CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 26, 1996
Bill C-14. Motion for third reading 1209
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1221
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1242
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1245
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1245
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1246
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 1249
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1249
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1250
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1251
Bill C-14. Consideration resumed of motion 1252
Bill C-3. Motion for concurrence agreed to 1256
Motion for third reading 1257
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time andpassed.) 1257
Bill C-7. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 1257
Division on motion deferred 1266
Bill C-14. Consideration resumed of motion 1271
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 127; Nays, 77 1272
(Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.) 1272
Bill C-7. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 1272
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 132; Nays, 78 1272
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 1273
1209
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 26, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to petitions presented during the first
session.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
from constituents on Vancouver Island which contains over 1,000
signatures.
The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
that 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 other acts as a consequence, be read the third time
and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today at third reading of Bill C-14,
the proposed Canada Transportation Act. This is an important bill.
It introduces new framework legislation that touches every
transportation mode. It represents the culmination of several years
of effort on the part of the Department of Transport.
It has been at times, as all hon. members know well, a
controversial bill. One of the first tasks that I set myself this year as
the newly appointed Minister of Transport was to review the
proposed legislation and assess for myself whether or not an
appropriate balance had been achieved between the varied interests
that are affected by the elements of the bill.
After careful consideration and an analysis of the bill, I have
concluded that it is a balanced piece of work. It clearly reflects the
hours of consultation and careful analysis that have been invested
in it over the past few years.
On that basis, I am very pleased to move this bill forward today.
It is an act which will truly bring the Canadian transportation
industry into the 21st century.
[Translation]
I think it is also important to set this bill in a broader context. It
really lies within the scope of our government's policy strategy,
which is to streamline and modernize our transportation industry.
Given the importance of transportation in the Canadian economy
and for Canada's competitiveness on the world markets, this bill
will enhance the nature of trade, viability and competitiveness of
transportation.
(1010)
In drafting this bill, the government took into consideration
reports from independent commissions, previous work of the
Standing Committee on Transport and the report produced by a
task force on marketing headed by the hon. member for
Kenora-Rainy River, whom I wish to thank for his great work.
To develop Bill C-14, the government asked itself what those
concerned could and should do on the market, which issues would
better be left in the hands of the regulatory body and which should
be debated by elected representatives.
1210
The opinions weighed as part of this process were many and
varied. Finally, the government decided on what it felt should be
a new balance, a balance between regulatory protection and trade
negotiation as well as between supervising an agency and giving
transportation companies more freedom in managing their own
business.
Over the summer, the government heard from many
stakeholders, who were concerned about certain aspects of the bill.
Recognizing that any legislative enactment can always be
improved on, it identified several potential changes.
Then, the Standing Committee on Transport carried out an
exhaustive review of the bill. It also heard evidence from many
stakeholders at this stage. Nearly 100 testimonies were submitted,
and I understand that an even large number of briefs were received.
All those who took the time and made an effort to take part in this
complex process deserve our thanks.
I would like to emphasize the huge contribution made by the
members of the committee and many other members who also
participated in the bill's consideration during 55 hours of direct
evidence.
[English]
As evidence of this effort, over 80 amendments to Bill C-14 were
made. Some were technical changes. Others were complex and in
some instances they reflected differing and difficult choices among
competing stakeholders' points of view. However, in all cases,
these amendments reflected the careful thought and deliberation
that members brought to the legislative process.
As this effort indicates, it is an important bill. It updates or
removes economic regulation of transportation modes. For
example, alternative means of transportation have made additional
regulation of northern air services unnecessary.
We are also modifying the degree of regulatory oversight on
northern marine services and regulation of commodity pipelines
has been transferred to the National Energy Board.
Turning to the rail sector, I must emphasize that enhancing the
viability of the rail industry is a key objective of the legislation. It
will set in motion the steps necessary to ensure an effective and
viable rail system in this country.
The rail elements of the legislative package complement the
strategy of commercializing the CN but they are far broader than
that single initiative. They are about enhancing the long term
viability of the whole Canadian rail industry. It is important to note
that this bill will affect the operations of approximately 31 railways
currently operating in Canada.
When the government took office two and half years ago, the
two national railways were suffering the effects of a number of
structural problems: low labour productivity, under capitalization,
excess trackage, to name a few. This had occurred despite
considerable work by both railways to reduce costs by various belt
tightening measures. Despite being hampered by onerous
regulations, both railways have managed to rationalize, reorganize
and downsize since 1993.
Outmoded employment security provisions were changed by an
arbitration decision rendered last June. Some provincial
legislatures have helped out, like my home province of British
Columbia, among others. British Columbia recently passed
legislation which significantly reduced provincial taxation on
railways. Ontario has eliminated its successor rights provisions
which applied to the sale of former federal track. I applaud those
initiatives.
(1015)
The federal government decided that it also had to act decisively
to put the railways on a more secure financial footing.
Commercialization of CN and more important, regulatory reform
are directed to this goal. We are moving on this to ensure that we
have a viable coast to coast system. In a country reliant on the
export of resource materials, a healthy rail sector, the principal
carrier of bulk commodities, is an extremely important key to our
trading future. A healthy rail industry best serves all stakeholders,
not just the railways themselves.
The current system is overbuilt. CN and CP cost cutting efforts
have been stifled by the regulatory hurdles that they must jump
over to tailor rail line networks to their core markets. At the same
time, there have been few incentives in the existing system to
market little used lines to the newer short line railways.
Railways must reduce trackage if they are to regain their true
financial health. Eighty-four per cent of CN and CP traffic travels
on one-third of their networks. It is estimated that some 50 per cent
of current CN and CP track is surplus to the main carrier needs as
they move to serve their core markets.
The traffic density of the Canadian rail network is presently
much less than that of the top seven United States railroads. This
means that by moving to similar densities in the range of the United
States companies, our major carriers could generate significant
savings.
[Translation]
One of the key objectives of this bill to put in place measures to
streamline the current regulatory process in relation to the sale,
lease or abandonment of lesser used lines. An equally important
objective will be the incentive effect it will have on the legislation
to establish shortline railways at a lesser cost on many of these
lines.
1211
The dramatic increase in the number of shortline railways in
the U.S. is one of the major economic achievements of the 1980s.
Nothing stops this scenario from being repeated in several regions
of Canada, once those elements of the railway transportation
legislative framework that did not foster the creation of shortline
railways have been removed.
These past 10 months, the concerns raised by shippers and by our
two main railway companies have been at the centre of the debates
on the transportation bill.
The bill before us today is the product of the contributions made
by various stakeholders-officials, interested parties, my colleague
the former Minister of Transport, and more recently, the members
of the standing committee-toward striking the right balance
between their respective interests.
[English]
Have they succeeded? This is a question I have asked myself in
reviewing this very complex legislative initiative in the two months
since I became minister.
First and foremost, Bill C-14 preserves all the key shipper rights
won through the National Transportation Act, 1987. These rights
are unique to the rail mode and are more extensive than the rights
available to shippers in other jurisdictions, particularly in the
United States.
To illustrate, the bill keeps regulated rates for captive shippers
and adapts them for short line railways. The bill keeps the statutory
right of a shipper to final offer arbitration, shortening the process at
the shipper's request and extending it to cover rail passengers and
commuter service. This bill keeps the provision for confidential
contracts between a railway and a shipper.
[Translation]
The decrease in railway prices-nearly 30 per cent since these
rates were introduced in 1987-show how much shippers have
benefited.
(1020)
In addition, the bill preserves the traditional obligation of
carriers to provide an adequate level of service, or what is
commonly referred to as mass transit conveyance obligation,
specifying the duties to be fulfilled by a railway in terms of traffic
accommodation.
If a complaint is filed, the agency can always order the railway to
take corrective measures. No other mode of transportation has this
kind of obligations.
The bill also preserves the statutory right of a federal railway to
operate on tracks other than federal tracks. This right enhances
even more the competitive access of shippers.
Still, in spite of all these measures, shippers have asked the
government to make more changes to the bill.
[English]
It is well known that shippers wanted section 27(2) deleted,
whereby the agency would take into account whether a
complainant would suffer substantial commercial harm in deciding
whether a regulated remedy was warranted. Because many shippers
objected to this provision, the government advanced amendments
which replaced the term ``significant prejudice'' which was
formerly used with the term ``substantial commercial harm''. Other
amendments clarify the intent and application of the new
terminology. These were two main concerns of the shippers.
Shippers also wanted section 34(1) deleted. This section
stipulated that any party to a dispute, which would include
railways, must pay the costs if the complaint or behaviour during
the conduct of the proceedings was found by the agency to be
frivolous or vexatious. Again amendments were made to address
the shippers' concerns.
