime in which the police
often hesitate to intervene, as the crimes often occur behind closed
doors in the family home.
A tragedy such as this which occurred in Gatineau followed
many years of abuse. We must bring the problem out from behind
closed doors and into the forefront of public consciousness.
We must remain vigilant against these crimes against women,
our children and our families. Fear and violence have no place in
Canadian society.
I call on all members of the House to speak out against this
serious problem and look at ways to rid society of domestic
violence.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Krever
inquiry into tainted blood was a victory for Canadians who wanted
a safe, secure blood system.
The commission has spent countless hours receiving testimony
under oath. There have been serious findings of wrong doing:
untreated blood products used by the public when safer products
were available; tainted donors not turned away in a timely fashion;
tested infected blood products used when alternatives were
available.
Other countries have made similar mistakes and have apologized
in addition to making immediate corrections. Canada's reaction to
individuals being held personally responsible is very different with
court challenges that could literally stop Krever's final report.
If Krever has found criminal behaviour relating to blood safety,
he must report it to the Minister of Health and to Canadians. Let
Krever speak.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
almost 11 years now, the Centre d'action bénévole La Mosaïque, in
LeMoyne, has been actively involved in the community.
The centre just opened a library for seniors who enjoy reading
but are not mobile. Volunteers will bring to their door the books
selected by these people.
La Mosaïque also took another initiative, in co-operation with
local restaurant owners. Meals will be offered on a weekly basis, at
a very low price, to seniors and volunteers accompanying them.
The idea is to provide an opportunity for seniors to go out and
also develop healthy eating habits.
Congratulations to the Centre La Mosaïque for its worthwhile
initiatives.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have said that reform of the Income Tax Act is
necessary, and I agree.
Some argue a simple system such as a flat tax or a single tax is
the solution. Although simplicity may be desirable, the fact
remains that the only thing simple about a flat or simple tax
approach is that it simply reduces taxes for high income earners
and increases taxes for low and middle income earners.
The real objectives of tax reform should be to ensure the system
is fair and equitable for all Canadians.
(1415)
As an example, the child care expense deduction should be
converted to a tax credit. Under the current system the value of the
deduction favours high income earners whereas a tax credit is of
1165
equal value to all families. This kind of progressive change would
enhance fairness and equity for all Canadian families.
_____________________________________________
1165
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):Mr.
Speaker, last week, while talking about CBC funding, the Deputy
Prime Minister said, and I quote: ``What makes it difficult, every
time we seek new avenues of funding, is the block we run into, the
Bloc Quebecois''.
I would like to remind the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of Canadian Heritage that the Bloc Quebecois is the only party
fighting for maintaining the mandates of the CBC, the NFB and
Telefilm Canada, but that we are opposed to a CBC tax.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. As the CBC faces
cuts amounting to $150 million over two years, could the heritage
minister finally tell us how she intends to go about funding this
crown corporation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see
that the Leader of the Opposition is open to new ways of funding
the CBC. What is unfortunate is that the Leader of the Opposition's
open-mindedness was not reflected by his own critics who, the day
after the Juneau report was tabled, rejected any form of funding
other than the current parliamentary appropriations.
If the Leader of the Opposition is willing, I, of course, will work
in co-operation with the Minister of Finance to try to find new ways
of funding the CBC in the long term and I would expect the Bloc
Quebecois to support our efforts instead of blocking them as they
have done so far.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage should remember that,
not so long ago, her predecessor's careless answers hurt his career.
My question is extremely serious and if we had an answer once
and for all, we would move on to something else. The president of
the CBC clearly stated-and he was the second president to do
so-that they could no longer absorb $150 million in cuts without
the corporation's mandate being affected. Yet the minister asserts
that the CBC's mandate will be maintained.
Our question is very simple and quite legitimate and it deserves
an answer: How will the minister allow the CBC to carry out its
mandate if she cuts another $150 million?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talking about careless
remarks, it is not the government who, the day after the Juneau
report was tabled, dismissed all funding recommendations. It was
the Bloc Quebecois who immediately refused to consider any of the
long term funding alternatives as proposed in the Juneau report.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we in government
are now considering all long term funding alternatives for the CBC.
I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will at least lend his
support, even though his former and current critics have not
endorsed any new funding methods.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of Canadian Heritage that what we formally object to is the
creation by the government of a new tax that would make
Canadians pay twice for the CBC. We object to this. I understand
that she is looking for ways to fund the CBC, but in the meantime
the corporation itself is facing some serious problems. The minister
should understand this.
This is not a trick question, but a request for information. How
can the minister impose another $150 million in cuts without
changing the mandate of a crown corporation which, at least
according to its last two presidents, is unable to do what is required
of it? What does she intend to do? It is her responsibility, and we
want an answer. Is it possible?
(1420)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see that the Leader of
the Opposition still rejects the new funding methods recommended
in the Juneau report, as they were by both the former and the
current Bloc critics.
That said, when I work with the Minister of Finance on a new
funding alternative, it is precisely so that we can achieve one of the
major objectives in the Juneau report, namely the long term
funding of organizations such as the NFB, Telefilm Canada and the
CBC.
I think it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition refuses
to consider new funding mechanisms that could in the long term, as
proposed in the Juneau report, eliminate the need for an annual
budget review of the CBC.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): First of all, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. The Bloc Quebecois
recognizes, and joins with others in recognizing, the importance of
the CBC, the NFB and Telefilm Canada as cultural institutions, as
set out in the Juneau report. Second, we also recognize the report's
insistence on the need to settle the long term funding issue.
1166
The Bloc is clearly opposed to a CBC tax being levied. Last
week, the minister herself told me in this House that she was
against imposing a CBC tax, but at the same time she is
establishing a cultural production fund. My question is clear: What
is the source of this cultural funding? Where will she get the
money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the idea put forward by
the member opposite, to support the recommendations made in the
Juneau report while not rejecting any new method of funding, as
the Juneau report proposed, is typical of the politics practised by
the Bloc Quebecois by constantly talking from both sides of their
mouths. In fact, we agree with the Juneau report that long term
funding should be provided through instruments other than
parliamentary appropriations. And that is precisely what my
colleague, the Minister of Finance, and myself are looking into
right now.
This lack of open-mindedness on the part of the Bloc Quebecois
is unfortunate.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is quite simple, we are asking the minister to tell us what scenarios
are being contemplated and what she is working on in terms of
where the funds will come from. Given that both the past and the
current presidents of the CBC agree that an extra $150 million in
cuts will affect the CBC's mandate, are we to understand from the
minister's response, since she stated that the mandate would not be
modified, that the CBC will be allowed to run deficits, to be
absorbed by the consolidated revenue fund?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I
am not surprised the Bloc Quebecois is speaking out of both sides
of its mouth.
The day the Juneau report came out, one of its important
messages was that for the survival and the growth of the CBC,
alternate methods of financing must be sought in the long term.
That is precisely the work I am now undertaking with my
colleague, the Minister of Finance.
What is sad is that a party that claims to support public
broadcasting has turned its back on looking at new and innovative
methods of funding such public broadcasting.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, across
the province of Ontario, Liberal MPs have been trying to convince
their constituents that what they really meant was harmonizing the
GST, not eliminating it.
There is only one problem with that. Canadians still have copies
of the Liberal campaign pamphlets from 1993. Two weeks ago the
member for Niagara Falls said he did not promise to scrap the GST
but his election flyer has just surfaced from 1993 and he promised
in it to fight to eliminate the GST.
My question is this. Which Liberal is telling the truth? The
Liberal candidate for Niagara Falls or the Liberal MP for Niagara
Falls?
(1425 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the position of Liberals throughout the campaign and the position
of the government have been very clear. It was stated in the red
book on page 22. It is conceivable that members of the Reform
Party have not read the red book. I would suggest they do so as it
would give them very good insight into what the country is all
about.
In 1990 the leader of the Reform Party said that he would rip the
GST out. Was he speaking for the Reform Party? Was he speaking
for the Reform when he said it could not be repealed immediately
because it would increase the deficit? Was he speaking for the
Reform Party when he commended the government on its attempt
to harmonize the tax with the provinces?
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yes we
did say that and we still say that it should be phased out. We need to
cut spending, that is the problem. We stand by that.
Liberal candidates across Ontario ran on the promise of killing,
scrapping and abolishing the GST. Once they were safely in power
they broke that promise. Now they are busy trying to bury the
evidence.
After the minister of immigration gets through shredding her
predecessor's pamphlets, there are 98 other ridings of Liberal
propaganda and broken promises for her to get to work on with the
shredder.
I ask the Prime Minister this question. Why did the Liberals
break their promise on the GST? How many other Ontario Liberals
are going to have to start shredding their campaign pamphlets?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every Liberal who ran in the last campaign ran on a
platform that was very successful, which was the red book. The
promise is on page 22. As it was tabled in the House, it is available
to every member of Parliament. If some members do not want to
read it there is not much I can do about that.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
amazes me is that when the Liberals fall back on the red book now,
the member from Niagara Falls, in his local newspaper last week,
said: ``I guess I could say that we were a little over-zealous and
little over-anxious. I guess you could say it has haunted me''.
Those are words from a Liberal MP, not me.
1167
I ask the Prime Minister this. How many Liberal MPs has the
Prime Minister haunted with his promise to scrap, kill and abolish
the GST and then totally turn around on that? It makes no sense.
[Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
me repeat once again that, in 1990, the leader of the Reform Party
said very clearly, when he was trying to get the member for Beaver
River elected, that he was going to rip the GST out, to get rid of it.
One year later, he wanted to keep it. Now, his position is exactly the
same as ours in the red book, in that he wants to replace the GST
with a harmonized tax. It took him three years to get to where we
have been since the very beginning.
[English]
The Reform Party can go through this charade time after time on
what the government's position is. The government's position has
been very clear. The difficulty the Reform Party has is that it is
caught by its own contradictions year after year on the GST, on
social programs, on the commitment to bring in a new budget, on
how fast it would reduce the deficit, on medicare and on virtually
everything.
There is no consistent philosophy from Reform Party members.
They only have one objective which is to confuse. The only people
they confuse are themselves.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The CBC's 1994 annual report tells us that the English network's
budget was $750 million, compared to $275 million for its French
counterpart. Yet, the two networks more or less have the same
number of viewers and, according to their presidents, production
costs are the same for both.
(1430)
Since the Minister of Heritage agrees with the Bloc Quebecois
that taxpayers should not have to be taxed, can she tell this House
whether her magical formula to fund the CBC will allow her to
eliminate the discrimination between the two networks and ensure
that both cultures are treated on the same foot in this country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
statement is wrong. Canadians currently do pay taxes to support the
CBC.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately, the minister missed my question, and such
a good question too.
Since the Juneau report proposes, among other measures, to
decentralize CBC's French language production and take it to
regions outside Quebec, will the Minister of Heritage confirm that,
to avoid a weakening of French language television in Canada, this
recommendation will not be implemented, unless she minister
allocates new funds to fund it?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered the member.
The premise of her question is false. What she said on
Radio-Canada was that Canadians would not be taxed. In fact,
Canadians are currently being taxed to the tune of some $900
million, specifically for the function of Radio-Canada.
What was recommended in the Juneau report was a different
method which would see reductions of parliamentary spending
being taken up by a more direct tax.
[Translation]
It takes money to promote CBC's activities in both official
languages. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois flatly rejects,
without even giving it any consideration, any new funding method
that would ensure, in the long term, the promotion of French and
English programming from coast to coast.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
couple of weeks ago when Brian Tobin was in town he told
reporters that he was here to pick Ottawa' pocket. I would
encourage the finance minister to check his wallet because now we
hear that $100 million has disappeared out of their super slush fund
that is being used to pay off provinces so that they will harmonize
with the GST.
Is the minister so desperate to get the provinces to sign on to his
harmonization proposal which, of course, is a breaking of their
election promises, that he is willing to pay them off even when we
have a $600 billion debt? And where is he getting the money to do
that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have been having discussions with a number of provinces which
essentially recognize that it would be good for their small and
medium sized business communities and their consumers if the
GST were replaced with a new single tax.
We can go back and forth as the member plays games. Is the
Reform Party adopting a fourth position? Is it reneging on the
1168
position it stated in the finance committee that it sought to have a
single tax and that it recognized that it would be a very difficult
negotiation?
What is the Reform Party's position? Are you in favour of a
single tax?
The Speaker: Sometimes the hon. minister forgets me. Please
do not forget me.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
national television the government, the minister, the Prime
Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to scrap, to kill, to
abolish the GST. Those are their words. If they hang on them, it is
their fault.
The Liberals are not willing to create jobs by cutting premiums
from the $10 billion UI surplus but they are willing to try anything,
including spending money they do not have to save the Deputy
Prime Minister's job.
Why is the finance minister attempting to salvage his
government's pathetic attempt to fudge on their election promise at
the expense of Canadian taxpayers?
(1435 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister has always said that she would replace
the GST with another tax. That is it. The words in the red book are
very clear in black and white.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Why is the Reform Party
deliberately trying to distort very clear statements that have been
made in the past and a position that is rock hard?
Is it because the Reform Party is embarrassed by its own internal
contradictions? Is it because the Reform Party does not know
which way to turn? Is it because the Reform Party has lost virtually
every item of its agenda? Is it because the Reform Party is no
longer relevant to the Canadian political scene?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
In Halifax, in May 1995, the Minister of Heritage announced his
decision to raise from 20 per cent to 33.33 per cent the figure for
foreign participation in broadcasting parent companies. In
November 1995, he repeated that commitment formally. To date,
however, the order in council to authorize that harmonization with
the telecommunications sector has not yet been issued.
Can the Prime Minister explain to us why his government is still
dragging its feet on this order in council despite its repeated
commitments to do so, while it knows very well that this delay puts
broadcasting companies at a disadvantage compared to
telecommunications companies?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we wish to guarantee
Canadian content in the broadcasting policy. This is something I
believe even the Government of Quebec endorses.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Since the
telecommunications and broadcasting industries are fighting for
the same turf, can the Prime Minister assure us that they will be
treated in the same way when it comes to regulations on foreign
ownership levels?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the
hon. member wishes broadcasting and telecommunications
policies to be the same because, when the former Bloc critic
organized a meeting with Télé-Québec on the subject, she agreed
with the Government of Canada's policy on this.
As far as broadcasting is concerned, Canadian content is not the
only important thing. It is also important for Canadians to own
their culture.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has
bailed out the UN on so many occasions it is hard to keep track
anymore, but at least we have always been promised we would be
paid for expenses.
However, this time it is $50 million that is unpaid and it does not
appear we are going to be getting payment in the near future.
Will the government assure taxpayers that it will not sign any
more blank cheques for the UN until this matter is taken care of?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is important to point out that this year alone we have
already received a $72 million payment from the United Nations,
even during a time when it is desperately strapped for cash because
of the very substantial arrears by other countries.
One of the most important initiatives that Canada is taking is to
try to get the refinancing of the United Nations so it can continue
on its peacekeeping missions.
It is an issue that the Prime Minister brought up at the G-7 during
the last meeting in Halifax. I intend to raise it with the secretary of
state for the United States while I am in Washington this week. It is
very important that all those who have not paid their bills, pay their
bills, so the UN can continue to do its job.
1169
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe
Canadians have a great deal of difficulty understanding that sort
of accounting.
The minister guaranteed that the command for our troops in
Haiti would be 100 per cent in Canadian hands and that the
mandate was for four months only. Now we find out we are paying
the entire bill, the mission may be extended, the mandate is
clouded and the control may be within the Haitian government.
Will the minister deny these reports, guarantee that this mission
will be over in four months and that command decisions will
remain in Canadian hands?
(1440 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me explain first that this was an authority originally
given by the United Nations Security Council. The extension is
also under the United Nations.
We were asked as a country to take responsibility for the
command. Canadian Brigadier General Daigle is in command of
the UN mission. He is also responsible for the additional forces we
put in to supplement and ensure the mission had sufficient
resources to continue to fulfil the task set for it. We are working
exactly under the UN mandate as established by the security
council. The Canadian troops that are there as auxiliaries are
subject to exactly the same mandate. They both report to Canadian
Brigadier General Daigle.
In this case it is very clear that we are still following the
fundamental principle that we want a multilateral international
solution to these problems.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last Saturday,
Le Soleil quoted the Minister of Finance as
saying in an interview that it was urgent for the federal government
to invade the area of securities, an area of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction, because Canada was losing its capital markets to New
York and Chicago.
Does the minister recognize that what makes New York and
Chicago attractive to Canadian investors is the greater savings
available in the U.S. as well as higher prices for an initial issue of
shares, and has nothing to do with purely political motives like his
excessive taste for centralization that makes him interfere in this
exclusive provincial jurisdiction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I never used the word ``invade''. I talked about
co-operation, about creating partnerships and working together. In
fact, the hon. member is right when he talks about the premium
paid by American investors and the U.S. capital markets. There is a
threat not only to Canadian but also to European stock exchanges.
That is why we must work together, we must co-operate. The
idea is not to invade, but there is no doubt that it costs a great deal
of money to send prospectuses to 10 provinces. We must find a
way, as suggested by the Montreal business community, to
co-operate to give the Canadian financial community a strong
bargaining position.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to justify his interference in the area of securities, the
minister mentioned normal competition between stock exchanges
but not reasons that might encourage investments in that area,
something the minister could act on. One thing has strictly nothing
to do with the other.
Will the Minister of Finance not admit that there is no need for
him to interfere in the area of securities, since all the problems he
mentioned, including how complex the share issue process is, will
be resolved by next September, when a harmonized system
designed by the provinces will be put in place without the federal
government getting involved?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): The hon.
member knows full well, Mr. Speaker, that we are in favour of
harmonization, in terms of securities as well as taxation. That said,
the situation is much more complicated and the problem much
deeper that a mere matter of co-operation between stock
exchanges.
This is not my own observation but rather the observation of the
Montreal stock exchange president. In fact, the vast majority of
stock brokers operating in Montreal know very well that
co-operation is necessary. That is what we want to do, and I do not
understand why the Bloc Quebecois is stalled in the sixties. They
must stop looking at the future with their rear-view mirror. We
must give the people of Quebec and Canada the ability to compete
with anyone.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Given the outcome of Saturday's presidential election in Taiwan,
the first direct democratic election in that nation's 5000 year
history, can the minister indicate to the House any foreign policy
implications for Canada in southeast Asia?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we know this country and its people support the
emergence of the democratic process everywhere in the world. We
want
1170
to take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Taiwan for
the very important step that was taken on the weekend.
The completion of the election provides a basis for the reopening
of dialogue between the mainland and the island to ease the
tensions that have been there, to begin developing the very
extensive relations that were in place before the latest round of
problems. We will use every opportunity we have in our
discussions with both parties to encourage them to show restraint,
to build creative relationships and we will offer all our good
services toward that objective.
* * *
(1445)
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Nisga'a deal was signed five weeks after it was
initialled and made public. Despite assurances about consultation,
the Nisga'a treaty negotiation advisory committee members, and
these are the non-governmental people supposedly most in the
know, did not recognize any part of the agreement.
Why is the minister so intent on fast tracking this process?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I would say
that after 100 years this is hardly a fast track.
In the process leading up to the agreement in principle, very
sincere efforts were made at consultations in over 200 public
meetings, open houses and other consultative mechanisms. Now
that the process has moved to and through the next stage of actually
signing the agreement in principle, the effort to keep all parties
informed and to make sure that consultations are sincere and
genuine will continue. I would certainly welcome the support of the
hon. member and his party in helping to encourage this process
toward a historic and successful conclusion.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has become very apparent that governments do not want
public input into this deal.
During the five weeks since the Nisga'a deal was made public,
many groups have struggled to digest the complex contents. No
comprehensive independent analysis has yet been completed.
There is one sure way to tell if the public has a comfort level
with this massive undertaking. Will the minister join with us in
endorsing a provincially initiated binding referendum on the
Nisga'a agreement in principle?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs has
obviously been participating in a genuine process to lead to a
successful conclusion an outstanding matter that has been a glaring
discrepancy for over 100 years. I think the hon. gentleman and his
party would be well advised, rather than raising ideas and
suggestions that could well scuttle the whole process, to be a slight
bit more constructive and try to bring this to a successful
conclusion as this government is trying to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last week, the Coast Guard commissioner claimed that his new
proposal for marine service fees was largely accepted by all
stakeholders. Nothing could be further from the truth. Marine
stakeholders from the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes firmly
oppose the new service fees.
How can the minister sweep away the objections of the majority
of industries and stakeholders in these two areas, considering that
they represent close to 50 per cent of Canada's commercial marine
traffic?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, nothing has been swept away, as the hon. member
knows. I would not call the consultations that have gone on since
January the sweeping away of anything. There have been very
sincere and very delicate consultations with all members and all
interested parties.
Despite what the hon. member says, there is general agreement
that the system we are now using is much better than the system we
started out with. That was the purpose of the consultations.
I want to assure the hon. member that even though the prices
may have fluctuated on a tonne basis, in the case of Quebec we are
dealing with a one cent difference in the consultation that has taken
place. I would not exactly call a one cent difference a sweeping
away, particularly with respect to the consultations.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some
consultations may have taken place, but I am not sure that the
minister followed up on what was said.
(1450)
I remind the minister that, last week, the commissioner himself
admitted that the Coast Guard needs adequate impact studies
regarding these new service fees.
Will the minister recognize that it is unthinkable to impose new
service fees while being totally unaware of their impact on the
1171
marine industry, including shipowners in the St. Lawrence, and on
related industries?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member I would like to make
three points.
The first point is there is an agreement in principle that access to
public facilities managed at public expense has to be charged a fee.
The second point is we are graduating these marine service fees at
$20 million, $40 million, $40 million, $60 million over a period of
four years. I want to remind the hon. member that we are dealing
with a service that cost $384 million and we are charging only $20
million for it.
The impact studies he talked about will be done between the
imposition of the collection of the $20 million and the $40 million.
There simply is not time to do all the studies. We have done the
consultations. We will impose the fees. We will do the impact
studies before we go into the $40 million fees for services that cost
$384 million. That is not a bad deal.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a relevant question for the solicitor general.
The people of Toronto are now familiar with what kind of
garbage this Liberal government dumps in their back yards. West
Toronto residents were outraged to learn last week that Bobby
Oatway had been secretly flown into their neighbourhood, leaving
B.C. at five o'clock in the morning to avoid outraged residents and
victims in my riding.
This pedophile originally faced 41 charges, mostly against
children. Why did Corrections Canada shuttle this walking disaster
out of B.C. and why were the Toronto police or the community
advisory group in Toronto not advised?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am informed that Oatway reached the statutory release period of
his sentence.
I am further informed that the Toronto police were advised that
Mr. Oatway would be placed in the Keele centre the day before he
arrived and that the advisory committee was informed the day after.
I am further informed that Mr. Oatway is to be kept under strict
supervision in the centre. The correctional service is taking his
presence as a very serious matter.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is my point. This man is not rehabilitated and I have the
corrections and parole documents to prove it. I have a couple of
quotes. March 1996 from the parole board: ``The concerns about
your risk to reoffend remain'', and September 1994: ``The board
concludes that you present an undue risk to reoffend, therefore day
parole is denied''.
Why will the solicitor general not give his people the tools they
are asking for to keep our streets safe? Why will he not give them
the power to keep pedophiles like this one behind bars until they
can prove they are safe to law-abiding Canadian citizens?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in point of fact as the hon. member has indicated, Oatway was not
released on parole. He is in the statutory release period of his
sentence. Furthermore, there is a provision in the new Corrections
and Conditional Release Act whereby, if there is a referral for that
purpose to the parole board, the parole board can rule that
somebody in Mr. Oatway's category can be held to the end of their
sentence.
I further add that the Minister of Justice and I, after consultation
with law enforcement and other groups, are working on measures
to deal with the issue of post-sentence detention of high risk violent
offenders. Furthermore, we do intend to bring forward a number of
measures to make the dangerous offender provisions more easily
usable by prosecutors at the time of conviction. We also indicated
that we want to present to Parliament measures to create a new
category of long term offender.
If my hon. friend is serious about his concern, I look forward to
him giving his full support to the measures we want to take to deal
with public concerns about this kind of issue.
* * *
(1455 )
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The House declared lacrosse to be Canada's national summer
sport and at the same time Sports Canada stopped funding the
Canadian Lacrosse Association. Will the minister recognize the
more than 200,000 participants in this sport and acknowledge its
place in our heritage by restoring funding to lacrosse?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge
the work of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton who, in the first
instance, introduced a private member's bill that was supported by
all sides of the House which declared lacrosse as our national
summer sport.
1172
As the hon. member knows, there are 200,000 Canadians,
including many in his own area, who are involved in the sport.
We have been happy upon receiving his intervention and the
intervention of many other members to increase and restore
funding levels to lacrosse. It is not only a sport which is important
to the national fabric, it also has great cultural significance.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
In the throne speech, the government announced that it intended
to introduce a bill on the protection of endangered species. When
speaking to the media, the Minister of the Environment added that
he was even prepared to extend the scope of the bill tabled by his
predecessor, which for once respected Quebec's jurisdiction.
Is the minister aware of the serious warnings from the former
Quebec environment minister to his predecessors, exhorting them
not to provoke a new battle in an area of responsibility that comes
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is correct that the government through
its throne speech made a very determined effort to make the
introduction of the endangered species legislation a priority. We
make no apologies for that.
This issue is not one which should be posed as being of
federal-provincial jurisdiction. Rather, in addition to federal
legislation, there should be a determination across the country to
have a national framework in place so that those endangered
species as well as their habitats may be protected and that the
federal-provincial jurisdiction take second seat. Of all the issues
the public responds to in my ministry, this is the one issue which
elicits the strongest and most emotional response by adults and
young children alike.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government is fighting the Krever inquiry in the courts.
The Krever inquiry is ready to make its final report and there are
specific allegations that the federal government has done
something wrong. If the federal government is innocent of all
wrongdoing, why is it taking such forceful legal action to prevent
Krever from making his report known to every single Canadian?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's description of
what we are doing is not right.
We have said from the outset that we have done nothing to
interfere with Mr. Justice Krever's findings. If he has the intention
of making findings of wrongdoing, that is entirely up to him. We
have supported and encouraged the inquiry at all points.
The only reason we are in court, and we are there on a very
narrow ground, has to do with procedural fairness. We have made a
submission to the court, which is best argued in court, with respect
to the fairness of the way in which the commission went about its
business in terms of providing late notice to certain individuals that
they may have findings made against them.
As to the right of the commissioner to make findings of
wrongdoing, we have never argued with that. We are happy to have
him make his findings and to learn from the very good work he is
doing.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The GATT signing in Marrakech set in motion an ambitious
round of trade talks to begin in 1999 aimed at agricultural
subsidies, but also targeting state trading entities.
Since department of agriculture officials have begun to use the
term ``state trading entities'' when describing the Canadian Wheat
Board, having done so recently at the CFA convention, has the
government already decided to rid itself of the wheat board, the
dairy commission and the supply management boards by defining
them out of existence through GATT as it did with the Crow rate?
(1500 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can be
absolutely assured that, as I have said in the House on many
occasions, the government will defend staunchly those vital
marketing agencies and institutions that are so valuable to
Canadian farmers, including our supply management system and
most certainly the Canadian Wheat Board.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
statements have been made recently by the U.K. government
concerning a possible link between the consumption of BSE
infected beef and serious diseases in humans.
1173
Could the minister of agriculture outline the measures he took
to protect the safety of Canadian beef, consumers and producers?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to food safety there
is no room for smugness or complacency.
The attitude we have always adopted in Canada is one of great
vigilance and care. We set and we enforce standards which are
among the highest in the world. That is why we can say with
confidence that Canada's meat supply is safe.
Under our surveillance system BSE has not been detected in any
domestic Canadian cattle herd. The one reported case, in 1993,
occurred in an animal imported from the United Kingdom. During
1993-94, as the House knows, the government took extraordinary
measures to protect Canada's livestock industry and consumers to
eradicate that disease in Canada, even though those measures were
criticized by some, including both the opposition parties in the
House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister, who was here a few seconds ago.
In his absence, I think I can put my question to the revenue
minister. It is about a project by her department to create an appeal
centre for eastern Canada. This project could involve three cities,
Shawinigan, Quebec City and Sherbrooke.
I would like to receive assurances from the Prime Minister that
neither he nor his office intend to intervene directly or indirectly in
the decision that is taken and that the three cities concerned will
have an equal chance to make their case.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a result of comprehensive reviews the department has
been looking at its services and operations. As a result of
technology and changes we have been able to consolidate offices in
different parts of the country.
We will definitely consider all aspects of the consolidation
moves and they will be done in a fair and equitable manner.
_____________________________________________
1173
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's responses to two
petitions presented during the first session.
* * *
(1505 )
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-244, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(deduction of interest on mortgage loans).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today
and introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act, deduction of interest on mortgage loans for first
time homeowners.
This bill proposes there may be deducted, in computing a
taxpayer's income for a taxation year, an amount equal to the
interest paid by the taxpayer in the year to the mortgage lender on
the first $100,000 of a mortgage secured by an individual's
qualifying home.
Some conditions apply to this bill, outlined in it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-245, an act to amend the Divorce Act
(granting of access to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent).
She said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-232
at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th
Parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-232 at the time of prorogation
of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
the bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
(Bill deemed read the second time and referred to a committee.)
1174
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move:
That Jim Hart be added to the list of associate members of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present a petition with over 1,500 names from the riding of
Drummond. The petitioners call on Parliament to withdraw bills
C-11 and C-12, and return to Quebec full responsibility for
measures to protect and maintain employment and manpower
training, including unemployment insurance and the associated
budgets. They criticize the employment insurance reform and call
on the government to establish real job creation programs.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present
today.
The first is from Calgary, Alberta. The petitioners draw to the
attention of the House that managing the family home and caring
for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not
been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition, having to do with health warning labels on
alcoholic beverages, comes from Sarnia, Ontario.
The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or
impair one's ability. Specifically, fetal alcohol syndrome and other
alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by
avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
(1510 )
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions. The first,
signed by 40 constituents, draws the attention of the House to the
situation of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition, signed by 35 Canadians, is with respect to the
repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1174
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved that Bill C-7, an act to
establish the Department of Public Works and Government
Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, be read the third
time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition parties for agreeing
to proceed with Bill C-7 at exactly the point it had reached in the
previous session of Parliament.
[Translation]
The opposition's co-operation in this saves time, energy and
money.
[English]
I also thank members of Parliament from all parties for their
advice in making Bill C-7 a good piece of legislation. I am
particularly grateful to members from my party for their ideas to
ensure this bill offers Canadians modern, flexible, accessible,
innovative, efficient, affordable and improved government
services.
1175
Bill C-7 merges a variety of related government operations into
one department. The new Department of Public Works and
Government Services delivers virtually all common services to
federal government departments and agencies. The bill creates a
more streamlined, efficient and effective responsive department. It
represents a rethinking of the delivery of government services to
guarantee that new, alternative and better methods of service
delivery are implemented. It represents an approach based on a
spirit of partnership with other governments and the private sector.