Section 27(2) was rewritten and clarified by government
members of the committee and was subsequently adopted
unanimously by the standing committee.
Section 34(1) was dropped.
Shippers also wanted section 113, which is now section 112 of
Bill C-14, to be deleted whereby the agency would be required to
set rail rates and conditions that are commercially fair and
reasonable. I find it very hard to accept any argument that a
regulated result should not be commercially fair and reasonable.
This section however was subsequently clarified to specify that the
result must be commercially fair and reasonable to all parties.
[Translation]
Initially, some shippers also wanted to extend to provincial
railways the compulsory and mandatory running rights. We have
concluded that this was both problematical and unnecessary, and
could hinder the development of shortline railways.
I am convinced that this long process has provided an
opportunity to review carefully all shippers' concerns and that
action was taken regarding several of these concerns. I think that
the outcome will be profitable to shippers as well as railways.
We must bear in mind some of the principles underlying the bill.
Regulation should be a last resort, since solutions that are freely
and mutually agreed upon are the best. A balance must be struck
between sometimes incompatible concerns.
Railway companies have one main goal: viability, a goal which
is also in the best interest of shippers and-I must say-in the best
interest of Canadians as well.
1212
Our common goal is to have a viable railway system, consisting
of main carriers and shortlines, which will ensure that railway
service will continue to connect as many communities as possible
across the country.
(1025 )
[English]
To sum up, the objectives for rail which the bill meets
successfully are: to promote the long term viability of railways; to
foster the creation of short lines; to preserve key shipper rights; to
preserve rail service to communities to the extent possible; and to
reduce the regulatory burden on railways. It has been an enormous
undertaking.
In easing the regulatory burden that had been placed on rail in
the past, over 1,000 pages in various statutes have been reduced to
just 100. In doing so the bill lifts regulatory intrusions into the
railways' day to day business affairs. Most important, the bill
streamlines the rail line rationalization process. This is the most
effective legislative means of bolstering the railway's efforts to cut
costs.
[Translation]
This way, if a buyer comes along, a railway can sell one of its
lines without delay to another railway, which will continue to
operate it. In the absence of an immediate buyer, the bill provides
for a simple process to dispose of surplus rail lines, by encouraging
their sale or lease to shortline railways.
However, if sufficient notice has been given and no private or
government buyer wants to buy the line, the railway will be
authorized to sell it as it pleases.
All concerned, including main railway lines, will benefit from
efforts to foster the creation of shortline railways.
The public interest will be protected since the government will
have the option of buying a line that no one else wants to operate
for rail purposes. This is indeed the best way to promote the
continued operation of a viable system from coast to coast.
[English]
During the committee's review of the bill, concerns were raised
by some about the length of time for governments and others to
react when a line might be discontinued. These concerns have been
addressed through amendments to lengthen somewhat the time
lines at the beginning and the end of the process. For instance, each
level of government will now have up to 30 days to purchase a line
rather than 15 days in the original bill. Amendments such as the
example I have cited demonstrate the government's flexibility and
resolve to make this important piece of legislation both effective
and fair.
I feel that the bill as now drafted represents an admirable
balance. The standing committee and all its members from all
parties in the House is to be commended for its excellent work. It is
an example of how well the standing committee process can work
and how it can handle extremely complex legislative tasks.
The bill will now be considered by the Senate and I look forward
to the outcome. Bill C-13 complements other transportation reform
initiatives that the government has introduced. The Canadian
transportation system must be dynamic and as unrestricted as
possible if it is to meet the demands of our changing economy. This
legislation, once passed, will achieve this. I am proud to have had a
part in its progress at the third reading stage.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I believe everyone agrees that the principle of Bill C-14 is
a good one: rationalizing, unifying and modernizing the existing
legislation on public transportation, most particularly rail
transportation.
No one can be against these goals of unification, modernization
and rationalization since no one, even the official opposition, can
be against virtue. We are, therefore, in favour of the principle. We
also consider some of the clauses to be good ones, but others are so
bad as to be unacceptable.
The amendments we moved to correct those shortcomings have
all been defeated. For these reasons we are opposed to Bill C-14
and will vote against it.
(1030)
The key reasons why we are opposed to Bill C-14 can be
summarized into four points. The first deals with the creation of the
short line railways, which represent the secondary elements of the
system. Because the system's future depends on them, their
creation ought to have been facilitated. The minister has just
pointed out that, very recently, such secondary lines have
multiplied greatly in the U.S.A., to the public's benefit.
The second reason why we are opposed to this bill is that the
procedure for a company to abandon a trunk or other line looks at
virtually nothing except profit issues and goals, whereas the public
interest ought to hold far more importance.
Third, the bill maintains privileges for the west which accentuate
or maintain the differences we are already used to between the west
and Quebec.
Fourth, and most important, despite all the talk about
decentralizing powers, we see that the government has not been
able to resist the ingrained habit, any time new legislation is
introduced, of taking advantage of the opportunity to nibble away
at provincial powers, as well as to ignore the provinces when their
interests are quite obviously concerned by the measures planned.
1213
The first point, then, is the creation of short line railways. I
would remind my listeners that these are entities whose
development can ensure the survival of the secondary part of the
system, which, it must be pointed out, has been scandalously
neglected from the maintenance point of view. This has been both
scandalous and profitable, perhaps, since the objective was to
obtain permission to abandon the lines in question. In order for
them to be abandoned, they have not to be used anymore. In order
for them not to be used anymore, they need only not be properly
maintained, and the result is achieved. Except that now certain
sections of this secondary network are in bad shape.
Buyers, generally small companies with little capital, are being
asked to take these sections in their existing bad state. Because the
legislation governing the railway companies resulted in the
network's being in such bad shape, we asked for but failed to get a
mechanism from the federal government whereby railway lines
would be repaired before being put up for sale, since local
companies potentially interested in taking over the lines generally
have little capital. Our request was not met. The SLRs that might
have been the future of the secondary network are getting no help
in setting up.
The other reason we will be voting against this bill is because the
abandonment procedure follows market logic only. In the past,
when a company wanted to abandon a section of rail line, the
National Transportation Agency had to call public hearings. I recall
having testified before agency commissioners in defence of a
section. Public hearings are no longer held. If a railway company
finds that a section of line is not profitable enough, it declares its
intention to abandon it. It is true, and this is a good point, that the
bill requires a company now give longer notice in announcing its
intention to discontinue service and that it be according to a plan
previously drawn up and made public.
(1035)
But once the information procedure relating to the sale of a
section of the network is completed, the rest is pure mercantile
logic. If there is no buyer, well, there is no buyer. If there is no
buyer, public authorities at the municipal, provincial or federal
level are given some time to express their interest in buying it.
Of course, there is hardly enough time for these authorities, and
especially municipalities, to organize public hearings. Up until
now, we were happy with the current procedure whereby the
Canadian Transportation Agency held public hearings before
allowing companies to abandon rail lines.
The third reason we oppose this bill is that it perpetuates a
system that is biased in favour of the West and that constitutes
another example of the imbalance in the treatment of Western
Canada, on the one hand, and Quebec, on the other hand. This bill
contains a number of clauses we want to see deleted. Clauses 147 to
155 amend but also restore certain privileges for Western Canada.
These clauses set a maximum rate and special conditions
applying to the transportation of western grain. These provisions
were introduced in the National Transportation Act in 1987, when
the Western Grain Transportation Act or WGTA was repealed and
the subsidy eliminated.
At that time, western farmers were compensated generously, to
the tune of $3 billion, for the elimination of the subsidy and the
abrogation of the WGTA. In its bill, the government reintroduces
the provisions that were originally in the National Transportation
Act, 1987. Yet, western farmers were generously compensated,
unlike their counterparts in Quebec. In fact, dairy producers
received no compensation whatsoever for the recent elimination of
their subsidies. Western farmers should therefore be in a good
position to face the new transportation conditions in Western
Canada and to adjust to a commercially oriented rail system, since
we are told that the main purpose of the bill is to commercialize the
network.
Giving unequal treatment to western and eastern shippers, as
these eight clauses tend to do, can only lead to inequitable
development of the rail system by adversely affecting the resources
carriers can invest in the eastern network.
But what is really telling, although it was to be expected, is that
the government and the minister are giving themselves
discretionary powers in this bill, without even providing for
consultations-and I mean mere consultations-with the
provinces, in situations where the provinces should obviously be
consulted.