The legislation saves money for Canadian taxpayers through the
reduction of office space and administration and the elimination of
overlap and duplication. By placing several government services in
one department we make it easier for Canadians to do business with
the government and easier for Canadians to receive information
from the government.
The legislation provides single window access for suppliers and
contractors to the government. It rationalizes government
operations to provide specialized expertise and one stop service for
client departments and Canadian citizens. It modernizes services to
reflect the information age in which we live. It simplifies and
strengthens the administration of federal programs and services.
[Translation]
The bill affords the federal government greater flexibility and a
broader choice of options for collaborating with provincial and
territorial governments and the private sector. The new legislation
will make it possible for the department to join with other levels of
government, if they are agreeable, sharing premises, purchasing
and support services.
It will make it possible for the department to enter into
partnership agreements with Canadian businesses in order to help
them break into foreign markets, again if they wish to take
advantage of that assistance. By consolidating programs,
eliminating administrative constraints, stressing the essentials and
taking advantage of the latest technology, the department will be in
a position to effect rational and concrete changes, and thus to serve
Canadians with equity, transparency and cost-effectiveness.
(1515)
We will be able to serve Canadians better, while at the same time
reducing the department's budget by $353 million over three years.
The number of employees will be reduced by 30 per cent over the
next five years.
The consolidation of skills and resources, the rationalization of
systems, and the adoption of new service delivery approaches, are
already making it possible to save money and to deliver improved
services. By eliminating government office supply stores and
warehouses, we have been able to cut 280 positions and to
withdraw from that sector of activity.
The direct deposit of salaries and payments has allowed us to
reduce processing and mailing costs. In 1994-95, we saved $28
million. Moreover, it is my pleasure to inform the members of the
House that, since October 1995, as the result of an information
campaign, more than 1.7 million recipients of federal government
payments have registered for the direct deposit program, which
means an additional saving of $7 million.
At the moment, some 40 per cent of payments by my department
are made directly. We are aiming for 60 per cent over the next three
years, and resultant savings of approximately $44 million. I would
like to thank all Canadians who have signed up for the direct
deposit program. I invite all those who have not yet done so to take
advantage of the program.
Through agreements with other levels of government, we are
able to combine purchases of medicines and vaccines in bulk,
which means additional savings.
[English]
Those are exactly the kinds of practical and important
partnership efforts stressed in the new speech from the throne.
They are a fulfilment of our red book commitment ``to work
closely with provincial governments to reduce duplication and
improve service delivery in all areas where governments are
involved''.
As the member of Parliament for Sudbury, I know how
important it is for small businesses in my community to be able to
compete on a fair footing for government work. All Canadians
know that a more competitive contracting system means a better
deal for taxpayers.
Through the electronic open bidding system, we are enabling
Canadians from every part of the country to bid on government
contracts and to know what contracts have been given to whom and
for how much.
Bill C-7 will require the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services to follow through with even more initiatives
for enhancing integrity and efficiency in the contracting process.
Passage of this bill will also guarantee that the work of the
department in seeking to co-operate with other levels of
government has legislative authority. This will give my department
permission to enter into constructive partnering arrangements with
the private sector in order to benefit small businesses in Canada
and to serve the economic well-being of Canadians.
It is important legislation to confirm the legal propriety of more
than 70 bilateral discussions taking place with other governments
to harmonize services for Canadians and reduce the cost of those
services.
My department certainly wants to be in a position to enter into
even more common sense arrangements with other Canadian
1176
governments in the important fields of informatics, realty services
and procurement. That too will be authorized by Bill C-7.
I cannot stress too much how essential it is for my department to
work in harmony with other governments. It is essential for the
department to work in harmony with the private sector as well. My
department is not, should not and will not be in the business of
competing with other Canadians. We are in the business of serving
Canadians.
(1520)
The legislation before the House underscores that point by
stating explicitly that Public Works and Government Services
Canada will enter into a partnering arrangement with a private
sector firm only on request. I want to make it clear that my
department will only offer its services to another level of
government on request.
Bill C-7 states that the department can enter into these kinds of
co-operative arrangements with other levels of government or can
partner with the private sector only on the approval of the federal
cabinet. This ensures the kind of political accountability which
Canadians expect from their government.
What is really most exciting about this legislation is that it will
allow the Department of Public Works and Government Services to
advance the Team Canada approach so vigorously pursued by the
Prime Minister at home and abroad. Through partnering initiatives
with the provinces and territories, my department will help deliver
high quality, low cost services to Canadians in all parts of our
country. That is particularly important in areas of Canada such as
northern Ontario where I come from. It is also particularly
important in rural Canada.
Through new partnerships with Canadian businesses, we will use
the department's resources, credibility and know how to help
Canadian firms reach new international markets, increase their
exports and fuel the job creation which those exports make
possible. That is particularly important for providing the future
oriented employment we all want for young Canadians.
This bill has received widespread support from professional
organizations and industry groups in every corner of the country.
We are changing the responsibilities of the Department of Public
Works and Government Services today in order to serve the
interests of Canadians tomorrow.
[Translation]
The passing of Bill C-17 does not mean that the way government
services are administered will be cast in stone. On the contrary, the
approach will be practical, flexible and intelligent. We will
continue to modernize. We must continue to try alternate solutions
to meet the needs of Canadians.
The federal government, as the throne speech promised, can and
will be open to change and must continue to find new ways to better
serve Canadians.
Right now, I am awaiting a report from my department on the
planning, design and construction of architecture and engineering
projects. The aim of the study is to determine which activities
could be given to the private sector. The study is being done by a
team of engineers, architects and technicians representing the
private sector, unions and government.
Through their co-operation, we will ensure that the government
really serves Canadians.
I know most Canadians are not aware of the details of this
legislation, but I think I can fairly say that all Canadians would
agree with the underlying objectives of the bill. We all want to stop
wasting public funds. We all want government services to be
effective, accessible, reliable and sensitive to our needs. We all
want best value in terms of quality and price.
[English]
As members of Parliament, we want to move forward in
rationalizing government services and in forging new partnerships
with other governments. We want to be in a position to be an ally of
Canadian businesses, particularly small businesses, in competing
in a tough global market. We want to provide better services to
Canadians, better access to those services, more efficiency from
those services and new savings from those services.
(1525 )
These objectives are the very essence of this legislation. That is
why Bill C-7 should receive the support of all sides of the House of
Commons. I encourage members to pass this bill with enthusiasm.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-7. This bill is in
the same form as Bill C-52 of the first session of this Parliament.
As a result of the government's manoeuvre, which was condemned
by all opposition parties, this bill to establish the Department of
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal
certain acts is now at third reading.
The Bloc Quebecois' position is as follows. Since the beginning,
the Bloc Quebecois has objected to this bill and based its approach
on four points: amending the operating rules regarding financial
commitments; establishing a code for contracting out; greater
involvement by members of Parliament; and regular statements on
the awarding of contracts. Let us go briefly over these four points.
First of all, operating rules. We believe the federal government
should set operating rules governing federal financial
commitments. Under this process, all House of Commons
committees
1177
would be required to review four times a year all government
spending in the areas under their jurisdiction.
This review of government spending would apply to all
expenditures above $25,000. To set this process in motion, the
federal government should follow the example set by the Quebec
National Assembly, whose practices have proven very effective.
Second, we ask that the bill clearly lay down a code for contracting
out.
Third, we demand that members of Parliament from all parties
be consulted on or kept informed about the process for awarding
government contracts in the ridings they represent.
Finally, we ask that Public Works and Government Services
Canada produce regular statements that clearly show the contracts
awarded by the federal government and spell out its operating
rules.
There are other points with which the Bloc Quebecois disagrees.
First, the fact that there is no way federal MPs can know what
government contracts, if any, are carried out in their own riding.
We have also suggested that the government make federal officials
accountable for the expenditures they make, so that any
discrepancies can be reported.
We discussed the issue of advance payments, which result from a
squandering of public funds at the end of every fiscal year of the
department. Finally, we questioned the scope of the bill, which
enables the department to offer its services to provincial and
municipal governments.
In the wake of the last budget, this would leave the door wide
open to more duplication and squandering, the two main causes of
our being in debt, a debt that will amount to $600 billion in
1996-97.
Let us take a closer look at this bill, as third reading calls for
taking stock of this government action. First of all, regarding the
code of conduct to ensure the acquisition method's transparency.
The main amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois was to
reject the bill, because it did not provide for the establishment of a
specific code of conduct to make transparent the method of
procurement, for all goods and services purchased by the
Department of Public Works and Government Services.
(1530)
This was a major amendment in that its purpose was to
completely change how the public, experts and elected
representatives have access to information on government
expenditures made through the department.
The approach favoured by the Bloc Quebecois was based on
transparency as regards the money the government and its
administration spend within the government and the work they
contract out.
At present, both outside of government or within the public
service, anyone who tries to get more information is confronted to
this huge labyrinth and cannot get the information he or she is
looking for. This bill will not solve this problem.
Another factor is definitely the complex structures and the
technical terms that considerably hamper the research process and
dampen the spirits of those interested in knowing what
governments do with public funds.
The public service in general and the department in particular
have created impressive obstacles to confuse those who try to
understand how the federal administration allocates government
contracts.
There are countless entrepreneurs who try to get contracts, but
are unable to figure out all the intricacies of the government
structure.
And there are also many who contact their MP to complain either
about the process, the eligibility criteria, or the contracts awarded,
because they feel the system is unfair.
Also, given the current legislation on the financing of federal
political parties, any company or legal entity can contribute to the
election fund of a federal political party, without any limit being
imposed.
This lack of limit poses a number of risks. Financing political
parties can help companies establish close links with the
government and it can open doors for them.
Greater transparency and simplicity in the awarding process
would no doubt help avoid such situations, and would provide all
Canadians and Quebecers with a fair and easily accessible system.
The same logic applies in the case of lobbyists. Lobbyists are
very powerful people because the companies or the interests they
represent have provided financial help to political parties, which
have thus become indebted to them.
It is for all these reasons that the Bloc Quebecois was in favour
of rules to monitor the federal government's financial
commitments. However, the latter always turned a deaf ear to that
suggestion.
Let us now look at contracting out. Over the last few years, there
has been a definite trend showing that the federal public service is
relying increasingly more on contracting out.
For the year 1992-93 alone, the Treasury Board estimated at $5.2
billion the total dollar figure for that activity.
During the period from 1984-85 to 1992-93, all contracting out
activities, whether for professional, computer or maintenance
services, experienced unprecedented growth.
1178
With the downsizing of the public service, that activity is bound
to grow even more.
Such a level of spending should be subject to some guidelines
reflecting the federal government's future plans in that regard.
The stakes are too high for federal public servants, contracting
firms and Canadians to leave that issue in limbo indefinitely.
The Bloc Quebecois would have liked the bill to set provisions,
rules, or a legal framework forcing the government to properly
oversee the contracting out process and make it more transparent.
Such a monitoring system would also have to be suited to all those
involved in this important process.
(1535)
Both the government and public servants, and the general public
will agree that such a code would be useful, because it would
facilitate relations between the government and its employees, on
the one hand, and would ensure that contracting out does not take
place in an unclear context, which would certainly please the
public.
A modern government uses modern means to meet the
expectations of the public. There is no doubt that contracting out is
still one such means. A way must be found to get a better handle on
it so that it is an acceptable part of our everyday affairs. At the
present time, contracting out is seen by public servants and unions
as a formidable adversary and an ideological enemy that must be
eliminated.
We must ask ourselves why this perception of contracting out is
so persistent? The reason is very simple. Contracting out is feared
because it is uncontrollable, both in its present form and in its
present volume.
As long as the federal government refuses to state clearly what
its contracting out policies are now, and how it will go about
contracting out in the future, the climate will continue to be
unhealthy, aggressive and potentially explosive. It must be
recognized that approaches to this issue are so divergent that the
department will have to ask some serious questions.
The ideological differences are so great that they could lead to a
crisis for the government, which has unfortunately not followed the
Bloc's proposal to include in this bill sensible legislative
provisions for the management of contracting out, with the
emphasis on transparency, so that all stakeholders would have their
concerns addressed.
In my opinion, contracting out ought to be guided by three
factors: healthy competition, the specialized or uncommon nature
of the product or service, and the need for a greater or lesser
volume than usually available resources can provide. The question
of contracting out is not merely the result of the current situation,
but a trend that threatens good management and proper operation
of the federal public service.
The third point: consultation of all federal MPs. It is important
that all be given a sense of responsibility and kept informed and/or
consulted about the awarding of contracts in their ridings.
Regardless of their political stripe, all MPs are elected
representatives and have been delegated with the legislative
representation of their riding. Their jurisdiction is more than just
legislative, in that when called upon to decide affairs of the state,
there are obviously concrete administrative consequences as well.
Elected representatives are consulted in the House, called upon
to vote on a considerable number of items, but denied the means of
checking out in their ridings whether the state's decisions are in
line with House recommendations and legislation.
Public expenditures fall in this category. Elected representatives
have the right to question the government on all expenditures by
the public administration, and ministers back up the administrative
decisions from their departments. How then can an MP fully and
worthily fulfil his role in the House, if he or she lacks the means to
really find out what the federal public administration is doing in his
or her riding?
In a word, I cannot understand why, in this day and age of
modern telecommunications, MPs' offices cannot find out which
companies in their ridings are responding to calls for tenders. Are
they really meeting the criteria of these calls for tender?
(1540)
In the Standing Committee on Government Operations, a Liberal
member mentioned that he had managed to change a decision to
move a Canada Post warehouse and thus saved the public treasury
$1 million. All to his credit. However, the fact that this member
knew what was happening in his riding is due to his having seen the
call for tender inviting companies to bid on the contract. He had not
been advised of this expenditure. By chance, or through research,
he learned that projects involving this sort of expenditure were
happening in his riding. How easy and logical it would be if this
member, and all members, could be informed of government
expenditures in their respective ridings. No one can say our
proposal would be costly to manage. One single example of the
type I have just mentioned represents a significant saving.
In short, to conclude this point, I would like to suggest that all
members' offices have access, without additional cost, to all calls
for tenders and all contracts. This sort of mechanism should have
been in place long ago.
Public officials have a responsibility too. We have information
that certain states are considering the right to report public waste.
Without going into a whole lot of detail, this principle should be
debated in this House, particularly because the bill concerns the
Department of Public Works and Government Services, which
1179
concludes most of the government's contracts for goods and
services.
Questioning government expenditures from outside is certainly a
good way to control public spending. This is what we were driving
at earlier. However, for the picture to be complete, questioning
must also come from inside on the practicality of the department's
expenditures. This is what we proposed and what the government
rejected.
We continue to believe that a mechanism giving public servants
the right to report wastage of public funds should be put in place
and this right promoted. For the major part, public expenditures are
initiated or paid by public servants themselves, which is within the
scope of their duties in the public service. However, the workings
of the federal government, just as the workings of other western
governments, are not perfect and one can easily imagine that all
kinds of useless expenditures are made on a regular basis.
To sum up this paragraph, this act would have allowed public
servants to blow the whistle on the government for spending
millions of dollars during the campaign leading to the October 30
referendum, which was contrary to the Quebec Referendum Act.
The auditor general's reports are a delight for those who enjoy
learning about the federal government's useless expenditures.
There is no other way to become aware of useless internal
expenditures. Moreover, too often, the government takes forever to
follow up on the auditor's analysis and recommendations. We
might consider legislation to compel the government of the day to
act on the auditor's report. This is my suggestion.
Other measures should be put in place and we would have hoped
that the review of this bill would have provided the opportunity to
do so. But as is often the case, the government did not answer the
call of common sense.
(1545)
Let us move on to federal advance payments. An advance
payment amounts to making the most of the resources available to
a departmental service so that it has access to the same level of
resources in the following budget year. This practice is used by
public service employees and managers responsible for providing
services for fear that, if they do not use all the resources at their
disposal, their annual budget will be cut.
I have a suggestion to make in this regard. Why should the
budget rules imposed on members of Parliament not also apply to
all departments? We as members of Parliament can carry up to 5
per cent of our annual budgets over to the following year without
suffering any cuts simply because we did not spend our whole
budgets. On the other hand, we are responsible for any
overbudgeting. Why should public service managers not have the
same accountability?
Why should members of Parliament be responsible for their
budgets in their ridings but not the government? These are all
questions that deserve answers.
I will conclude by saying that, when establishing the Department
of Public Works and Government Services and amending and
repealing certain acts, the government missed a great opportunity
to address the real problems, and especially to help resolve these
problems. This is unfortunate. The four points that we brought to
its attention and on which we expected developments have not been
heard.
The government will not establish a code of ethics guaranteeing
the transparency of procurement methods. The government will not
establish a code for contracting out. The government will not
increase consulting mechanisms for all members of Parliament.
The government will not take steps to make public servants more
accountable.
In a word, the government will continue to make promises it
does not keep and to ignore the comments of others. It overlooks
solutions that could work wonders, perhaps because the
government is not the solution but the problem.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-7, formerly Bill
C-52 which was presented to the House back in 1993. Just a scant
three years later we are looking for approval of provisions for
which most in fact are probably already in place.
I do not want to dwell on this subject for an extended length of
time because the bill was introduced and then became C-7 in 1994
and the changes within the bill are already in place. However, I
would like to make a few points about the bill and the practices of
the department in general.
I and my party have some serious reservations about particular
sections of the bill which appear to give the minister unlimited
discretion with respect to fees, business practices and other
operations within the ministry which in itself is sort of scary. As a
matter of fact, I have received quite a number of letters, faxes and
calls from people who have concerns in relation to those aspects of
the bill.
Clause 16 is particularly worrisome because of the broad range
of powers it implies and gives to the minister. It states that ``the
minister may do anything for or on behalf of'', and then it enters
into a number of conditions. Given the history of the Liberal
government when it has such a free rein, that can present a scary
situation to a lot of people who are concerned about how the
government spends money.
1180
(1550 )
Given the government's penchant for spending money and its
history of giving choice favours, if I may use that word or we can
call it patronage, to friends of the government, giving a minister
this kind of leeway and discretion is particularly worrisome to
ourselves and indeed to many Canadians.
Clause 16(b) states that public works can do anything for ``any
government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere''. The term
``in Canada or elsewhere'' is rather questionable. I thought the
purpose of any government in Canada was to serve Canadians.
Why would this minister seek to have a provision that would
allow the minister to do things on behalf of Canadians with people
outside the country when we are talking about government
operations and public works? The focus should be to deal within
Canada in any area.
Why is the government giving powers to a department entering
into contracts with foreign governments, companies or
individuals? We have all those resources here in Canada.
One of the most worrisome parts of this bill is that the
government appears to be and is getting involved in providing
services that are already available in the private sector. It is our
opinion that the government should not be competing with the
private sector. The provisions of this bill allow it to do exactly that.
We question why the government would want to get involved in
competition with the private sector which pays taxes, tries to do
business in this country, provides jobs for Canadians, provides a
living for the owners and tries to build a company. Instead, the
private sector comes up against a government that is competing
with its own tax dollars and generally far more resources than any
private sector company has in this country. That is a real concern of
ours.
Clause 16 also permits the minister to do what he or she pleases
with whom he or she pleases. That is scary in itself. One can apply
that principle to any of the functions that might occur in that
department.
When we give a minister that kind of wide ranging power to do
what he or she pleases with whomever he or she pleases, given the
history of the Liberals' penchant for spending money, giving away
very lush government contracts to friends of Liberals and
appointing friends of Liberals to very well paying positions, we
have to ask if this power is excessive. Should it not be curtailed
more?
We have put forward amendments that would address these wide
ranging powers and the freedom they give by curtailing the
department's ability to compete with the private sector first.
However, as history will show, when we put through common sense
amendments they are defeated by the government. This is curious
since the government operations committee just released a
preliminary report on the contracting process entitled: ``Small
Business is our Business''. The report flies in the face of what this
bill intends to do.
One of the main findings of the report is that more contracts
should be awarded to small and medium size businesses. It sounds
good to me. However, here we have Bill C-7 which permits the
government to enter into direct competition with those very
enterprises the report states it should be doing more business with.
In our opinion, the government should have adopted the
amendments put forward by the Reform Party which would have
been in line with the report ``Small Business is our Business''. We
think it should have listened and should listen to the committee and
prevent the department from competing against the private sector.
(1555)
Many letters have been written to many MPs in this House from
private sector companies, whether they be small or medium size
companies, stating their distress about the fact that the government
can and is entering into competition with them using their own tax
dollars to do so. Reformers believe these companies have a very
legitimate concern. Why should their own government compete
directly with them?
The government should have adopted some of the amendments
put forward by Reformers and it should have listened to its own
standing committee which dealt with this and provided a number of
recommendations.
Ultimately the government should be downsizing the department
and getting out of those areas that are controlled and well served by
the private sector. Why should the government be involved in areas
of operation that are served very well by the private sector
business? However, we see the reverse when we examine Bill C-7.
The government operations committee identified a number of
areas of concern with respect to the department that are not
addressed in this bill. For instance, the committee was concerned
that 40 per cent of the contracts, worth about $3.5 billion, given out
by the government were sole source. In other words, those
contracts did not go out to public tender. They were just given out
with no tendering process to particular firms. Nothing in this bill
addresses this situation.
As members know, sole sourcing can very easily lead to abuses
within the system. This was one of the things we discussed at
length in the standing committee. There were a lot of concerns
from Liberal members themselves about sole sourcing of
government contracts. We discussed it before the House prorogued
and before the government decided to take an extra holiday in
February. We were prepared to deal with it and hopefully we will
now get back to dealing with it in committee. We will send more
recommendations to the government in the hope that it will start to
listen.
1181
The committee recommended that Treasury Board and public
works draft a code of conduct for contracting out which would
lay out very strict guidelines on how contracting out would be
done by the government. However, the committee report went
further by stating that the reporting framework for contracting
needs had to be significantly revised.
In all, there is a great deal of concern over the contracting
process. What really concerned us was the amended tenders, the
amendments that could be made to contracts given out by the
government. In other words, someone can bid a price and after they
have the contract they can go back to the government at the local
level and request their tender or bid price be amended. How could
any private business ever operate like this?
When I was in business, after an agreement was made to
purchase something from a supplier, a price was quoted, the deal
was made and we agreed to it. However, the situation here is that
the government can put out a contract, someone can bid on it and
win the bid and then turn around and ask for an amendment. Given
that the contract is at a certain level, say $30,000 and under, the
decision to amend the contract can be made locally within the
region. We feel this opens up the process to all forms of abuse and
we asked in committee to have it dealt with. We see nothing in the
bill that deals with it. We hope that when the committee deals with
it again some of the recommendations that come forward might be
added into this bill as amendments.
(1600 )
Even though the committee's work is fairly recent, we are all
well aware of some of these problems that are hounding the
government's contracting procedures. I talked about the contract
amendments which add on to the contracts and drive the price
higher than what the original agreement was.
To talk about that for a moment, there are some astounding
figures. For example, in 1990 contract amendments totalled $602
million. These are not the original prices; these are the add-ons. By
1993, in just a short three years, once the people who were
submitting the bids found out how to work the loophole in the
system which allowed for contracting amendments and get around
the contracting process, the amendments went from $602 million in
1990 to a staggering $1.8 billion in 1993. That is totally
unacceptable. No private sector operation could even dream of
operating in that way.
This is another situation we feel the Liberals and the House of
Commons have to deal with immediately. Reform has been talking
about this situation for almost three years now. There have to be
more controls to safeguard the public purse. We cannot allow the
discretionary power within the department that exists. It is open to
all forms of abuse.
There really are no procedures in place other than this discretion
that will really safeguard the public purse. These are tax dollars we
are working with. These tax dollars are given to the government by
hard working Canadians who want to see their tax dollars spent in a
prudent fashion. Let us never forget that the tax dollars are
basically funds paid into trust by Canadians. The government
should regard taxpayers' money as a sacred trust and should do
everything it can so that there is no question by Canadians as to
how the government spends that money.
Whereas there should be more controls to protect the public
purse, Bill C-7 in fact increases the power of the department and
the minister and loosens control. What on earth is this government
thinking about when it puts in a bill like this and when it asks its
members-let me rephrase that-when it tells its members to
support a bill like this?
The department is famous for being partial in its provision of
information which at best is very difficult to receive. Reformers put
forward amendments which would ensure that the disclosure of
information was complete and easily accessible which is not
unreasonable. Our party appears to be the only one in the House
concerned about how taxpayers' dollars are spent by this
government. We asked that information on how the money is being
spent be easily accessible. We asked for that in the form of an
amendment. The Liberal government in an effort to protect its little
empire, which gives it all sorts of powers to spend money and
reward friends, defeated our amendment which asked for
accessibility.
What kind of a message does that send to the Canadian
taxpayers, who as we all know are among the highest, if not the
highest taxed wage earners in the whole world? What kind of
message does that send to the people who are paying taxes, that this
government will not allow a party like the Reform Party, who want
to be the guardians of the taxpayers' money, or for that matter any
other interested and concerned people access to how the
government departments spend their money? It is a very poor
message indeed. We put forward the amendment for disclosure. It
was defeated by the government.
(1605 )
When we consider that $9 billion was spent on contracting last
year, we think the public has a right to know exactly how the
money is being spent. However, Bill C-7 does not address this
issue. It is almost laughable. For all the Liberal government's talk
about transparency and openness, all the promises it made on the
campaign trail and in the red book about being transparent and
open, the public still has difficulty obtaining information from the
department of public works.
Forget about the public having difficulty; Reform members have
difficulty obtaining the information we want in order to check on
how the government is spending the money. I have requested
information through access to information a number of times only
1182
to obtain about one-tenth of what I requested and even that was
blanked out in many cases. What kind of a message does that send
to Canadians?
All of this reminds me of a related issue, which is the
privatization of Canada Communication Group I spoke about in the
House the other day. Canada Communication Group falls under the
control of the department of public works. In July 1995 the
minister announced that it would be privatized. In some respects
we do not have much of a problem with privatization if it is going
to save money and increase efficiency. We thought we would wait
to see how it was going to work.
The government struck a committee to advise it on a process
which was to be fair, open and transparent. The committee was to
advise the government on how the privatization should be
implemented. The process was going to be open, fair and
transparent, as the government says it would like to be some day.
We and the public have yet to hear from that committee. Equally
distressing, as I understand it the committee is reporting to the
minister behind closed doors on an as required basis.
What happened to the fair, open and transparent process which
was to be the committee's criteria? There has never been a report
from the committee which has been made public. It is reporting
only to the minister who at her discretion can advise Parliament as
to how the privatization implementation is proceeding.
All of this is very disturbing to our party and to concerned
Canadians who want a little more openness with respect to how
their dollars are being spent. Once again the Liberal government
promised one thing but did another. That is why we must be wary
of the Liberals' promise that Bill C-7 does not confer broad powers
on the minister. I would suggest that it does exactly that.
Furthermore, when the bill was before the government
operations committee in November 1994, it was rammed through
in typical Liberal fashion by the Liberal majority sitting on the
committee. Amendments and witnesses were put forward by
Reform. We submitted our lists, we submitted our amendments and
the Liberals on the committee refused every one of them. So much
for openness and transparency. So much for wanting to make
available information on how the government operates.
One has to ask, what is the government afraid of? Why does it
not want the Reform Party looking into the way it spends
taxpayers' dollars? Why does it not want Canadians to have an
understanding of how it spends taxpayers' dollars? Is the
government trying to hide something?
We have seen contracting out. There is a company that does a lot
of business with the government. SNC Lavelin is a very well
known Quebec company that does a lot of business with Canada
Post and other departments, including Transport Canada. It is a big
company with a zillion subsidiaries and is involved in a zillion
consortia.
(1610)
I have been trying to find out why this company is getting so
many government contracts. I know it has been getting them for
years, contract after contract, untendered for the most part. It has
received a number of multimillion dollar contracts from Canada
Post through its subsidiaries, SLS Corp. and Clientech and others
with no tendering process in place.
We can talk about the contract for the mine sweepers for the
coast guard on the east coast. Fenco MacLaren, a company which
bid on the work to be done for the government, outbid Halifax
shipyards. I was not involved in the committee that was looking
into that but I found out that Fenco MacLaren is not even a
shipyard. I thought it strange that a company that does not even
own a shipyard could get a huge government contract which
common sense dictates must go to a shipyard. Yet Halifax
shipyards which bid on the contract did not get it. Lo and behold, in
looking into the research data on Fenco MacLaren what do I see? It
is owned by SNC Lavelin. Well, my questions have been answered
so far. We will delve into that one a little more, let the Liberal
members be aware and particularly the minister who was in charge
of that one.
The Liberals promise one thing and they do another. We put
through common sense amendments to open up the process to what
is going on and to make it more transparent and the Liberals shoot
it down.
The amendments and the witnesses we proposed to the
committee were refused by the Liberal members. They wanted to
get out of the committee as soon as possible. They did not want a
detailed examination of Bill C-7 in any way, shape or form. They
rammed it through committee and let it flounder on the Order Paper
for about 16 months.
The bill appears to be largely administrative but as I noted
earlier, members should have some real concerns about some of the
power conferred on the minister. Members should be asking why
the bill permits the government to compete with the private sector.
Why? If the government is so serious about creating jobs and
helping small business as it claims in the flyer ``Small Business is
our Business'', it would not allow particular clauses in the bill
which allow it to compete with private sector small business to go
forward.
I urge MPs who are concerned about job creation and the health
of the small business sector to vote against the bill. Even Liberal
members who feel this way are invited to vote against the bill as
well. I know Reformers are going to be voting against the bill
because we have serious concerns about the powers that are
1183
bestowed upon the minister and her department. Reformers will
certainly not be supporting the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We are now entering the
next stage of debate where members will have 20 minute
maximums for their interventions subject to 10 minutes of
questions or comments.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
rising to speak on Bill C-7 I cannot help but note that this very
straightforward piece of legislation has been under consideration
by the House of Commons for a very long time. Members of
Parliament have had the opportunity to examine the bill very
closely and they have made a number of suggestions to improve the
bill. That was very much welcomed by the government.
(1615 )
Key amendments have been put in place to satisfy the legitimate
concerns that have been brought forward through the process. I
hope that now, with a sense of goodwill on all sides, we can move
forward to pass this legislation which has, at its very heart, the
basic goals of providing Canadians with savings, efficiency and
improvement in services.
Passage of this legislation will enshrine in law the merging of a
variety of related government operations into one department. The
Department of Public Works and Government Services delivers
virtually all common services to government departments and
agencies.
In essence, the bill creates a more streamlined, efficient,
effective and responsive department. The department saves money
for Canadian taxpayers through the reduction of office space and
administration, and the elimination of overlap and duplication.
The federal government is by far the largest purchaser of goods
and services in the country. Public Works and Government
Services Canada is responsible for the orderly processing of about
65 per cent of federal procurement. Clearly the move toward a
more consolidated approach to government purchasing is of benefit
to all concerned.