There are several examples of that. Take clause 7, which deals
with the Canadian Transportation Agency, formerly the National
Transportation Agency of Canada which, incidentally, also has a
new role. Clause 7 provides that the governor in council shall
appoint not more than three members for a term of not more than
five years. The expression ``not more than'' means that there could
be one, two or three members appointed. The minister may
also-he may but he does not have to-appoint three temporary
members, for a term of not more than one year, from the roster of
individuals established by the governor in council.
This is not a criticism, just a comment in passing. If there are
three members for a maximum of five years, and if the minister
may appoint other members, it seems to me-unless I do not
understand French-that the CTA could be made up of only one
individual. This is indeed a possibility, given the wording used.
1214
(1040)
The provisions on the CTA's membership include no criteria,
benchmarks or obligations for the minister regarding the various
interests of carriers, users and the general public. The whole
process is discretionary.
Yet, it might have been appropriate to appoint members from a
list of names submitted by interested parties. There are not even
geographical criteria. Imagine that there are four members. I am
just making a point but, strictly speaking, all four could come from
the same region. There are no criteria and we want to at least
correct that situation by saying that members, whether temporary
or not, should be appointed on the advice of the four regions. Ten
provinces was too much. We had defined four regions: the Atlantic
provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the Western provinces. That was
rejected out of hand and it is now up to the government to choose
the members of the CTA.
One good thing is that the bill provides for situations that it
defines as extraordinary, in which the governor in council may take
special decisions recommended by the minister to cope with
situations that require urgent action or for which there is no
particular provision in any other act of Parliament that would offer
a solution.
In this case, situations defined as urgent are those that could
endanger the interests of the operator, all the interests of users and
the public interest, with the exception of strikes.
In such situations, the governor in council can take special
measures. But, if an urgent situation arises in a province, how can
provincial authorities be left out of it? In addition, how can the
matter not at least be referred to the Standing Committee on
Transport? None of this is covered. We have the government
arbitrarily taking control, setting itself up as the sole arbiter.
Another measure, good in principle, contained in the bill is the
provision requiring that the legislation be reviewed after four
years. However well thought out a piece of legislation is, the final
test is obviously how well it stands up to real events over a period
of time, before a decision can be taken to leave it as is or to
introduce amendments. It is therefore a very good idea that the bill
includes a provision from the outset for a review of this legislation
in four years.
All this is fine and well, but who will review the legislation? It
will be reviewed by individuals appointed by the minister. Once
again, we are not told that these individuals will be chosen with the
approval of the provinces or from lists prepared by the interested
parties. No, not at all. The bill provides for a review after four
years. There is no guarantee that all interest groups will be called
upon to give their opinion on the legislation because shortcomings
have shown up in practice. They say that the communities will be
consulted, but this is obviously very vague.
(1045)
We wanted the agency to be consulted, and the provinces, but
there is nothing new. The omniscient, and therefore omnipotent
government, as infallible as the Pope, will decide.
The bill provides for the construction of new rail lines, which is
not something that happens much these days. In particular, we
ought not to expect to see HSTs in the near future. Soon we may be
the only country, with the possible exception of Zimbabwe, not to
have high speed trains. However, the legislation does provide for
the construction of new lines. The agency will grant authorization
to a company requesting to build a new line, if it meets certain
criteria, and if the route appears to serve the interests of the carrier,
the users and the regions it crosses.
But-and this is truly incredible-the province concerned is not
even asked for its opinion. If there is one field that is really specific
to the provinces, it is the development of their territory. Either the
province exercises that right directly, or the municipalities do so on
its behalf. This is an exclusively provincial area.
In Quebec, the municipalities draw up land use plans for
authorization by the province. These then lead to zoning plans.
Imagine, a new line is to be constructed in a municipality. It is
possible that the zoning plan, the land use plan, did not include the
route of that line. Thus, we must trust the federal government's
wisdom not to trash the zoning plan and the land use plan by
putting the line through. It is absolutely incredible that putting in a
new line-part of the development plan of a region-does not
require consultation with the province, yet this is a specifically
provincial jurisdiction.
And now for the icing on the cake: centralization disguised as
decentralization. Clause 89, against which we tabled amendment
No. 17. I must read it, because it is such a juicy tidbit.
89. If the construction or operation of a railway is authorized by a Special Act
passed by the legislature of a province and the railway is declared by an Act of
Parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, this Part applies to
the railway to the exclusion of any general railway Act of the province and any
provisions of the Special Act that are inconsistent with this Part.
This is absolutely typical. It would, however, have been simple,
rational, and respectful of the provinces to state in a general and
unrestricted way that a railway constructed by a special act of a
provincial legislature remained under provincial authority. That
would have squelched the federal government's hunger for power,
which is totally contrary to what it is saying.
(1050)
Sadly, I must conclude that, with Bill C-14, railway
transportation is losing some of its noble mission of public service.
Essentiality, railways are intended to serve the public. Rail
transportation is tending to become a business like any other,
serving not so much
1215
the public as the political interests in power. The state has bowed to
market pressures.
I must thank the government for again giving Quebecers, in this
bill, one more demonstration that there is absolutely no hope within
the federal framework of one day seeing the logic of public interest
cease to be constantly subordinated to political or profit making
imperatives.
With Quebecers at least, Bill C-14 will have that one positive
aspect. Thank you for that, Mr. Minister of Transport.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker it is an irony speaking today on Bill C-14. The hearings are
finished, the amendments are finished. They were voted on last
night.
All we will do today is have a post-mortem on what has taken
place, a eulogy for the things that might have been much better in a
bill that has a lot of good merit in it.
There are a lot of good points in this bill, but it could have been
much better. There are several areas where the government has
either included things that should have been taken out or failed to
inject things that should be in the bill.
I will deal with both the things that should have been taken out
and with the things that should have been in such as protection for
utility companies or municipalities with regard to their
infrastructure systems, sewers, water, roads and so on.
Before I get into that, I find myself in the strange position of
defending the government. There are some good things in the bill.
We have heard in debate from the NDP objections to some of the
very things that give the bill some merit.
NDP members talked at length about the abandonment
procedure and tried very hard to put in a bunch of amendments
which would have basically cancelled the changes that took place.
They lacked a basic understanding of the entire abandonment
procedure, both the old one and the new one.
NDP members claimed during debate that they have been talking
in the coffee shops of Canada. I do not doubt they have. It is too bad
they did not know what they were talking about when they were
doing it.
The Canadians I have talked to both inside and outside
Parliament want a continued rail service, period. They would like
to have the service we have now continue, but short lines are
certainly a viable alternative.
I have to reiterate what I said in debate about how the old
procedure worked and what the problems were. If a rail company
wanted to abandon any rail line, short line, main line, it does not
matter, the procedure for abandonment of a rail line was that it first
had to prove financial hardship.
Before it made that application, and rail companies would be
loathe to admit this but we all know it is a fact, it made sure that if
financial hardship did not already exist it created it.
The way it creates financial hardship if it does not already exist
is by demarketing the line, by going to the shippers on the line and
providing some alternative method of shipping their goods to
market or at least to a railhead.
This happened in my riding in the Slocan Valley where there was
one primary shipper, Slocan Forest Products. CP Rail, in its
intention to abandon that line, went to Slocan Forest Products and
wrote a confidential trucking contract, we presume at very
favourable rates, perhaps even below its cost, to ship its goods to
the nearest reload centre in Nelson, B.C. where rail lines still exist.
(1055 )
It also did absolutely minimal maintenance on that line. That is
not to say it did anything illegal or that it ran a line that was unsafe,
but it ran it at absolute minimum standards. The evidence of that is
by the time abandonment was actually approved, we had trees
growing in the middle of the rail line. That does not happen on a
well maintained line.
As a result the line was abandoned, but no short line operator in
its right mind would bid to preserve and operate a line which had
no customers left and which would cost a fortune in repairs and
upgrades, when normally the rail line would have been maintained.
With the new procedure a rail company does not have to prove
financial hardship. It can apply to abandon whatever line it wishes
but it has to go through a very set procedure.
First it has to publish on a three year planning list which lines it
wishes to abandon. It is not committed to abandoning them, but
they would be lines under investigation or under scrutiny by the rail
company with the possibility of divesting itself of those lines.
If it wishes to proceed, it has to offer in a prescribed manner
those lines for sale with all kinds of published information to the
general public so that short line operators or those that wish to
become short line operators could consider purchasing them.
After the set period of time, if the company has not succeeded in
selling the lines, it then has to offer them, in turn, to the federal,
provincial, local, municipal and regional governments at their net
salvage value. This gives every possibility of preserving those lines
because the lines have not necessarily been demarketed or brought
down to the lowest possible maintenance standards.
1216
We believe these measures will enhance the ability of short line
operators to take over the operation of rail lines.