It provides a single window access for suppliers and contractors
to the government. It rationalizes government operations to
provide specialized expertise and one stop service for client
departments. It modernizes services to reflect the information age
in which we live. It simplifies and strengthens the administration of
federal programs and services.
As a government we have made a firm commitment to all
Canadians that we will provide them with an administration that is
efficient, innovative, co-operative and fair. Canadians are rightly
concerned about the cost of government at all levels.
They are aware that overlap, duplication and poor co-ordination
with other levels of government have contributed to the tax burden
that they must bear. They expect, and they demand, that we take
every measure possible to streamline government operations,
reduce administration costs, cut out red tape and improve service
delivery of government programs.
Bill C-7 responds directly to these challenges. The bill
modernizes government services so that the federal government
can concentrate on doing what it does best and most cost
effectively and leave the rest for those who can do better. The
department has had to rationalize all of its operations to achieve
these savings, efficiencies and improved services.
For the department this has meant taking advantage of new
technology. For example, thanks to more powerful computers, laser
printers and developing technologies the number of cheque
production centres in the country has been reduced from 11 to 4.
This means annual savings of $4.8 million after implementation.
Efficiency means cutting costs but it also means whenever
possible improving services. That is why the department has
moved to make direct deposit the standard method of payment.
This means annual savings of $20 million to Canadian taxpayers
and at the same time increased security, privacy and convenience
for recipients of payments. Efficiency means providing equal
access to all suppliers to government.
Through the electronic open bidding service we are enabling
Canadians from every part of the country to bid on government
contracts and to know what contracts have been given to whom and
for how much. The open bidding service is a nationally accessible
service which 25 other departments and crown corporations as well
as the provincial governments of New Brunswick, Quebec,
Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have chosen to use
to advertise their procurement needs as well. It is sort of a one stop
centre. This is a good example of co-operation between various
levels of government in an effort to reduce overlap and duplication.
(1620 )
Through the open bidding service, the Department of Public
Works and Government Services has long sought to provide a
single window for suppliers on the estimated $57 billion Canadian
public sector market from all levels of government. We are very
optimistic that this can be achieved through this process.
Throughout the examination of Bill C-7, considerable attention
has also been directed toward the availability of procurement
information and the integrity of the system. Members and the
public in general want to easily and effectively monitor
government spending and ensure that contracts for goods and
services are entered into in a fair and reasonable manner.
1184
The Liberal government agrees that the procurement processes
must be, and be seen to be honest, open and fair. If government
is to play a positive role in society, honesty and integrity in
political institutions is a definite requirement.
To this end, we promised to restore the public's confidence when
we said in the red book: ``Open government will be the watchword
for the Liberal program''. Since being elected 28 months ago,
ministers have insisted on the highest standards of integrity and
honesty in fulfilling their mandate. On that, members can refer to
the speech from the throne on February 27, 1996. The government
has taken many concrete steps to make openness and integrity a
prime focus within the procurement process.
As already mentioned, the government has stressed the
importance of the open bidding system. Not only is this system
efficient, not only does it reduce the paper burden and lower the
cost to the taxpayers, it also ensures that everyone with an interest
has access to the government's contracting requirements.
This service is available not only to companies that do business
or would like to do business with the government, but also to
members of Parliament, provincial governments, the media or any
Canadian citizen that wishes to track the course of government
purchasing. What could be more open, fair and transparent than
that?
In May 1994, a couple of years ago, guidelines were issued to
regulate for the first time a fair and open regime for the purchase of
advertising and public opinion research. Regulations were also
brought in to curb the power of lobby groups to influence decisions
regarding government purchasing.
One of the amendments that has been incorporated in the bill
requests the minister to investigate and develop services for
increasing efficiency and economy and ``for enhancing integrity
and efficiency in the contracting process''.
Dealing fairly and honestly with the thousands of Canadian
individuals and companies that do business with the government is
a matter of very high priority. The public sector, at all levels of
government, is under intense public scrutiny today. Canadians
demand that governments not only control their expenditures but
that they operate openly so that the public may judge the
effectiveness of their operations.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services is
meeting this challenge by providing equal access to the federal
market by showing fairness in awarding contracts and by ensuring
that contracting information is available and acceptable, whether
accessible to all Canadians in the most efficient and cost effective
way.
The government has taken these positive measures by operating
the Department of Public Works and Government Services under
order in council. The passage of this legislation will give
parliamentary approval to that government decision.
The government wants to move forward in rationalizing its
services. It wants to provide better service to Canadians, better
access to those services, more efficiency from those services and
new savings from those services.
Bill C-7, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services is a good bill made better by the suggestions
of members of this House. I ask for support to give it speedy
passage.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by my
colleague, the parliamentary secretary. I have two or three
questions that I would like to address to the parliamentary
secretary.
(1625)
First, I wonder how Bill C-7 accomplishes what the business
community has requested for some time, a fair and equitable
method of tendering for projects, regardless of size. Second, what
is the amount of the estimated savings proposed as a result of this
new bill and its amalgamation efforts? Finally, does the bill address
our concerns of duplication of effort and if so, how will this be
accomplished? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might like to
comment on those questions.
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions from my
colleague.
We are talking about a lot of money when we talk about savings.
After this bill reaches its ultimate effectiveness, savings will be in
the neighbourhood of $180 million by fiscal year 1997-98. To all
taxpayers in the country that means a lot of savings.
I will give a micro example of that. I spoke about the direct
deposit system. By directly depositing cheques the government
save money on postage, bank fees and paper. Already about 40 per
cent of government employees are enrolled in direct depositing.
We would like to have that up to about 60 per cent in two or three
years. Just that one initiative alone saves about $20 million. Twenty
million dollars here and another million dollars there and it all adds
up. In total it adds up to about $180 million.
Businesses know that the government is a big business. The
government is involved in a lot of procurement. A lot of contracts
have to be made out or extended. It works out to about 1,000
contracts a day, big and small. It is incredible. Businesses people
want a system that is open, fair, transparent and above board.
Through this open bidding system that is what they get.
1185
Business people want information. They will make the
judgments. To make the judgments they have to have information.
All federal contracts are available on OBS. A number of provincial
governments are tied into the system. It is all there: the price of
contracts, the intentions of contracts to be let and so on. It is an
enormous repository of information for business people.
In my humble opinion businesses are very happy with the kind of
information that is made available to them. From time to time there
may be difficulties. When dealing with a department that is as large
as this and with a market that is worth billions and billions of
dollars, it is hard to be perfect. There are going to be times when
there are differences of opinion. In the main, Canadian businesses
are very happy and very supportive of the open bidding service. I
am glad that it is in place.
The minister wants the system to work even better. Nothing on
the face of the earth cannot be improved. If it is made by human
beings there will always be imperfections because we are
imperfect, so we are looking for ways of improving the system. If
there is a way to do it, if there is a way to save money, that is our
objective, that is our target and that is exactly what we will do.
I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague.
(1630)
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
have a few questions to ask and also a few comments to make
following the remarks my hon. colleague just made. The hon.
member responsible for the Standing Committee on Public Works,
who just spoke, chaired the Standing Committee on Public Works
during both sessions of this government's mandate.
He reminded us that the Liberal government was elected to put
an end to squandering and to administer public funds efficiently. I
think that there is a far cry between the government intentions, as
described in the red book, and reality.
First, I think that the best way of eliminating waste or
squandering is through a procurement policy. The government
should have its procurement policies in writing.
We know that the vast majority of government procurement
transactions are conducted through tender or electronic bulletin
board. I sat on the committee, and the Bloc Quebecois suggested
that, to procure goods, materials and services, the government use,
in addition to the electronic bulletin board, ads or public notices
published in newspapers to ensure that it gets the best prices and
that many people have the chance to bid and show their products to
the government.
We know that, at present, only those who subscribe to the
bulletin board can get referrals and know the government's
requirements in order to bid.
In my riding of Charlevoix, there are people who would like to
bid to offer their products or services, but they do not have the
equipment required to offer their products or services to the
government.
I would like the hon. member to tell me something. Does he
intend to set himself the goal, in the performance of his duties, of
bringing the government or the ministerial side to commit to going
to public tender, after specifications have been drawn up, and to
awarding the contract to the lowest bidder that meets the
requirements?
Also, will there be a written material management policy? Will
there be policies regarding equipment inventory? Let me give you
an example for the benefit of hon. members. In my constituency
office, in Charlevoix, I have only one person working for me, an
assistant. When the government furnished my office, in December
1993, I was told that I was entitled to three computers. ``Why am I
entitled to three computers if I have only one employee, I asked?
All I want is one computer, but a good, efficient and efficient one''.
``No, based on government policy, on House of Commons rules,
you need three computers, came the answer''. So three computers
were installed: it took them a week to install three computers, two
of which are never used. Just think of the costs of materials and
labour.
This was under previous government policies. And even if this
government was elected to eliminate waste, as promised in the red
book, nothing came of it. Today, the same policies apply within the
House of Commons.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the observations made
by my hon. colleague from Quebec. He has a concern about waste,
as he should as a member of Parliament. All members on both sides
of the House are concerned about waste.
Over the decades all governments have had reputations of waste.
I can say with enthusiasm that this government and especially the
minister, since I am talking about the new Department of Public
Works and Government Services, want to hear about waste.
I will not stand in my place and pretend everything works
absolutely perfectly. When there is waste, when there is
inefficiency, when there is a better way of doing things we want to
hear about it.
(1635)
I would always invite the hon. member whenever he comes
across examples of inefficiencies to bring them to our attention. It
is a big department and things will not always work well. I would
be more than happy to entertain concerns, whether relatively small
or relatively large.
1186
The hon. member asked about an open process. I believe we
do have an open process. If there is a better way to make it more
open, transparent and fair, let us do that.
I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. We are working
on it as best we can.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill
C-7, which seeks to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services. This bill was first reviewed during the last
session and is now back before us at the same stage as it was in
December.
This debate provides an opportunity to point out a number of
things. We will not discuss the overall administration of the
department; however, we want to discuss the department's
mandate, ways, processes and practices, and to look at its
effectiveness. This is basically what I intend to do in the few
minutes that I have.
The Liberal government often accuses the official opposition of
only criticizing. When a bill is before the House and Bloc
Quebecois members discuss it, Liberal members and ministers
often say: ``All you do is criticize; you have nothing else to say.
You cannot make constructive proposals''.
In the case of Bill C-7, the official opposition worked very
seriously, and I want to pay tribute to the Bloc members who sat on
the public works committee during the last session for their
excellent work. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to conclude
that the government did not take into account the recommendations
and suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois, as is its habit.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Châteauguay raised four
points on which I would like to go back. My colleague mentioned
the need to monitor the government's financial commitments, and I
will get back to this later on. He also talked about the contracting
out process. As he mentioned in the question and comment period,
the Bloc would like to focus on the need to have an open process so
that all our fellow citizens can benefit from government services,
especially business people who offer their services to the
government. That is why we have contracting out rules.
The Bloc wants members of Parliament to be more involved in
the process. Hon. members should be consulted at least on what is
going on in their ridings and need to be kept informed, but I will
also come back to this issue.
(1640)
Lastly, I want to talk about ethics in government, by drawing a
parallel with the party financing legislation which, of course, does
not exist at the federal level. There is one piece of legislation which
addresses the financing issue, but its provisions are so broad that I
would rather draw a parallel with the rules we have in Quebec and
which really set the province of Quebec apart from the other
western democracies in this area.
Let us talk about control of financial commitments and the
suggestion made by the Bloc Quebecois to ensure that all House
committees can meet regularly, at least four times a year, to
examine the financial operations and commitments of the
departments they are responsible for. Again, we might want to refer
to what is done in Quebec. We often hear our colleagues, especially
the members from western Canada, criticize what is being done in
the province of Quebec, but I think we should also focus on what
deserves to be mentioned and recognized. In this instance, I think it
would be well worth it.
In Quebec, parliamentary committees and commissions can, I
guess any time they wish to do so, summon a minister, of course,
but also senior public servants to account for their management.
Any day they wish to, they can summon public servants before
their committees and ask them to account for the decisions they
made in their own department.
This request by the Bloc Quebecois to do the same thing at the
federal level is quite in line with the will expressed by this
Parliament to change the rules governing the auditor general and to
allow the tabling in the House, four times a year, of the report of the
auditor general, as asked by the former member for Vanier who
now sits in the Upper House. In that context, it appears quite
logical and normal-that is, if this government can be logical-to
see to it that each committee of the House can proceed with the
audit of the financial commitments of the departments or agencies
for which they are responsible.
This is a positive and constructive suggestion, and instead of
hearing the minister responsible for public works and my colleague
for Winnipeg St. James, whom I hold in great respect, boast about
what this government did in the contracting out sector, I would
have preferred that he take action and announce, as we considered
this bill, amendments to allow an audit of financial commitments
four times a year.
This brings me to the code for contracting out. My colleague for
Châteauguay suitably noted that the federal government is
spending enormous sums of money through all sorts of contracts
for the procurement of equipment, merchandise and services.
Throughout Canada, it is estimated that more than $5 billion were
spent for such purposes in 1993-94. Where I come from, that is not
peanuts. These are significant sums of money that must be spent
wisely and we must make sure that they serve the purposes they
were meant for.
1187
(1645)
Even though it has been mentioned that changes have been made
to the awarding of contracts and that some improvements have
been made, there is still plenty of room for improvement,
particularly with regard to contracting out.
First, it would be important, as I said earlier, that not only the
suppliers of services but also the people who receive the services
understand the way government works and understand the
tendering process.
However, the experience of members of this
House-particularly opposition members, who receive many
complaints every day in their constituency office-indicates that
the federal government's administrative practices for awarding
contracts leave a lot to be desired. More often than not, it is a total
mess and one has to wonder if officials who have to make decisions
do not try to confuse everybody on purpose and to make things as
complicated as possible to avoid scrutiny and to avoid being asked
questions.
So if we are serious about spending government funds wisely, it
is imperative that we establish a code for contracting out, that we
have clear and simple rules that would help the Canadian public
understand what the government or the public servants are doing on
their behalf.
I would like to underline a few suggestions that have been made
to improve the process. First of all, members should be consulted
or informed. It is amazing that, as elected representatives, we have
to rise in this House during consideration of this bill or any other
bill to ask to be informed of what the government is doing in our
ridings.
As Dr. Laurin, an MNA and former minister in a Parti Quebecois
government, used to say, there is something wrong when an elected
member has to stand in this House and ask the government to
please inform the elected representatives of the people about what
the federal government is doing in their riding.
We are raising this issue, because that is not what is being done
right now. It is not standard procedure. There is no way our fellow
citizens who cannot follow government operations day to
day-may God spare them that chore, because they have other
things to do, like taking care of their families and paying
taxes-can get a clear idea of what government administration is
all about when members themselves have to resort to amending a
bill so that elected representatives will be consulted. I think the
minister or the government should have readily recognized this
deficiency and presented relevant amendments instead of waiting
for the opposition to do it.
The opposition has kept a watchful eye, it has assumed its
responsibilities, and suggested that members be consulted. The
goal is not to determine who should get the contract, the way it is
being done right now in Liberal fundraising events, but to know the
motives behind government actions in different ridings, the
spinoffs, and who is capable of providing the goods or services that
are recommended. This is what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for. I
would not want to conclude without-
(1650)
Mr. Bélair: He has nothing left to say.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): The member
says I have nothing left to say, but I would ask him to just listen to
what I will be saying over the next five minutes. He will learn and
profit from it because if he gets his information only from his
party's caucus, I can understand why he is so uninformed at times.
Let me conclude, if I may, by talking about-
Mr. Boudria: So soon?
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): No, not so
soon Mr. Boudria, you still have five minutes to benefit from what I
have to say. Oh. Please excuse me, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead just earned himself a 15 or
20-second penalty. Let me remind him he must always address the
Chair.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): You are
perfectly right, Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely.
I would just like to conclude my comments by saying that it will
be necessary not only to establish a code for contracting out, to
consult members of the House, to make sure civil servants are
responsible for their decisions, but also to assure the public that the
government will make decisions based on political ethics. I am
referring of course to the act on the financing of political parties.
Earlier, my colleague from the Reform Party complained about
the fact that SNC-Lavalin gets many government contracts without
any justification. Maybe he is right. He did not give any details on
that. I wish he would have also given examples from elsewhere and
not only from Quebec, but politics have reasons that reason very
often ignores.
On that point, let me stress one thing: the fact that, at the federal
level, the political party financing legislation authorises
companies, corporations, to finance political parties greatly
jeopardizes the awarding of contracts. As I mentioned a moment
ago-some may have thought I was joking, but I am very
serious-I believe a greater number of federal government
contracts are considered within the Liberal Party financing system
than in parliamentary committees.
It is totally inappropriate that things should happen that way. But
why is it so? Simply because that is where companies, those who
provide money to the Liberal Party, that is to say the
government-and it was the same under the Conservatives-that is
where
1188
they are able to get information which otherwise might not be
available to them.
I might have to conclude on that, but let us take the example of
the Pearson deal. For weeks, even months, the Bloc Quebecois
battled the government which settled the Pearson airport deal in a
totally unacceptable way.
We all remember that during the last election campaign, the
Prime Minister promised to undo the decision of the Conservative
government and make sure that Pearson remained a public
company, belonging to the government, and was not sold to private
interests. We were in total agreement with that. However, lots of
examples, each one more convincing than the other, showed that
the interests which prevailed in the Pearson deal were those of
lobbyists and bagmen of the various political parties which
exercised power during the last few years, that is to say the Liberal
Party and the Conservative Party. So much so that the government
felt obliged, in order to regain an image of integrity, to introduce a
bill on lobbyists, and have it passed by the House. It was actually a
very timid piece of legislation.
(1655)
If the government is serious when it says it wants government
contracts to be granted in an equitable and fair manner, it must
accept suggestions made by members regarding public disclosure
of contracts to be granted.
But we must also make sure that the solution to this kind of
problem is not found through the funding of political parties. This
is why we have to introduce a bill to reform political party funding
and make sure that not only the spirit but also the letter of the act
which now applies in Quebec, which has set a precedent for all
western democracies, is also applied at the federal level.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for identifying
the problem in this bill very well, but especially for raising an
extremely important point, that is, consultation of elected officials.
I think that is at present a major flaw, one that is not being
corrected in Bill C-7. Currently, and with the bill, it is impossible
for federal members of Parliament to know what government
contracts will be given out in their own riding. They are being
consulted on almost anything, they are invited to vote on all kinds
of pieces of legislation, but they are refused access to information
allowing them to know exactly what will happen and what
contracts will be given out in their own riding.
How do you think an attentive and combative member of
PArliament, whoever he may be, can fulfill his role with dignity
and efficiency if he does not know what government activities are
going on on his own territory? I will give a concrete case that I am
presently living in my riding. I will then ask a question to my
colleague.
Transport Canada, Harbours and Ports, has decided to dredge the
surroundings of Wharf No. 2, in Sorel, in order to restore the river
to its initial depth, which was 9.1 metres. Over the years, sediment
has accumulated and the depth is now 7.5 metres. So, they want to
take away, on the Sorel side, 1.6 metre of sediment and
contaminated silt, but to move it where? To the other side of the
river, in my riding, on the shores of the municipality of
Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola.
Who was informed of that? Hunting and fishing associations in
Sorel, the outfitting operation in Tracy, the city of Tracy, the
development corporation of Lake Saint-Pierre,
Saint-Joseph-de-Sorel and Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola, but this latter
is invited to an information meeting for the dredging of the port of
Sorel.
The municipality does not wish to know about the impact of
dredging at Sorel, so it is not represented at the meeting. The
municipalities' representatives were never told: ``Come to the
meeting, because we will dump the waste at your place''. No one
felt the need to inform the federal member for
Berthier-Montcalm, whose riding will get the waste. He would
have known who would be interested. This issue has nothing to do
with patronage, as the hon. member said.
An hon. member who knows his riding and knows people who
might be interested in a particular project, as I would be, if
contaminated waste was being dumped, incidentally, on an
uncontaminated site, will inform the islands' hunting and fishing
association, tourist agencies like the SIRBI and the SABA, boating
associations, etc. The hon. member knows his riding, so he would
have got these associations interested in the issue.
However, they do not wish to inform hon. members, because
they wish to do as they see fit and, above all, to avoid being held
accountable. Well, they are in for a surprise. In this particular case,
I knew what was going on and they will have to justify their
actions. That is another story though, but I hope the hon. minister
got my message. She will certainly hear from me again about this
unacceptable issue.
(1700)
Here is my question for the hon. member. Does he not feel that,
in such a situation where it is proposed to carry the equivalent of
40,000 ten-wheeler rigs full of contaminated silt from the south
shore to the north shore, it would have been normal to advise at
least the members concerned, the member for Richelieu and the
member for Berthier-Montcalm, even before putting money into
this project, in order to know what they thought and what they had
to say about it, whether there were groups they wanted to have
consulted, and whether they could give us guidance?
1189
First, does the hon. member find it normal that the government
did not advise us? Second, while we are overhauling these pieces
of legislation, would it not be normal to deal right away with this
flaw by making it a duty to inform the members concerned by
a project even before putting money into it?
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): First, I
would like to congratulate my colleague from Berthier-Moncalm
on his speech. As I said at the beginning of my own speech, there
was an opportunity to review a bill such as this one, which, at first
sight, may seem technical or insignificant to most of our fellow
citizens. When we study the bill more closely, however, when we
take a closer look at it, when we analyze it like the official
opposition did, we see right away the effects this bill or these bills
will have on our fellow citizens, and the example given by the
member for Berthier-Moncalm is eloquent proof of that. I hope
the minister is listening carefully to my colleague's words, not only
in this particular case, but also to realize that she has to consult all
members of the House, whatever their political stripes.
I believe that if we were elected by the people, if we ran a
campaign, it proves that we have been involved in our communities
for some time. We cannot learn everything overnight, it takes
years. Generally speaking, members of Parliament are
knowledgeable people; they know what is going on in their riding.
Consequently, they should be consulted.
Earlier, I described the suggestions the Bloc made to improve
this process also. When we are speaking of the monitoring of
government contracts, of departments' financial administration,
which could be done by the committees, it would also be
appropriate at the same time to ask questions to departmental
officials, the minister and senior civil servants about situations like
those that the member mentioned.
Finally, I would like to say to the minister and the government in
general that it is in their interest to change their practices in this
regard. Our fellow citizens are less and less willing to accept to be
kept in the dark about government decisions, at all levels.
For example, right now in Quebec there is a group called
Mouvement pour le redressement économique du Québec, whose
aim is to question governments on the way they spend the money
they have to provide services to the population. We see more and
more of that kind of spontaneous grassroots organizations.
What message are they sending to our political leaders? They are
telling them: ``We will no longer accept that you make decisions on
our behalf without consulting and informing us in advance''.
(1705)
It seems to me that the very least a government could do is to
consult the men and women that were elected by the population. If
the government is really serious when it says that it wants to
improve the efficiency of its administrative structure, particularly
with regard to contracts, then it should say so right now, during our
present debate. It should say in a clear and open way that it intends
to consult the elected members of Parliament on the contracts it is
giving out.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I too
would like to speak to Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-52. I must tell you
that even as late as this morning, I was not going to speak, but upon
closer examination of the issue, I am pleased to comment on this
bill and to echo a number of my colleagues' concerns with respect
to the nature of the Department of Public Works and Government
Services.
A great deal of money flows through this department. It could
become very closely linked to patronage, unless a very stringent
code is developed that would place tight constraints on its ability to
act without a transparent process, give everyone equal access to
contracts, and allow effective control of the system for managing
public funds.
First of all, I would point out that it is no small amount that
Parliament and cabinet are called upon to manage. This year, the
federal government will spend some $165 billion, of which of
course close to $45 billion will go to interest on the debt; this aside,
$120 billion are nonetheless spent on programs.
A good part of this budget will funnel through the Department of
Public Works and Government Services, which approves the
operating expenditures of the various departments, whether for
rental of accommodation, or all the other sorts of things
departments need to operate.
It is quite surprising to discover just exactly how difficult it is to
obtain precise information in this regard. I had some fun a few
months back trying to determine how much had been spent
renovating buildings in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. It was
a very difficult exercise because, even when it is possible to obtain
overall figures, total amounts, there is never any very precise data
on who won the contracts and how large they were. Were there cost
overruns compared to tenders? Information like that requires
painstaking research. I did not get the feeling that the people I
consulted were very enthusiastic about helping me find out what I
wanted to know.
The Bloc has made some very interesting suggestions. I would
like to address each of these items briefly. One of the first
suggestions made by the Bloc for improvement, to ensure that
administration was more efficient, was to make sure that one or
more committees-of the many House committees-the standing
committees, would be able to make a quarterly examination of the
expenditures of the various departments. Initially I think the
suggested level for this was $25,000 and up.
1190
So, all expenditures in excess of $25,000 ought to be assessed
by parliamentary committees. This would get MPs more involved
in government administration. It would increase monitoring and
all those who might be tempted to fiddle with public funds would
be more nervous if they knew that these expenditures would be
examined in a public exercise where a number of people could
voice opinions and even hold a debate. If it was felt appropriate,
they could even call the people in question in to explain
themselves. This strikes me as merely a normal process to ensure
more efficient and more responsible administration.
(1710)
At a time when the public is being asked to make sacrifices in the
battle in which the various governments are engaged against the
deficit, we must ensure that what we are administering is at least
administered as efficiency as possible, in order to improve public
confidence.
If I recall correctly, those words were used in the Liberal Party's
red book, which talked of greater transparency and restoring public
confidence. When the time comes to put their money where their
mouth is, and to bow to the arguments suggested by the opposition
parties, one might say that their reflex for self-protection, keeping
the political machine as non-transparent as possible, won out over
the Liberals' good intentions while they were in the opposition and
were experiencing the frustrations a goodly number of MPs are
now experiencing.
Of course, there must be some members of the government party
who manage to obtain some information, thanks to their good
relations with ministers or because of their participation in
previous campaigns, the support they gave, or I might even say
because of political debts tied to a leadership race or similar things.
Nevertheless, this is not a normal situation because as elected
representatives, whatever our political party, we were all elected in
ridings and therefore each of us reflects a majority of electors in his
or her own riding.
Of course, those constituents voted for a political party but they
also voted for an individual and they expect their member of
Parliament to be as effective as possible and to be the best
representative possible in Parliament.
Therefore, being able to study all those expenditures in
committee can harm no one. I would like the government party to
tell us why it is against such a measure. How would the suggestion
that all expenditures over $ 25,000 be thoroughly examined by a
committee render Parliament less efficient and less vigilant
regarding in terms of managing public funds?
We are aware that it would impose a large amount of work on
members, but this is part of our role. We might be much more
efficient if we did this rather than certain things done in committee
and which, and I hope you will allow me to be sceptical, have very
little impact on departments if they have not given directives, or
circulated reports from the committees. This is why members of
committees should be given more autonomy.
For those who are following this discussion, committees are
composed of members of recognized political parties. There is a
number from the government party and from the two opposition
parties, the official opposition and the third party. These people
could look at these expenditures over a few weeks, meeting a few
times a week.
The government has said nothing about the follow-up to this
suggestion, and today is not the first time we have made it, but
nobody has considered it worth acting on.
Another aspect concerns contracting out. In recent years, the
government has cut its staff drastically and contracts out
increasingly. It can thus save money. We have nothing against this
of itself, but it is very dangerous if it becomes a devious way to
provide work for one's political friends.
Need I point out that, unlike Quebec, which has very strict
legislation on the funding of political parties, here, companies can
make donations to political parties. Recently I was looking at a
1994 report which revealed that a lot of companies contribute to
political parties. I am talking about the traditional political parties,
because this does not apply to the Bloc, which is funded by
individuals. Companies provide most of the funding of these
parties. I cannot believe that this is a disinterested gesture on their
part. When an individual gives $75,000 or $100,000 to a political
party, I am not so sure he is expecting nothing in return.
It is more complex than that. Contributions can even be made
through numbered companies. So, trying to find out who really
financed the political parties can be a very difficult and demanding
task, requiring a lot of time and energy to see who financed what
and whether contracts are awarded according to contributions as
well.
(1715)
As we know, there is a growing trend toward contracting out.
How is it that the government did not deem it appropriate to clearly
define a code of ethics on the awarding of those contracts that
would be far more severe than the one in place? Here again,
transparency, a word repeated over and over in the red book, is
absent. They did not find it appropriate to act on that
recommendation.
I will make the same argument as earlier. How would this make
Parliament less efficient? It seems to me to be a good suggestion.
You know, today people expect a lot from us. They ask us to not
just criticize the government but also to make suggestions
forcefully. That is what we do. We make concrete suggestions in
order to make the management of public funds as efficient as
possible.
1191
I have a third point, and it is important. The member for
Berthier-Montcalm referred earlier to something that occurs
sometimes, and more often recently. One learns that important
things, major things are happening. They may happen in our
ridings without us being informed whereas if we, as
representatives of those citizens, had been informed, we could
have warned people and reacted as efficiently as possible. In his
case, it was a problem with major environmental impacts. A
similar example came to my mind.
Public Works has transferred, or is in the process of transferring,
the management of docks to the municipalities. I represent a little
municipality of barely 250 inhabitants called Moffet. There is a
federal dock in Moffet. The kind of renovations done to that dock
could have been managed much more efficiently by the municipal
administration. One day officials from Public Works came to
undertake the renovations-in co-operation with Fisheries and
Oceans, of course-but these people did not take into consideration
particulars or comments. Because the town's mayor showed up at
the site. In a small town, when people from outside are coming in,
they are spotted at once. On that day, the people rushed to meet
them and seeask what they were doing. Then, they realized they
were coming to repair the dock. It was obvious to the local
population that what was about to be done would not be work, but
nobody had told the contractor. He had the contract, and he had to
abide by it to get paid.
The person who got the contract said: ``If I want to be paid, I
must follow the specifications, and I will''. Six months later,
everything had to be redone, because the repairs did not last. There
had been an error in assessing spring flood levels and other factors.
If my office or myself had been advised that the government was
considering such work, we could have contacted the municipality's
officials or officials from other regional county municipalities that
had carried out similar projects. We could have been more efficient
and we would not have had to do it twice. Moreover, we could have
informed local contractors that repairs were to be done and that the
bidding process was open. We can say repeatedly that the process is
open, but not everybody knows that. If we were more involved at
the local level, we could be more efficient. There would be more
economic spinoffs in our regions.
What the Bloc Quebecois suggested to avoid this kind of thing
was to inform members of what is going on, and in the present case,
namely the management of public funds under federal jurisdiction,
to give notice to the elected representatives of the people of what is
coming, what will have to be done, and even what has been done so
far. But of course, acting in a more transparent and efficient way is
not one of the present government's priorities. I insist because I am
convinced that it will lead to more efficiency.
Why not try to be more efficient? This is a question we might
well ask.
(1720)
It might be to protect certain interests. To play politics, or worse,
to use patronage to reward friends of the government by granting
them a number of contracts and kickbacks in exchange for their
political ties.