I have spoken to several short line operators and they are
aggressively looking to increase their operations and take on new
lines. This is a very positive move to enhance the viability of short
line operations, which may be a viable alternative to rail operations
in marginal areas.
The amendments put forward by the NDP, though well meaning,
may have harmed rather than helped the situation. I will now deal
primarily with Reform motions which would have either added
things that are missing from the legislation or taken things out
which should have been out in the first place.
Three Reform motions deal with municipal government and
utility company protection. We heard from representatives of the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities and various utility
companies regarding their concern about the infrastructures of their
sewers, water, gas and power which pass in most cases under, and
in some cases over, rail rights of way.
The problem is that if a line is sold or ultimately abandoned, in
most cases there is no registered easement for the companies or for
the various municipalities. This is a problem for municipalities
which have designed their whole infrastructure systems for the
crossings. They would like to have something in the bill which
would ensure the protection of the lines for all the people they
serve in the various communities in their areas.
I do not think that is a particularly unreasonable request. It is not
a cost factor to the rail companies. Those who would argue against
this would say the municipalities or the utility companies can
expropriate. They can in many cases, but that costs money. In the
end those costs fall to the very people who use these services, the
taxpayers.
Again I am defending the Liberal government. The Liberal
government needs the Canadian taxpayer to have as much money
as possible in order to pay all the Liberal bills generated by the
government. I truly am looking out for the best interests of the
Liberals with these motions.
Unfortunately the Liberals rejected every one of the motions that
would have protected the municipalities. They would have
protected all the towns and villages that rail lines go through and all
the infrastructure systems that go under or over the rail rights of
way. The Liberals turned their back on them.
(1100 )
I hope those people will remember that when the Liberals start
trying to get even more tax dollars out of them and there are
problems at the municipal level because of these rights of way.
Another Reform motion that is missing from the legislation is
some measure of protection for Atlantic Canada. Motion No. 38
was a Reform motion that provided one of those protections. This
was an amendment that would have seen a five-year guarantee that
the CN Rail line from Montreal to Halifax would continue in
operation. This goes back to Bill C-89 which was the CN
privatization bill.
People from Halifax, the port authorities and other
representatives from Atlantic Canada came before the committee
with regard to Bill C-89 and asked for a 10-year continuance of that
line. They put forward some very good and sound arguments.
I put that amendment at committee level and it was supported by
at least one Liberal member of the committee from Atlantic
Canada. In fact the vote was a tie and the Liberal chair of the
committee had to break the tie and did so by voting against Atlantic
Canada. The same people came before us with regard to Bill C-89
and Bill C-14 or Bill C-101 at that time, saying they still need this.
They said they could live with five years and cut their request in
half.
Ports commercialization or privatization is coming in. All the
ports will have to look out for themselves, raise their own capital
on the marketplace and be responsible for it. The federal
government is not going to guarantee the loans. I do not have a
problem with that. These ports should stand on their own. They
should operate on a commercially viable basis. The ports that came
before us on this issue said they were prepared to do that.
However, they cannot go to investors and ask them to put money
in if they cannot ensure those investors that while they are
developing their post-Panamax facilities to get ready for the
coming generation of new and larger freighters, they do not have
some guarantee that they are going to be able to transport those
goods from Atlantic Canada into central Canada and the American
midwest.
As it happens Halifax is the ultimate best port for not only
reaching central Canada but for reaching the American midwest.
This does not take away from any of the inland ports, for example,
Montreal or the Lakehead, because if these post-Panamax ships do
not come to Halifax they are going to the New England states or to
New York. It is Halifax or it is somewhere outside of Canada. The
ports need the CN Rail line with its connection through the Sarnia
tunnel to get to the American midwest market.
If I were going to invest in the infrastructure of the Halifax area I
would want some assurance that the rail line was going to stay
intact until such time as these post-Panamax facilities were
developed, the market was there and the goods were being shipped.
At that time the port will be prepared to stand on its own.
Liberal members were asking why Reform was interfering with
the free enterprise of CN Rail by saying it had to do something for a
1217
five-year period of time. The Reform Party is supposed to be the
free enterprise party so why is it trying to bring in such an
amendment?
I pointed out that for 80 years successive Liberal and
Conservative governments had interfered with the marketplace,
specifically with CN Rail, by having this crown corporation doing
things that were far removed from normal commercial practices.
All I was asking for was a five-year transition period while it went
from this crown entity to the private sector.
(1105 )
The head of CN Rail, Mr. Paul Tellier, appeared at the hearings
on Bill C-14. I asked Mr. Tellier that as he was required under the
act to provide a three-year plan was he looking beyond that to four,
five or six years? He said that he was. I then asked if he had any
plans over the next five years to discontinue the line between
Montreal and Halifax. His response was, no, absolutely not because
CN had made a lot of investments in Atlantic Canada in facilities
and there were no plans to do that.
The Liberals could have accepted the amendment that I brought
forward so that Halifax could go to the investors and say: ``There is
your guarantee that the rail line will remain''. It would not have
cost CN or the government or the taxpayers anything. In fact, the
only thing that could cost the taxpayers money is if Halifax has
trouble raising capital in order to do its post-Panamax facility
upgrades and loses the traffic to the United States. This was a win,
win situation but the Liberals said no to Atlantic Canada.
Last night we had a standing vote on Motion No. 38 and one by
one, each and every Liberal in this place rose and voted against
Atlantic Canada. Why did they do that? Could it be that they
simply do not want Atlantic Canada to develop any form of
financial independence? There can be no other explanation.
Clause 27(3) would not have been required at all. The Reform
Party tried to amend it but that would not have been needed if the
Liberals had done the right thing with clause 27(2) but they did not.
This does not fix clause 27(2). I have to make that clear. Our
motion tried to make it slightly more acceptable.
The main source of the items we listed in our amendment to try
to better define what is significant commercial harm was provided
by the NTA representative stating items that would clarify clause
27(2) so we put those in.
I am going to mix a couple of things together here because clause
27(2) is strongly entwined with this. The minister said this morning
that clause 27(2) got unanimous support at committee. Unlike Bill
C-89 which went to committee after first reading, we supported it.
The Liberals said this would make it more amendment friendly.
They were not telling an accurate story, shall we say. When it got
there we did propose amendments after listening to the various
people who came before us. The Liberals rejected each and every
amendment out of hand with very little discussion. After the fact,
we discovered that they would have been much better off had they
brought in at least the majority of those amendments. The
government knows that now. Maybe it knew it then, but for
whatever reason it chose not to listen.
The Liberals had a change of heart on Bill C-14. They seemed to
be much more open to amendments and they did support a
tremendous number of Reform amendments which were brought
forward. They went so far as to ask me what I would like to see in
the bill. That is very hopeful for the future if they are prepared to do
this.
The Liberals did accept a lot of our amendments. Unfortunately,
a couple which they did not dealt with clause 27(2) and 27(3). One
thing that I tried to do was recognize that if the government does
not want to take clause 27(2) out it is going to be passed because
after all it has a majority and can pass anything it wishes.
At committee level I tried, first, to make the clause a little more
palatable with an amendment which would define much more
specifically exactly what was then referred to as significant
prejudice. In part, the agreement I made verbally was that if the
government accepted this, I would support clause 27(2) at the
committee level, knowing full well that we still had report stage to
deal with this after I had another opportunity to speak to the various
shippers who were concerned about this.
(1110 )
What the government did was a little sneaky. Perhaps I should
have said that it had broken its agreement and therefore I no longer
had an obligation but I stuck with it.
I put forward an amendment that would define the meaning of
clause 27(2). The government pre-empted it with one of its own,
which was much softer than mine. Once the government's
amendment was in, there cannot have two amendments proposed
on the same clause at committee stage, so it took precedent over
mine and mine was not considered. That was the same amendment
that I brought forward at report stage.
The government should have supported my amendment as it was
proposed, as I did what I had agreed to and that was support clause
27(2) at the committee stage provided the government amended it.
Reform supported two amendments which removed
objectionable clauses from this bill. I would like to discuss the one
that deals with clause 11(2), commercially fair and reasonable. At
the committee hearings I asked the NTA representative to define
commercially fair and reasonable. The following is a quote from
the testimony before the Standing Committee on Transport,
November 7, 1995 by Mr. Ashley of the National Transportation
Agency responding to my inquiry.
1218
Mr. Ashley stated: ``What is commercially fair and reasonable
is I suspect consistent with what is competitive. What is
competitive in any circumstances depends on product market,
geographic market, the elasticities of demand for that product,
temporal aspects, production efficiencies, market structure, market
conduct and market performance''.
``I can tell you that on the street it would mean covering the fixed
cost long term average variable cost, contribution to fixed cost and
perhaps a return on shareholder equity. But to say today that in the
future it will be what the agency does in every case would be
wrong''.
``The competition people have appeared before you. The law is
predicated on competition in the marketplace. If you look at case
law under the Competition Act, the courts would have stated that
even a non-compensatory rate, a below cost losing rate, can be a
commercially fair and reasonable competitive rate. Perishable
goods, production oversupply, the jurisprudence under the
Competition Act shows that a commercially fair and reasonable
rate can be many things in many circumstances and what is
commercially fair and reasonable today may not be tomorrow''.
Responding to Mr. Ashley I said: ``Let me point out what you
have just said. When I asked you about the meaning of significant
prejudice you said `it could be argued'. When I asked you about the
meaning of commercially fair and reasonable you said `I suspect it
means'. That is little comfort to the shippers. If this is what the
NTA does, if this is how they decide, it is no wonder the shippers
are worried. `I suspect', `it could be argued', that is no comfort at
all, Mr. Ashley''.
Continuing, I asked: ``Can I then surmise from what you are
saying that you don't necessarily agree with these provisions but
you are going to work with them to the best of your ability. These
things are highly subjective and the NTA, soon to be the CTA, will
have to deal with them as best they can''.
Mr. Ashley's response was: ``That is correct, sir''.
I responded again: ``You can see where my concern is. The lack
of objectivity in this is telling me that they're'', and this is referring
to the shippers, ``probably are right to be worried''.
That is the reason we are concerned about that particular clause
and why we supported trying to take it out. Let there be no
misunderstanding of what the government is saying. That is from
the NTA.
Clause 27(2) is undoubtedly the most controversial part of the
entire bill. It should have been taken out. This is what is referred to
as significant prejudice throughout the hearings and later changed
to substantial commercial harm.
I think there was a possible ploy on the part of the new Minister
of Transport. Several shippers' groups visited with the minister and
the new chair of the Standing Committee on Transport last week
and brought forward their concerns about clause 27(2) and what
this would do for them. The minister responded: ``I was not aware
of those aspects. That is really interesting. In light of this I will
have to reconsider the government's position on clause 27(2)''.
This was echoed by the chair of the transport committee.
(1115)
I asked how I could co-operate with them to ensure the matter
was properly addressed. I told them I did not want to make a
political football out of the matter, that I did not want to score
political points, I simply wanted the bill to be good.
I offered to make an agreement to send the bill, or at least clause
27, back to committee where all committee members could
reconsider and make changes so that it would not be a government
response to a Reform amendment. They overwhelmingly rejected
my offer. Up until the eve before debate they were very open,
saying they were considering these things. The morning of debate it
was gone from the table.
Since then shippers have told me they think they were set up.
They think the minister gave them that hope to keep them quiet so
they would not give a press release against what the government
was doing. Once debate began, when it was too late to do any of
these things, the government cut them off at the knees. I did not
suggest this to the shippers, it came from them. I believe they were
right.
There were many witnesses at the committee level. We had long
hearings which lasted well into the evenings on several occasions.
Most of the witnesses strenuously objected to clause 27(2). If we
will not listen to the people who come before these committees, the
overwhelming majority of them, why do we go through the cost of
interpreters, technicians, research people, the clerks, the offices
and all the other costs? Why do we have the expense of all these
people coming to Ottawa to testify before the committee if we will
not listen to them? Attempts to fix clause 27(2) were not accepted
by these shippers.
Bill C-101, as it was first known, was basically lost from the
Order Paper with the prorogation of the House. The government
obviously wanted to bring it back, which it ultimately did. It tried
first to bring it back in the old accepted way, by unanimous
consent.
Moya Greene, who was an assistant deputy minister in the
transport department, called me in British Columbia to ask if I
would agree to unanimous consent to bring this bill forward. I said
I would provided they take clause 27(2) out of it. She asked why I
1219
wanted clause 27(2) taken out. I said it was because there was such
overwhelming to it. She replied that they had fixed it. I said that I
would give her the greatest deal ever: ``Of all the people who
objected strenuously on record to clause 27(2), if you can find me
two or three who are prepared to say they objected to it but now
accept it, I will reconsider my position''. She did not know if she
could do that. I suggest, as I did to her, that it has not been fixed.
As I have said, the minister led many concerned shippers to
believe he would reconsider clause 27(2). I did everything I could
to accommodate this. I brought forward a request to seek the
unanimous consent of the House to do that so that it could be done
in a non-partisan manner with all of the House agreeing to it. The
government rejected my offer.
Who is really against clause 27(2)? The farmers and their
organizations are against it, the grain companies are against it, the
mining operations, sawmills, pulp and paper producers, chemical
companies, manufacturers. Who really benefits? The two rail
companies obviously benefit a little, but I do not believe they are
the real beneficiaries.
I refer again to testimony of the NTA on November 7, 1995. In
this text the term ``significant prejudice'' is used. This term was
later amended to ``substantial commercial harm''. All shippers I
have consulted with agree this change of words has not
substantially changed the intent of this clause, if at all.
(1120 )
I asked the witness, Mr. Ashley from the National Transportation
Agency, what ``significant prejudice'' meant. I asked him to define,
from the NTA's point of view, what would happen to me if I were a
shipper coming before it and it had do something for me or throw
me out the door, depending on how it interpreted ``significant
prejudice''.
Mr. Ashley's response was: ``I will tell you what I expect the
agency will hear by way of arguments as to what it will mean. On
one end of the spectrum it could be argued, and I assure you it will
be argued, that it is the mere inability of a shipper to get his goods
to market because of the railway's refusal to grant a CLR that is, by
definition, significant prejudice of the ability of the shipper to get
his goods to market.
``On the opposite end of the spectrum, it will be evidence in
argument tendered to the effect that in a shipper's inability to get
his goods to market the test of significant prejudice will only be
met if that shipper has to close his plant''.
My response to Mr. Ashley was: ``You can see where the
problem is. You have just given me an incredible range, including
the possibility that a shipper has to go bankrupt before this thing
may be decided in his favour. We have to sort of say to shippers `do
not worry about clause 27(2), it is great. It will not harm a damn
thing as long as you are prepared to go bankrupt'. I find that
absolutely astounding''.
I continued to ask Mr. Ashley the following: ``If we do not have
clause 27(2) does it stop you from doing your job? In the last eight
years have you had a problem doing your job?'' Mr. Ashley's
response was: ``The answer to that, sir, is no''.
Who really benefits from this, as near as I can see, are lawyers.
This is according to the testimony of Mr. Ashley, himself a lawyer.
Why would the government be interested in doing something that
will benefit primarily lawyers?
I have an astounding list in my hand. It points out that the Prime
Minister is a lawyer, the government House leader is a lawyer, the
minister of agriculture is a lawyer, the Minister of Health is a
lawyer and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development is a lawyer. There is a lawyer's growth industry right
there. When the member became the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Affairs some aboriginal people he had been working with
as a lawyer said: ``I thought I had died and gone to heaven''.
The Minister of Industry is a lawyer, the Minister of Natural
Resources is a lawyer, the Minister of Justice is a lawyer and the
President of the Treasury Board is a lawyer. The Minister of
Human Resources Development is a lawyer. He is the former
Minister of Transport who introduced and helped draft this
legislation. Now we know who is benefiting from this.
Clause 27(2) is a deal killer for the Reform Party. Even though
there are other objectionable inclusions or exclusions in the bill,
there would be enough value in it to recommend its passage if it not
for clause 27(2).
The government had the opportunity to improve the bill but did
not take it. We all know it has the power to pass absolutely anything
it wants whether it is in the public interest or not. Let us chalk up
another win for an autocratic Liberal government and another loss
for democracy.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-14, previously known as
Bill C-101, as it has some direct impact on the western provinces
and certainly my province of Saskatchewan.
I believe the proposed legislation is very constructive, creative
and in a manner allows for unnecessary regulations and overlap to
be removed. It places greater reliance on parties to negotiate their
own solutions on commercial and economic issues and reduce,
wherever possible, reliance on regulatory decision making in such
matters.
1220
(1125)
In my view, this wisely places the matters of competition and
monopoly in the realm of other appropriate legislation such as the
Competition Act.
A number of places were uncovered where general business laws
such as the Canada Business Corporations Act would be used
instead of having specialized laws for transportation and
companies. We wanted to reduce overlap and regulation. These
matters were covered adequately by some other body.
This also makes it simpler for stakeholders who might otherwise
be faced with confusion or who are burdened with many different
pieces of legislation or regulation. Overall the new act will reduce
the costly burden of excess regulation and will ensure the long term
viability of Canada's transportation system.