When people elect us they believe that we have a lot of power.
They think we can change many things easily. Increasingly, they
get the feeling that we are fighting a machine trying to protect
itself, to be more or less transparent, to account for things in a
certain manner. Three or four years later, the books are kept
differently, the way data is presented is changed, it is very
confusing, several sets of data are combined together, the whole of
Quebec is lumped together, even the whole of Canada. It becomes
very difficult to know exactly what was done in each area.
Returns which are more local in nature or deal more with
specific ridings are more difficult to get. Sometimes, it is possible,
but it is generally quite rare. They are certainly not available from
the new Department of Public Works and Government Services.
And yet, a lot of money is channeled through this department.
Perhaps, if there was more consultation, if people were more
involved, there might be fewer buildings with empty offices, fewer
very expensive buildings or fewer very expensive renovations.
Once I spoke with someone responsible for building
maintenance or improvement, especially for federal buildings. This
person benefited from the spinoffs and said to me: ``I certainly
have no right to complain, but it is incredible to see the amount of
waste''.
That is what he said. And I, a member of Parliament, felt totally
powerless in front of that situation. When you call for information,
you would think you were asking for the moon because it takes
quite a considerable effort to obtain a statement of expenditures for
a specific building and to find out if there were misuse or
squandering.
Naturally, people who authorize squandering try to justify it. To
prevent that, we should act before and not after the fact. This is one
of our problems. Our society is largely focused on remedial action;
we try to solve problems but we do not try hard enough to prevent
them. It is the same with the management of public funds. It would
seem only normal to ask for statements.
The year 2000 is almost here. Computer services are well
developed and it would be very easy to obtain statements from the
different ridings.
The auditor general is supposed to be the watchdog of
government. It costs nearly $50 million a year for us to monitor the
1192
government, for the government to check its own administration.
His task would be made easier if elected members were more
involved in the monitoring of public spending. Everybody knows
that we have administrative assistants, people who work for us, and
we could follow very closely the spending of public money in our
ridings, and influence the way things are done.
This would greatly enrich the role of elected members-and
especially members of the governing party-who would feel that
they have real influence on the decision making process in their
communities. If the public knew that their local representatives can
watch very closely, can monitor, and even influence or neutralize
things which are not done efficiently, they would feel a little closer
to politics.
What worries me the most is seeing how far they can go. This
reflects the attitude of the Prime Minister, a slight lack of respect
for democracy as a whole. Whether it be through a desire to
influence the rules of democratic consultation, or through
processes like the one dealing with the Pearson airport or by an
attitude when faced with suggestions like the ones we have made,
which would serve to reinforce democracy-because MPs are
representatives of their constituents-one wonders to what extent
politicians are protecting each other with the backing of the
bureaucracy. I am talking about the highest ranks of the
bureaucracy, because local civil servants usually act in good faith
and are willing to co-operate. There are some departments where
things are going very well.
In my riding, for example, in the Department of Human
Resources Development it is working very well. In that
department, they are in the habit of consulting members of
Parliament. However, it is getting less common, because
previously the signature of an MP was required, but now it is less
often the case, although consultations on a voluntary basis remain,
depending on the person in charge, on whether he or she was
appointed by the present or the previous government, on the mood
of the minister in charge, etc.
(1725)
I believe this was a very valid component of organizational
culture that recognized the role played by the elected
reprresentatives. It is very dangerous to get away from that.
Before closing, I would like to give an example of something
similar, which is happening with the appointment of people who
are going to be in charge of the Statistics Canada census. There was
a usual, familiar processus, but it would appear that political
interference is on the rise, and this is not necessarily sound and not
necessarily desirable.
So, in closing, we have very interesting suggestions which will
ensure that the worst that could happen for the government is that it
be more efficient. So I wonder why government members are
opposed to that. If they are acting in good faith, they will adjust
their bill. We are at the third reading stage, there is still time to
improve it and then we could considere supporting these
government actions, which will ensure that we will become more
efficient and above all more responsible.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it behoves me to respond to some of the statements made by
members of the Bloc. I do not think they can be allowed to go
unchallenged.
A few minutes ago the member for Berthier-Montcalm raised
the issue of the dredging contract at Sorel, Quebec. He more or less
implied that the public has been ignored, that certain concerns have
been overlooked and that people who have legitimate concerns
have been shut out of the process. I say unequivocally and
categorically that is not true.
Yes, there are environmental concerns surrounding that project.
Those environmental concerns are being met. Already there have
been public meetings on this issue. There were two meetings that I
know of, one on January 5, 1996 and another on March 14, 1996.
Those meetings involved public consultations.
For the hon. member to somehow suggest that the public is being
ignored in this process, he is just not being factual and is not
rendering a service to the House. I can state that if further public
meetings are required that will happen. As I said, there are
environmental concerns. The Department of Public Works and
Government Services has a responsibility to address those
concerns.
I want to put those statements on the record. I do not think that
the hon. member from Berthier-Montcalm had all the information
at his fingertips. I would hope he would take what I have said into
account.
I also want to address one of the issues raised by the hon.
member for Témiscamingue. If I can put it in my own words, the
hon. member for Témiscamingue was asking out loud what is
going on in his riding or in other ridings in Quebec. He was saying
that the government issues contracts and he, the hon. member for
Témiscamingue, does not know what is going on.
I would suggest that he should do his homework better. There are
means available to the hon. member for Témiscamingue and for
other members from the Bloc, other members from the province of
Quebec, other members from all provinces in this country. There is
ample opportunity for-
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The member is
now in question and comment period concerning the speech made
by the member for Témiscamingue.
1193
(1730)
The member is now responding to allegations that I am making.
If we want to set the record straight, the member is giving false
information, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): This is not a
question of privilege.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, let me continue with respect to
what the hon. member for Témiscamingue was saying. In effect he
was saying he did not know what was going on in his own riding
and that members of the Bloc Quebecois should know more about
what is going on with respect to the letting of government
contracts, that it should know more about what is going on in its
ridings.
If the members do their homework they can find out. We talked
about the open bidding service before and I will talk about it again.
For example, I cite what is available on OBS: all contract
opportunities; notices of plans, sole sourced contracts as well as
notices of contract awards; the open bidding system also offers
contract histories, that is information on contracts that have been
awarded in the past to whom and for what amount.
He is also somehow suggesting we should make all this
information available on a riding to riding basis, which would
invite all kinds of red tape. We already have red tape in the
government. We already have too much paper and we are providing
this information through the electronic system, OBS.
If the hon. member really wants to know what is going on he can
do it. It may take a little work but if he ties into the open bidding
system he can get the information he needs.
I go back to what the member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead said. I am not exactly sure what
he was talking about. I know the hon. member. He is a personable,
engaging fellow, but I think he has had a bad day. Somehow he was
talking about promoting a contracting out code.
We have the system in place that is open, that is fair, that is
transparent. It is above board. What the members from the Bloc are
suggesting is that we draw members of Parliament into the
system-
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I think the
hon. parliamentary secretary has just woken up from a long sleep,
and before he goes back in time to the throne speech or his election
in 1993, we should remind him that this is the question and
comment period following the speech of the member for
Témiscamingue.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Your point of
order was not valid at all.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, I will finish my last point in a
moment. I thought I was doing a service to the members of the Bloc
by providing this information. I believe I am providing a service to
all Canadians watching this debate.
The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead seems to
be suggesting we politicize the public service. I think we have one
of the greatest public services in the world. It is professional and
public servants do their jobs in a professional manner. The last
thing I want is to politicize that service. I believe we have a system
in place.
If the members of the Bloc do their homework, if they need
information, if they want information, it is there. They may have to
do some work but after all that is what they are paid for. We have a
system that works and we should be very proud of it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I would like to
remind you that the question and comment period is 10 minutes
long. As should be obvious by its name, it is a period for questions
or comments.
Mr. Brien: Madam Speaker, in the three or four minutes I have
left, I will respond to the parliamentary secretary. First of all, I
would like to remind him of a few points. In his comment, question
or lecture, if you like, the hon. member referred to my work as a
member of Parliament. I say to him that the constituents in my
riding will decide for themselves in the next election and I invite
him to come to my riding to discuss this matter, perhaps sooner
than he expects. I will then be pleased to be accountable to my
constituents.
(1735)
He referred to the situation in the riding of my colleague, the
hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm. I wish to tell him that some
of the information he gave is wrong. He should ask the people in
his department to do the job if he does not want to do it himself.
First of all, the first public assembly was held January 15 and not
January 5, and it was in Sorel by invitation. Only one person from
the north shore had been invited and was present.
The second public assembly, which was held March 14, was
organized by my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm and not by his
department or by the Department of Public Works and Government
Services.
So I would ask the parliamentary secretary-
An hon. member: To apologize.
Mr. Brien: Not to apologize, it would be asking too much, but at
least to congratulate my colleague in some future speech, because
we know that he likes to revisit past issues, the next time he has an
opportunity to do so in about 20 minutes.
1194
In closing, I would like to get back to what the hon. member
said about working harder and not being afraid of work. We are
certainly not afraid of work. What we are asking him is to submit
contracts worth $25,000 and above to House committees, to
elected members, for review and analysis so that we can do our
job properly. We are not afraid of work. If he himself is afraid,
that is his problem. We, however, want to be more effective and,
as I was saying earlier, more accountable.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in this House to participate in the debate at third
reading on Bill C-7 to merge two former departments, namely
Public Works Canada and Supply and Services Canada.
This bill does not change the legislation much at all. On the
surface, the bill is not controversial. That is the problem. Since Bill
C-7 was introduced, the official opposition has taken issue and
continues to take issue not with what the government has done but
rather with what it has not done. Basically, the old system is being
kept. Change the designation, change the first page and put
everything back together unchanged.
Members will recall that this is the department handling the
majority of the federal government's goods and services
procurement contracts. Billions of dollars are involved, and with
billions of dollars at stake, almost nothing is being done, no effort
made to determine how this money could be spent more efficiently.
Contrary to what they had promised in the red book, they are not
taking the time to put in place a transparent system to make these
expenditures more efficient and effective. I will give you more
examples from my riding in a moment. If the hon. parliamentary
secretary who wants to see whether we have done our job, he could
start by telling me if he has done his.
When tabling Bill C-52, now Bill C-7, the federal government
had an opportunity to innovate. It had an opportunity to establish a
model department, a department from which all the cumbersome
red tape would have been removed. As a rule, a modern
government uses modern tools to meet public expectations. The
federal government, thanks to proposals from the official
opposition, had a chance to fulfil its electoral promises and ensure
maximum transparency in all aspects of power.
As my colleagues said earlier, people generally feel that
opposition members object for the pure delight of it, but our party
proposed four clear and precise amendments that would allow the
government to improve its supply and services system, boost its
popularity, and, at the same time, restore public faith lost because
of the all too present patronage seen in government. What have
they done? Absolutely nothing. They replaced the front page,
changed the title and the number of the bill, and trotted it out again.
So, nothing at all was done. Of all the amendments presented by
the Bloc Quebecois during the previous debates on the bill, none
was retained. Let me recall a few just to show how appropriate they
could have been to improve the bill's effectiveness.
(1740)
First of all, I must state the Bloc Quebecois's concern that there
were no simple and transparent rules. If a contractor in my riding
wishes to deal with the federal government, he will have to go
some distance to locate a resource person. Before knocking on the
right door, before speaking to the right person, before reaching the
appropriate service, this contractor, or his business, must have the
following qualifications: he must be very familiar with the system,
be a generous donor, have a lifelong knowledge of the system, and
have friends in the right places.
This is precisely what we wanted to change. We wanted to
change that perception regarding access to an imposing structure
that discourages anyone, including ordinary citizens, experts and
elected representatives, interested in finding out more about the
department and how public funds are spent. I will give you some
examples later on.
As I said earlier, it should be possible and in fact easier for
anyone, such as a contractor, to have access to that structure and
offer his services. I want to remind this House of the experience of
some of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who, a few months ago,
sent a written request to Public Works and Government Services
Canada to obtain a list of the contracts awarded by that department
in their ridings.
Such a request from an elected representative is perfectly in
order. After all, in the case of the infrastructures program, we
regularly receive in our offices a list of the projects submitted in
our ridings. The list also specifies which projects are approved and
which ones are rejected. That list is a public document. We can
quite appropriately discuss it with local politicians.
So, some Bloc Quebecois members simply asked the department
responsible for awarding the supply and services contracts how the
government spends public funds. As member for Terrebonne, I
should know how that money is being spent in my riding.
These members sent their written request to the Department of
Public Works. The minister's reply was especially surprising and
disappointing. The Minister of Public Works and Government
Services answered that it was unfortunately impossible to reply to
their requests because it would entail too much expense. We do not
know how he did it, but he gave an estimate of $160,000 for those
expenditures at that time.
This example clearly shows how cumbersome the department is.
It also shows how members who, like my colleague for
Témiscamingue, like my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm, like
myself and like all my colleagues, including Liberal members and
Reform members, want to do their job-
1195
Mr. Landry: And the member for Lotbinière.
Mr. Sauvageau: And my colleague for Lotbinière, I am sorry. It
shows how impossible it is for those members to do their job well
and to know about the expenditures that have been made in their
ridings. Departmental officials tell us that it is impossible to give
us an answer, that they do not know how much they are spending
and they do not know either how the contracts are awarded.
The public service, and more specifically the Department of
Public Works and Government Services, have set up impressive
obstacles to confuse people, like members of Parliament, who try
to understand the workings of the federal machinery for awarding
government contracts in our ridings.
The number of contractors who try to get contracts from the
Department of Public Works and Government Services, but do not
manage to understand all the ins and outs of the government
machinery, is very large. I think every member from every party
gets that kind of complaint in his or her constituency office. That
explains how a select club of contractors came to exist, people used
to the workings of the system, who too often take advantage of the
government largesse.
Official opposition amendments providing for simple and
transparent rules have all be defeated. Another amendment I will
deal with momentarily provided for a contracting out code. It has
met with the same fate. As the hon. member for Témiscamingue
mentioned a while ago, I think we need easy, clear and transparent
rules and standards. Contracting out is a fact, and I will give figures
later on, but it could be made more effective.
The Bloc Quebecois amendment simply reflected a tendency to
contract out that has been growing over the years in the federal
public service. The last available data are for fiscal year 1992-93.
According to Treasury Board estimates, services that have been
contracted outside the federal government totalled $5.2 billion
during that year.
(1745)
The federal government was certainly not unaware of that trend
when it introduced Bill C-7. It should have taken this opportunity
to regulate this new procedure.
The President of the Treasury Board has told us year in and year
out: ``The number of public servants has dropped by 3 per cent, or 5
per cent, and the public service has been shrinking''. What he
forgot to tell us is that, in the meantime, contract budgets have been
rising. What we would like to know, as elected representatives of
the people, is how much money is being wasted-yes, wasted-in
contracts and how these contracts are awarded.
Why is the number of public servants decreasing year after year
while contracting out is on the rise? We have a good idea. It means
fewer responsibilities in terms of labour relations and job security,
fewer responsibilities for the employers towards their employees.
Should we issue a contracting out code? We did propose one.
What did we get for an answer? Nothing. The Bloc Quebecois
thought Bill C-7 would establish such a code, or at least rules for
the government to properly control the contracting out process and
to make it more open.
Everyone from the government and its employees to the general
public would have benefited from such a contracting out code. This
is the kind of code that ensures better work relations between the
government and its public servants, while contracting out is often
perceived by the public service and unions as a fearsome enemy
they have to fight all the time.