First and foremost in my mind is the concern of my constituents
about the rail sector. In this area alone, the legislation will reduce
government intervention for approvals and decisions on railway
actions, limiting them from 200 to approximately 40.
Although the bill is not completely satisfactory to either the
railways or the shippers, it serves after months of public and open
consultation to strike a compromise.
The amendments brought to the bill were after considerable
work by the Standing Committee on Transport. Considerable
consultation was undertaken with all the stakeholders. Because of
the consultation, equilibrium and balance has been achieved. The
bill has effectively addressed the need for balance between the
marketplace and government policy issues and what must remain a
matter for the regulator to be involved in.
I turn to some matters that drew considerable attention and fire
during the debate from western stakeholders. I do this to
demonstrate to the House that concerns have been listened to and
changes have been made and to reassure western constituents they
have not been hung out to dry in the process.
I wish to focus on three clauses that got the most attention while
I travelled throughout the riding and when witnesses appeared
before the standing committee. They were clause 27(2), formerly
known as significant prejudice; clause 34(1), frivolous and
vexatious arguments or applications; and clause 113, now known as
clause 112, which obligated the agency to ensure any rates or
service levels it sets are commercially fair and reasonable.
Let me deal first with clause 27(2). The clause was reworded,
although some have missed it, to clear up what had been a problem.
It provides guidance to the agency in ultimately rendering
decisions. It does not act is a pretest as some had thought. The
words ``significant prejudice'' were replaced by the words
``substantial commercial harm'', terms that are more understood in
law. The new clauses 3 and 5 clearly signify and make clear that
this does not apply to final offer arbitration.
In standing committee transcripts Cargill, a major shipper, was
asked if these changes would satisfy it. Cargill responded
positively. These amendments were adopted unanimously by all
the parties in the standing committee.
Regarding the phrase ``frivolous and vexatious arguments''
many people in shipping organizations raised concerns. That clause
has been removed from the bill.
The third major concern is clause 112. ``Commercially fair and
reasonable'' is a phrase that has been heavily investigated and
debated throughout the process. There are some concerns raised by
the pools. I recall there was a question of commercially fair and
reasonable to whom and in whose perspective? The government
motion at report stage now adds some clarifying words to this
provision. The words ``to all parties'' answer the questions of the
shippers. This underscores the obligation that the agency's set rates
must meet the test of fairness and provide the users with rail
service.
(1130)
I do not want to leave the House with the impression that I have
conveniently grabbed all of these clauses and I quote them simply
to support the position of the government. I have consulted widely
with stakeholders and with my constituents on the issue. I feel
confident that now is the time to move forward with the bill.
Let me quickly say a few words about the provisions of the bill
as they relate to the grain interests in the country. Many witnesses
who came forward to the standing committee were pleased that the
government seemed to recognize that competition and market
forces were not perfect in the grain sector and that a period of
transition was needed. The changes that were made, especially in
section 27, go a long way to remove the remaining fears of
shippers, including grain shippers, about the issue. As well as the
protection afforded all shippers under the new legislation, grain
shippers will enjoy extra provisions such as maximum rates and a
comprehensive hopper car allocation.
The Minister of Transport has indicated that the government
intends to sell the 13,000 hopper cars which are presently owned by
the department. He indicated that the department is inviting
proposals to assess and determine the financial arrangements and
the terms and conditions of sale. The interests of all stakeholders,
including producers, will be taken into account in this process.
In closing, I will touch on the positive attributes of the
legislation. While I was a member of the committee listening to the
hearings and particularly presentations from the west, section
1221
27(2), section 34(1) and also section 113 which is now known as
section 112 were also major concerns. What happened with those?
We altered the wording in section 27(2) to meet the needs of
shippers. Also section 34(1) which said ``frivolous and vexatious
arguments'' was dropped completely, and I think correctly so. In
section 113, which is now section 112, we have amended the
wording to deal with those people who will be affected by it.
The shippers and rail companies and all who will be involved
with new Bill C-14 have to come to the position of making it work.
If they want it to work, it will. If they do not want it to work, they
will use every effort in their power so that it will not work.
In my opinion, we have set legislation which is a compromise
and in the final analysis will meet the needs of shippers, railways
and all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
use my 20 minutes to speak to Bill C-14.
I am keen to speak on this bill, which is intended to update
legislation on railway transportation, to redefine the mandate of the
National Transportation Agency and to further deregulate air
transportation.
(1135)
Obviously, I will not be debating the entire bill, but rather setting
out for you certain points that are of particular interest to me. We in
the Bloc are opposed to Bill C-14 for a number of reasons. The
provinces are not consulted on a number of points in the bill,
including one of special interest to me-the environment.
As my colleague for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, the former
mayor of the beautiful municipality of Blainville, said yesterday in
this House, clause 98 of Bill C-14 is incomplete, because it does
not oblige the Agency to do an environmental impact study before
authorizing the construction of a rail line, and this is totally
unacceptable. I would remind you here of the unfortunate case of
the Irving Whale.
In 1970, the Irving Whale sank off the Magdalen Islands and
Prince Edward Island. It was, of course, the Liberals who were
running the country at the time. Are we going to entrust the
environment, as in the construction of a huge rail line or a major
section, to a government that showed no environmental concern in
the infamous case of the Irving Whale?
In 1994, we had a sort of committee, known as the
Easter-Gagnon committee, that went around the Gaspé, Quebec
and the Maritimes. Two backbenchers spent several thousand
dollars of taxpayers' money for a political promotion. This was
followed by the Department of the Environment's official
consultation when the decision was made to raise the barge. The
result was an outpouring of over $20 million, and the Irving Whale
remains on the bottom.
You will ask me what all this has to do with the National
Transportation Agency. The point is simply to show the danger of
giving the federal government total jurisdiction over the
environment. In fact, the environment is not covered by the
Constitution and, until proof is provided to the contrary, it comes
under provincial jurisdiction. Clearly, the construction of a railroad
changes the rural and urban landscape.
The environmental impact must therefore be seriously
considered and, moreover, the provinces should be consulted, since
land use is their responsibility.
There is nothing surprising in this. It is one of many examples of
the Liberal government's effrontery in pushing the provinces out of
their own fields of jurisdiction.
I would be remiss as well if I did not talk about unfairness, since
recently I have had a number of opportunities to raise this issue and
today will be no exception. Like my colleague for
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, responsible for transportation issues
at the federal level, pointed out earlier, eastern Canada faces a very
serious problem-the abandonment of several shortline railroads.
These sections were left discarded by the federal government and
are now in bad shape, for the most part.
(1140)
As you can easily imagine, once these lines are taken over as
short line railways, operating them will not be so profitable,
especially since the financial situation of short line railways is
rather precarious because of the level of debt and because of the
condition of the railways and bridges.
Eighteen months ago in my riding, in the great region of the
Eastern Townships and Chaudière-Appalaches, the Quebec
Central Railway abandoned the Chaudière-Vallée line, which
goes from the city of Sherbrooke to Lévis and Lac-Frontière
through Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, a distance of 382 kilometres.
The Quebec Central Railway gave such poor service and charged
such high prices in its last 20 years of operation that it lost almost
all its customers. Of course, it went before the National
Transportation Agency, which gave it permission to abandon the
line simply because it was not profitable.
At this point, I would like to remind you that, in the west, it is not
necessary to demonstrate that a line is not profitable. Rather, it
must be demonstrated that the line is not in the public interest.
Since that is much harder to prove given the very large number of
grain producers, it is much easier to abandon lines in the east than
in the west. Once again, we are up against a double standard.
In the long term, this situation will lead to the failure of several
projects and the abandonment of several rail lines. That is why a
railway rehabilitation program would correct this situation, espe-
1222
cially in the west and, of course, in the east. In the west, however,
they speak a very different language. I often talk about the
advantages given to western Canada, including the compensation
offered western farmers after the WGTA was repealed and their
subsidies eliminated.
While western farmers received nearly $3 billion in
compensation, their eastern counterparts were forgotten. This is a
perfect example of inequity and injustice. Once again, shippers
must face the new transportation conditions in the west and adjust
to a commercially oriented railway system. Giving unequal
treatment to eastern and western shippers is dangerous, as an
inequitably developed rail network will adversely affect the
resources carriers can invest in the eastern network.
I have here two short sentences that add to the inequities between
eastern and western Canada, including the abrogation of the WGTA
announced last year. Maximum rates can be frozen until 1999. In
concrete terms, for western grain producers, the ceiling set in 1995
will apply. Railway companies cannot increase it; it is frozen at the
level it was at when the WGTA was repealed.
In addition, for over 15 years, these same producers have been
allowed to use the government's fleet of hopper cars for free and, if
they bought the 10 hopper cars for the transportation of grain, I am
sure they would pay a reduced price.
(1145)
Should we wish the same for Quebec? I doubt it. Quebec is a
much larger territory than its neighbour, Ontario. Yet, the length of
railway lines in Ontario is twice that of Quebec. Lines twice as long
in a province almost half the size means there is actually four times
more railways in Ontario. So, the inequity does not go back to this
government coming to office: it existed long before 1867 and even
before 1841.
Let us now look at construction and maintenance costs. Clause
103(3) provides that the owner of the land shall pay the costs of
constructing and maintaining the crossing. Here is what this really
means. I own a piece of land and there are 832 feet of railroad over
it, cutting it in two. Since I have to cross from the west side to the
east side of the railroad, the costs of maintaining the crossing are
paid by the owner of the railroad. Now, under this bill, such costs
would have to be paid by the owner of the land.
This makes no sense. Property rights pertaining to my farm
existed long before the railroad was built. They go way back.
Consequently, that clause alone is sufficient reason for me to
condemn and to oppose that bill. Farmers who are listening to this
debate on Bill C-14 must realize that if they use a private road to go
from one side of their farm to the other, they will now have to
maintain the crossing. The federal government just gave you a new
responsibility, even though this area comes under provincial
jurisdiction.
As I said earlier, the owner did not ask the railway company to
encroach on his land. Consequently, the costs of constructing and
maintaining the crossing must be paid by the company. After all, it
uses the land. The same goes for fences. Not more than two weeks
ago, it was reported in the newspapers that in Saint-Étienne, close
to Quebec City, coyotes or stray dogs chased a herd of cattle over a
railway fence and the CN convoy killed 49 animals.
Under this bill, fences would become the sole responsibility of
the farmer. If you are a farmer and if a railroad runs over your land,
you alone will have to pay for the whole fence, on both sides of the
railroad, to keep your cattle from going on it. To those who might
think this is fair, let me just say that Quebec's municipal code
provides that the construction, maintenance and overall
responsibility for fences are equally shared by the two owners. Any
good notary knows that.
(1150)
In its wisdom, the federal government is deciding that from now
on you will have to put up your own fences. This will not do. It
makes no sense.
Another point. When I was mayor of my municipality, I told you
that each farmer had 832 feet, unless they had more than one piece
of land. Over the years, a problem began to develop with drainage.
As mayor, I met with the authorities of Quebec Central Railway,
and it was mutually agreed that they would install two large
culverts under the track. There was no problem. Do you know that,
with Bill C-14, this would become the responsibility of the farmer?
That does not make any sense either.
I would like to conclude with a look at the issue of running
rights. In its present form, the bill allows a short line to transport
merchandise to the nearest rail head, regardless of the national
carrier chosen by the shipper. By giving provincially licensed
railway lines running rights on federally licensed lines, a short line
could deliver its freight to the rail head of any federally licensed
company.
By transporting its freight over a greater distance, a short line
would generate higher revenues, as well as offering improved
service to its customers and cutting down on freight transfers. This
is a logical and efficient improvement with respect to the running
lines situation. And if the government is serious in saying that it
wants to encourage the development of short lines, it must approve
this proposal, which comes from our party, and in particular from
the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes.
In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to a businessman in my
riding of Frontenac, Jean-Marc Giguère, president of Marco
Express. For several years now, Mr. Giguère has been negotiating
with the head office of Canadian Pacific to buy 382 kilometres of
track linking Sherbrooke, Vallée-Jonction, Lévis and le lac
Frontière, via Saint-Georges de Beauce.
1223
Like many of his fellow citizens from Beauce, Mr. Giguère is a
courageous and persistent fellow, and he has not given up yet.
Every week he heads for Toronto to pursue the negotiations. It is a
slow and difficult process. In the meantime, the track continues to
deteriorate. Almost one mile of rails and ties was stolen right
outside Bishopton. By a fluke, the thief was caught. He went to
court and was ordered to reimburse just the value of the old iron,
$5,200. How much is it going to cost the promoters to rebuild one
mile of track?
That aside, I pay tribute to Jean-Marc Giguère and wish him
every success in his efforts to buy and operate this new short line in
the Eastern Townships.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make some comments and to ask two questions in
particular. My colleague spoke of inequity. It seemed to me that
this bill involving many key players is trying to strike some
balance. Maybe my colleague would like to comment on this.
(1155)
I would like to add that the byelection results last night, not only
in Ontario and in Newfoundland but also in Quebec, show that
Canadians think that the government of Jean Chrétien is quite
equitable, fair and responsive.
I believe my colleague was not too ``chrétien'' on two aspects.
For example, he said that this bill did not require an environmental
study of its impacts and so on. As far as I know, he is mistaken.
Such a study is mandatory under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. An environmental study is required before any
approval, and this is the case here.
The second thing I want to say is this. If I understand correctly, it
is not true, for example, that the damage caused to a land when a
railway company proceeds with some construction project is the
responsibility of the owner of the land. It is the responsibility of the
railway company, not of the owner of the land.
I would like to know whether the member would comment on
that. Did I misunderstand what he said? Maybe he thought he
should exaggerate things. I would like him to clarify what he said.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, I find the
comments by my distinguished colleague from St. Boniface very
pertinent. But before talking about environmental assessment and
the construction of entrances, fences, and drainage culverts in
farmland, I would like to get back to yesterday's election results,
since he raised the question.
Last night on CBC, my dear colleague from St. Boniface also
probably watched a special two-hour program on the state of the
nation. Did he look at the poll results on voters' intentions at the
federal level? His party would get 50 per cent of the votes across
Canada, but only 35 per cent in Quebec, less than what it got in
1993. The Bloc Quebecois would get 53 per cent, or 4 points more
than in 1993. What is going on? I do not want to be called a racist,
but he knows where his party's strength is in Quebec. In
francophone ridings, it gets walloped.
Look at what happened in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean with a
22-year old candidate. Whether you like it or not, Madam Speaker,
he is going to be the youngest member in this House. He got 76 per
cent of the votes. It is a lot more than your leader in the riding of
Saint-Maurice where he got a mere 54 per cent, in spite of his
joining forces with the Conservatives.
Just yesterday, a liberal member who worked tirelessly in the
riding of Lac-Saint-Jean told me: ``Of course, we do not expect to
win, but it will be a good indication. Watch the results in
Lac-Saint-Jean, the Liberal Party is going to shoot up''. It did not
shoot up, it slipped on a banana peel.
In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois is working hard, with dignity and
modesty. This is the reason why-
Mr. Duhamel: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): He is wrong, Madam Speaker, do
not listen to him.
Madam Speaker, my colleague asked me a question on the
election results, I am answering him.
Mr. Duhamel: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
I also asked two specific questions of my colleague who
suggested that there was no need for an environmental assessment.
He is wrong. But, of course, he does not want to talk about that, he
wants-
(1200)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That is not a
point of order. The member for Frontenac has the floor.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, you understood
that I was about to get to that. But beforehand I wanted to tell my
colleague from St. Boniface that we, from the Bloc Quebecois, are
representing our province, our country, Quebec, in the best and
most faithful way. That is why the opinion polls are so
encouraging. I hope our standing will not drop.
I invite the Reform Party to do a good job in showing opposition
in this House. They could, as well, kick the Liberal Party out of the
other provinces. In Quebec, we are taking care of it. We will take
care of the Liberal Party in Quebec. Fairness, that is what
Quebecers want. They are frustrated by unfair treatments and have
a hard time forgetting them.
1224
My hon. colleague seems to have misinterpreted Bill C-14.
Maybe it is not the same in English and in French. Personally, I
read the French version, and it clearly says that railway companies
have no obligation to maintain crossings, make fences or install
drainage culverts under the railway once is constructed.
I remind the member for St. Boniface that, as mayor of my
village, Garthby, I had to negotiate with Quebec Central Railway. I
reread Bill C-111, which became C-101, which became C-14, and
that is how I discovered this shortcoming.
My colleague, the member for St. Boniface, should read
carefully the legislation, perhaps in both languages, because the
translation often leaves little shortcomings that can change the
interpretation.
I conclude rapidly on the issue of environmental assessment. For
your party, the past is no guarantee for the future. Take the Irving
Whale for example. Early next September it will have been sitting
on the ocean floor for 26 years, rusting away and leaking
contaminated oil. We spent over $20 million last year, the
government organizing three so-called environmental public
consultation sessions to end up with nothing, absolutely nothing.