By developing clear contracting out rules, everyone's role would
be well defined and everyone would benefit. Also, such a code
would have cleared up the whole contracting out process,
something the population would have appreciated. We would have
solved the problem. It is by setting these kinds of standards rather
than by rejecting a whole series of proposals to make positive
changes to the awarding process that we will restore the Canadian
population's confidence in our abilities and revive their
expectations.
By refusing to follow up on the two recommendations from the
official opposition regarding the importance of establishing a
contracting out code and establishing clear guidelines, the Liberal
government is encouraging or giving the appearance of
encouraging outmoded practices, for which the public is still and
always the first to pay.
I would remind you that in a recent survey, school board officials
and municipal, provincial and federal politicians had the trust of
about 4 per cent of the population. If we add up the number of
school board officials and municipal, provincial and federal
politicians, they represent about 4 per cent of the population. This
was not a very strong vote of confidence and it is not going to get
any better with standards like these. If we then look at the error
rate, something like 4 per cent, we did not do very well.
In another vein, I would like to draw the attention of this House
to another recommendation of the Bloc Quebecois which never
went anywhere, that being the involvement of MPs, regardless of
affiliation. This is not a partisan recommendation, to involve them
in the letting of Public Works and Government Services contracts
in their respective ridings, as is now the case with infrastructure
projects.
At the present time, it is literally impossible-let anyone correct
me-for an MP to find out about contracts let by the department in
1196
question in his or her riding, as we mentioned earlier. This makes
no sense, if we accept the principle that MPs are the people most
aware of what is going on in their own ridings.
The problem of the wharf in Témiscamingue was mentioned
earlier, as well as another problem in the riding of
Berthier-Montcalm. It is now my turn to tell you about a problem
in my riding. It concerns the unemployment office.
We learned at one point that, because it did not conform to
standards, the Terrebonne unemployment office had to be
moved-which is quite commendable-to another location that
was larger, better suited, more modern, with new carpeting, new
furniture, new lights, a new computer system, etc.
The move was made about six months ago. It cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars with the work that was done at the new
location and the signing of a ten-year lease. To show you the great
consistency between government departments, a month later, we
learned that the Terrebonne unemployment office was going to be
closed.
(1750)
How many tens of thousands of dollars, how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars, were spent on a ten year lease for beautiful,
brand new premises, just to announce one, two or three months
later that the office was being closed down? When? Unknown. That
makes for an excellent work atmosphere. They tell the workers:
``You will be cut, and the office will be shut down. We do not know
when, but give us a year or two and it will all be over. We have just
set up fancy new offices, but forget about an office-warming
party''. There was not even an official opening ceremony. No time,
it was closed. Or going to be closed. Now, that shows a really
coherent policy. How more with it can anyone be?
So that is another example, and we could go back a bit in time for
several more. As my colleagues have said, MPs need to be aware of
what departmental contracts are being awarded in their ridings, so
as to be effective and efficient, and to help the government as well.
Whether Liberal, Bloc Québécois, or Reform, who are the ones
who should be informed of what is going on in our ridings? The
MPs, first and foremost, not the public servants, but the MPs. Not
so that we can carry out our own political patronage, but to offer
our opinions, as is done everywhere.
Besides, this recommendation of the official opposition was
based on the principle that the competence of members of
Parliament goes beyond the legislative framework, inasmuch as
they have to study matters of state and this, of course, has practical
administrative consequences. Nevertheless, even if members of
Parliament are consulted, even if they are invited to vote on various
kinds of issues, as they will be called to do in a moment, they are
still denied any means of verifying if votes, expenditures, income
tax and government decisions comply with the recommendations
and legislation of the House.
In a few moments we will vote on one bill and tomorrow we will
vote on another. Then we will try to see whether our vote is well
represented in our riding, and we will be denied this information. If
members cannot have access, as the minister wrote, to information
on the expenditures by the various departments in their ridings,
how can an ordinary individual unfamiliar with the intricacies of
government machinery obtain information? It is impossible.
The government's refusal to inform a member about federal
government activities in his or her riding is another of its failings.
Why not consult, or at least inform a member, as in the
infrastructure program, when a contract is awarded in his or her
riding? This would be an opportunity to encourage transparency
and efficiency in an overloaded system.
Furthermore, members of Parliament could be used as
safeguards against the blind waste of public funds. They could, for
example, advise a public servant who does not know how things
work in Témiscamingue and who, in turn, could advise an architect
before any plans were drawn up. A public servant could visit the
riding to consult other public servants before setting up premises,
drawing up a 10-year lease, etc. if the office is to be closed before
its official opening. I think there may be more intelligent standards
to be set in the public service if we want to get more than 4 per cent.
In addition to stressing the merit of having members of
Parliament involved in the system, the Bloc Quebecois stressed the
importance of making public servants accountable since these are
the first to know how public funds are used. The Bloc Quebecois
recommended the implementation of an instrument
allowing-even though I do not like the term-exposure of waste
of public funds by civil servants and valuing the practice. What we
mean by that is not a ``stooling'' system revealing situations where
someone is spending more than the other. It is simply a system
allowing civil servants to report the inadequacy of some program
without being penalized.
As I said, the underlying principle is not to frighten employees
who would suspect others of checking up on them, but rather to
admit that useless spending is made regularly.
Finally, I would conclude this short speech by reminding the
House of another recommendation we made and which is largely
approved by many MPs of all parties.
The Bloc Quebecois seized the opportunity to firmly condemn
the practice of advance payments. What is advance payment? It is a
practise which consists in using all the resources available to a
1197
departmental unit. This way, the department makes sure it will
have the same budget for the following year.
What does this mean? It is simple. If, in a department, you have
$1,500,000 to spend, you must make sure you spend it all. If,
towards the end of the last month, you still have $150,000, buy
$150,000 worth of dictionaries if you want, but spend it all.
(1755)
Practices like these account for a rating of 4 per cent in people's
confidence in the government. Practices like these have been
condemned by the Bloc Quebecois throughout consideration of Bill
C-7.
To conclude, these four amendments, these four proposals by the
Bloc Quebecois would have allowed every one in this House, not
only the Bloc, not only the sovereignist movement, to regain some
respect and improve their public image.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I really cannot believe my ears. I am absolutely amazed that
members of the Bloc would propose the politicization of the letting
of contracts. It is really hard to believe in this day and age that any
member of Parliament would suggest that they should directly
intervene in the letting of contracts.
What is the point in having a professional civil service? What is
the point of setting down an objective set of criteria if members of
Parliament, even with the best of intentions, were allowed to
interfere in the letting of contracts or in the invitation of bids. It
simply would not work.
If we hear today outcries about patronage, which we do from
time to time, can you imagine, Madam Speaker, the kind of
outcries you would hear if we were to pursue the course suggested
by the Bloc? I suppose if the government were to let a contract to
someone who had ties to the Bloc, then of course everything would
seem open, fair, transparent and above board. It would be seen as
okay.
What would happen if the government ever let a contract to
someone who may have some kind of remote ties to the
government? Right away the accusation of patronage would be
heard.
We went through this in the 19th century. Surely the Bloc would
not want to have that kind of political patronage come back on to
the political scene.
The Bloc members have been more or less implying or
suggesting that we do not listen and if only we would listen we
would do a far better job. Let us talk about Bill C-7 or in its former
incarnation Bill C-52. Members voiced concerns about clause 16.
They were concerned about the discretion that the original version
of clause 16 gave to the minister. They were concerned that the
minister would have too much power.
What was done? The clause was amended. Under clause 16 the
minister no longer has that discretion. Now the discretion must be
exercised by order in council, in other words by full cabinet. Not
only that, but it was amended so that when it came to entering into
contracts with other governments, whether they were inside the
country or outside the country, it cannot be done by the federal
government on its own, in other words, it cannot be done
proactively. It has to be done as a result of an amendment only on
request.
Even if the government thought it would like to enter into some
kind of contractual liaison with another province, it cannot do it
unless that province approaches us and asks us specifically to enter
into a contractual liaison. That is an example of listening.
When the members of the Bloc talk about us not listening, I
would submit very sincerely that they are being disingenuous. To
put it in clearer language, they are not being sincere.
With that kind of talk, I do not think the members of the Bloc do
service to themselves, their constituents, the people of Quebec, and
certainly not to Canadians in general. We have what is called an
open bidding system, which is open, fair, above board and
transparent. If members of the Bloc want to acquaint themselves
with the system they will find that it is a good system and it is
working.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration at report stage of Bill C-14, an
act to continue the National Transportation Agency as the Canadian
Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the National
Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act and to amend or
repeal other acts as a consequence.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being six
o'clock, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage and second reading of Bill C-14, an act
to continue the National Transportation Agency, to consolidate and
revise the National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act
and to amend or repeal other acts as a consequence.
Call in the members.
(1815)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion
No. 69.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
1198
(Division No. 20)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Charest
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -58
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Bélair
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-90
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bertrand
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chamberlain
Chan
Crête
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
member for Mackenzie and I voted at the beginning and at the end.
We are not trying to vote twice but we did not hear our names over
the microphone either time. I would like to be assured that we were
recorded as voting in the affirmative for this amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): You can rest
assured it was called.
[Translation]
I declare Motion No. 1 negatived. Motion No. 69 is therefore
negatived as well.
The next vote is on Motion No. 25.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
that you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
before the House. Liberal members will vote nay.
I also wish to add the name of the Secretary of State for
Agriculture to the list for this vote.
Mr. Charest: Madam Speaker, my colleague for Saint John and
myself being the sponsors of this motion, I wish to inform the
government whip that we consent to apply the vote on the previous
1199
motion to this motion, and also, of course, to add the name of the
Secretary of State for Agriculture to the list.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
offical opposition will vote nays.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, except for those who might wish
to vote otherwise, we will vote yes to this motion.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the NDP votes yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): No, Madam Speaker.
(1830)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I invite the
honourable member for Sherbrooke to repeat the comments he
made earlier about the vote because they were not recorded.
Mr. Charest: Madam Speaker, of course I intend to vote in
favour of this motion. Therefore, if I heard my colleagues well,
there is unanimous consent.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 21)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Charest
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -37
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Barnes
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Venne
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-112
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bertrand
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chamberlain
Chan
Crête
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
1200
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 25 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. The vote on this motion
will also apply to Motion No. 29.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I have a problem. The Reform
Party would like to support Motion No. 2 but it has been tied to
Motion No. 29 which we do not support. I wonder if you would pry
these apart and give us separate votes on Motion No. 2 and Motion
No. 29.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That was in the
Speaker's ruling, therefore we cannot change this unless we have
the consent of all the MPs in the House. Do we have unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe
that you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
before the House. Liberal members will vote nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, Reform members, except those
who do otherwise, will vote against the motion.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the NDP votes yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote against it, Madam Speaker.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 22)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Blaikie-2
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Barnes
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manning
Marleau
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Venne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Young
Zed-146
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bertrand
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chamberlain
Chan
Crête
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
1201
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 2 lost.
(1835)
The next question is on Motion No. 29.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent that
the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion presently before the House, with
Liberal MPs voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the Official
Opposition members vote no.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: The Reform Party votes no on this motion.
Mr. Blaikie: The NDP votes yes on this motion, Madam
Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, the only elected
independent member votes no.
[English]
Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, I hope the Table has noted that the
member for Sherbrooke has absented himself and should not be
counted in any of these future votes.
[Translation]
[Editor's Note: See the list under Division No. 22.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
Motion No. 29 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 31.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous
consent that the results of the vote taken a little earlier today on
Motion No. 1 at report stage be applied to the motion presently
before the House, adding of course the presence of the Secretary of
State (Agriculture) who will vote too against the motion.
I wish also to seek unanimous consent that this vote applies to
the following motions: Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 68.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, we do not give unanimous
consent to apply to Motion No. 38 or Motion No. 27. We would like
a standing vote on those two, please.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, there seems to be some confusion
concerning the procedure. If we agree to reverse or to apply votes
we do not have to get up and say how we vote. We just agree to
apply them. We agree to apply them.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, I will vote against the
motions.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should reword this to
say that I am seeking unanimous consent to apply the result of vote
1 to report stage Motions Nos. 31, 36, 37, not 38 just for greater
clarity, and 68.
I believe that would find unanimous consent.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 23)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Charest
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -58
1202
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Bélair
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-90
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bertrand
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chamberlain
Chan
Crête
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
(1840)
The Acting President (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 31 defeated.
The next question will be on Motion No. 36.
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 23.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next
question will be on Motion No. 37.
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 23.]
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next
question is on Motion No. 38.
(The House divided on Motion No. 38, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 24)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -57
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
1203
Barnes
Bélair
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-91
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bertrand
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chamberlain
Chan
Crête
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
(1845 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 38 defeated.
[Translation]
The next question will be on Motion No. 4 in Group No. 5. The
vote on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 9, 14 and 15.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I was under the impression we
were now voting on report stage Motion No. 4. If that is incorrect
perhaps the Chair could indicate it to me.
[Translation]
The Acting President (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We will now
proceed with the question on Motion No. 4, in Group No. 5.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
that you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
before the House. Liberal members will vote nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
offical opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, if the Chair will confirm that we
are voting on Motion No. 4, the Reform Party votes no, except for
those who might vote otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the NDP votes no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, I vote nay on this
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 25)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Mercier
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Venne-21
1204
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Bélair
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manning
Marleau
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Young
Zed-127
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bertrand
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chamberlain
Chan
Crête
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 4 defeated. Motions Nos. 9, 14 and 15 are therefore
also defeated.
(1850)
The next question is on Motion No. 17. The division on this
motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 72 and 73.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the present motion, with
Liberal MPs voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, Reform members will vote no,
except those who wish to do otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the NDP votes yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, I vote nay on this
motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on
the following division:)
1205
(Division No. 26)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Mercier
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Venne-23
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Bélair
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manning
Marleau
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Young
Zed-125
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bertrand
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chamberlain
Chan
Crête
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 17 negatived. Therefore, Motions Nos. 72 and 73 are
also negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 27.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to
apply the division on the previous motion to this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No.26.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I therefore
declare Motion No. 27 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 68.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 23.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next
question is on Motion No. 6.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous
consent to apply the results of report stage Motion No. 25, the
second item we voted on tonight, to the motion presently before the
House, Motion No. 6, as well as to Motions Nos. 8, 23 and 66.
1206
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 21.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Therefore, I
declare the motions negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 21.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next
question is on Motion No. 18.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of
the House to apply the result of the vote on Motion No. 17 to the
motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under division No. 26]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 18 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 23.
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 26.]
(1855)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next
question is on Motion No. 24.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to
apply the results of report stage Motion No. 2 in reverse to the
motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 27)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Barnes
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manning
Marleau
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Venne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Blaikie-2
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bertrand
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chamberlain
Chan
Crête
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
1207
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 24 carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 57. The vote on this motion
will also apply to Motions Nos. 58 to 65.
If Motion No. 57 is carried, it will obviate the need to vote on
Motion No. 66. If Motion No. 57 is defeated, Motion No. 66 will
have to be voted on.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
the House would give its unanimous consent to apply the result of
the vote on Motion No. 4 to the motion now before us.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 25.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare
Motion No. 57 negatived. I also declare Motions Nos. 58 to 65
negatived.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
that the Bill be concurred in at the report stage with further
amendments and read the second time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
that the House would consent to apply the result of the vote at
report stage on Motion No. 1 in reverse to the motion now before
the House, with the addition of the Secretary of State for
Agriculture, who, I believe, will vote in favour.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 28)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Bélair
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-91
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
1208
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Charest
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -58
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Bergeron
Bertrand
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chamberlain
Chan
Crête
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being7 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24 (1).
(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)