We will start all over again this year.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is a very
important piece of legislation, one that has had its roots way back
in the first session of this Parliament and perhaps even further back
than that.
For years the country has debated the future role of its
transportation sector generally and quite clearly since the
mid-1980s, 1986 or 1987, the future of rail. As everyone knows, it
was on the promise of access to markets by way of rail that was one
of the most compelling reasons the colonies, upper and lower
Canada and the maritime provinces, came together and formed
Confederation.
The debate may go on for a long time as to whether that ribbon of
steal was actually a cause for the expansion of the economy like we
wished to see in the Atlantic provinces, but I will not argue that
today. I am sure my comments have been heard in that regard in
other debates in the past.
Suffice it to say one of the things that has happened in the last
number of years is that we are no longer dealing with a domestic
market in the transportation sector which we can protect.
Protectionism has gone the way of the dodo bird. In the last dozen
years we have seen an explosion of competitiveness.
(1205 )
Canadian businesses have had to become more competitive. It
does not matter which sector we are dealing with. We have had the
free trade agreement, we have had the NAFTA, we have had the
GATT. There have been agreements under TRIP on intellectual
property. Every country that seeks to expand its economy has had
to look outward.
The transportation sector is really no different. In the past we
have hung our hat on public interest and public policy in order to
protect these industries. There were so many regulations dealing
with rail and air transportation that they would literally choke a
stable of horses, not just one horse.
Clearly one of the things this government and the previous
government, to give it a little credit, saw was there had to be a
reduction in the regulatory burden in the transportation sector.
In 1987 when the government came out with the new National
Transportation Act there was great debate about whether when we
deal with rail line abandonment or rail line sale the argument would
still be made that a line should be kept because it was in the public
interest. I have debated that with myself and with others over the
last number of years, in particular since I was elected to the House
of Commons in 1988. One of the concerns I have had is that we still
are able to maintain a national rail line from coast to coast.
One of the problems we have had, however, in the rail line is that
both lines, Canadian National, a crown corporation recently
privatized, and Canadian Pacific, were not as competitive as they
had to be. One of the reasons they were not as competitive as they
should have been is they had some protected markets.
They had an onerous regulatory burden that in my view led to
some industries' in Atlantic Canada being less competitive on the
international market, in particular the U.S. market, than they had to
be to maintain their market share, to do value add in their industrial
sector and continue to employ Canadians.
What has happened in the rail sector? Over the years we have
seen both of our national rail lines, Canadian Pacific and Canadian
National as a crown corporation, losing enormous amounts of
money. It seems that when the economy goes into a cyclical
downturn, and we can almost project when those things will
happen, the bit of money made by these two very large and
important companies during the good years is more than lost, many
times over, in the bad years.
Over the last number of years both of these companies in the bad
times have lost over $4 billion. For Canadian National Railroad,
which was a crown corporation, the Government of Canada
repeatedly has had to recapitalize that business.
1225
When we came into power we said we had to have a national
rail system. I come from a part of the country where a national
rail system is essential. It has been there for many years.
Unfortunately that national rail system has not allowed my part
of the world to be as competitive with its industries as it should
be.
Perhaps it is because both those large railroads, Canadian
National and Canadian Pacific, when they were covered and
wrapped in the warmth of burdensome regulations which protected
both of their markets for that sector of the transportation business
did not allow my part of the world to be as competitive as it should
be.
A few years ago when I was in opposition I was fortunate enough
to visit Hamburg. I visited with some interests promoting rail lines,
both CP and CN. The thing that absolutely astonished me was when
I looked on the wall of the office there was an ad from Canadian
National: ``Canadian National, serving Canada from Montreal to
Vancouver''. Somebody had forgotten to tell them there was
another part of Canada, the closest part of Canada to Europe,
Atlantic Canada.
The rail line at that point was still in place from Sydney to
Montreal and somebody had forgotten to market the line. CN, it
might be argued, in the past had selectively and intentionally
demarketed the line from Montreal east.
Then this bill came in. In the past session of Parliament it had a
different number. In this session it is Bill C-14. I was fortunate
enough to sit on the privatization task force of CN,
commercialization as we called it at the time. One of the things we
heard over and over again when we spoke to shippers, when we
spoke to provincial ministers, provincial governments and
municipalities is that if rail is to continue to have relevance two
things had to be done.
First, we had to recognize that rail in Canada could no longer be
protected from outside forces, in particular the United States. Rail
in the United States had undergone a renaissance. It had by and
large been privatized. It had gone through shrinking and now is in
an expansion mode.
(1210)
It had been recapitalized primarily by the private sector and was
competing on a daily basis through its connections with U.S. ports,
particularly on the east coast but also on the west coast around
Seattle and on the south Pacific coast around San Diego for
Canadian bound traffic.
If the Canadian transportation sector in rail was to remain
competitive, something had to change. CN again last year had a
good year, it made some money, but that has not been the recent
history of CN. It was clear to me that within a very short period of
time, if it was still a crown corporation, CN would have to dip back
into taxpayer pockets and would have to be recapitalized.
Quite clearly the government does not have the funds to do that.
Members from all sides, particularly from the Reform Party, like to
tell us all the time we have to accelerate our withdrawal from
certain areas the government has traditionally supported. We have
to leave it up to market forces. I believe that has to be the case.
The change in the regulatory burden the bill sets is important.
When dealing with some aspects of rail line abandonment or
conveyance in the past under the old bill there were over 200
different types of initiatives needing government approval. The
new bill drops it to 40 or 50, in that area.
Reducing the regulatory burden means companies that are
regulated will be more efficient. More than that, by putting this bill
into place and by reducing the regulatory burden, by making it
easier for short lines to be established in Canada, we should be able
to reduce the overall cost of rail transportation. We should be able
to make businesses that rely on rail transportation more
competitive.
I come from a part of the world, around Atlantic Canada,
Halifax, which has a brilliant future. In Atlantic Canada our future,
particularly in Nova Scotia, will be based on our ability to trade. It
will be based on our ability to very quickly let go of industries
which are no longer competitive, which have had to rely for far too
long on government support to maintain the jobs.
We have to find out what we can do best in a place like Halifax.
In Halifax the thing we will do best is trade. Before Confederation
Atlantic Canada and her ports were among the busiest in the new
world. They were busy because we traded. That is why we were
there. We had the best port in the world, the port of Halifax. It does
not require icebreaking or dredging, but in order to get to its
markets it requires a rail line and a road transportation system.
Provincial governments work on their road transportation
systems. There have been many announcements in New
Brunswick. The premier announced in the last year over $350
million in highway construction.
In Atlantic Canada, in Nova Scotia, we have had to refocus our
efforts on what we do best, utilizing our location. In real estate they
say the most important thing is location, location, location. At the
port of Halifax location is our most important asset. We are the
closest ice free port to the huge European market. We have a skilled
workforce. We have plenty of industrial land. We have a reasonable
taxation regime; it is not an onerous burden.
Nova Scotia is the only province that does not charge provincial
tax on diesel fuel used in rail. In Nova Scotia we are trying to
refocus.
When the privatization of CN first came to the task force, I admit
I had grave concerns. I still have some concerns. CN had to be
privatized. CN had to rely on market forces and it has to be as
1226
competitive as it could be to keep the business it has to keep for its
new shareholders.
Privatizing CN also meant that CP, its main competitor in
Canada, had to become more competitive. Those two rail lines
becoming more competitive with each other also means they will
be more competitive with other modes of transportation and other
rail lines which are capturing Canadian bound traffic through U.S.
ports and running over U.S. rail lines.
Deregulation had to take place. We had to take that onerous
burden off both those rail lines. This bill seeks to address some of
the concerns of an onerous regulatory burden. I have watched what
CP has done in Canada. I am not going to criticize it but CP has
made a very strategic decision to abandon its eastern Canadian
operations. It had a rail line that went into the port of Saint John.
That rail link was essential to the port generating the net revenue
and the jobs it had done in the past. The port of Saint John is not
doing the business it had been doing when CP still had a rail line.
(1215)
CP made a decision that it was going to go through a U.S. port of
call. It bought the D and H rail line down through the United States.
One of the states had given it $5 million, $10 million or $15 million
to upgrade it but CP made a strategic business decision to abandon
the line in maritime Canada. I have a concern that CN Rail will
make the same business decision.
Clearly I would have liked to have seen in this legislation a
requirement that under a privatized CN Rail for a specific period of
time, be it three years or five years, the newly privatized
corporation would not be able to abandon the line. If it did abandon
the line, that line would have to come back to the federal
government and the responsibility would lie with the federal
government. Why did I think that was important during the task
force deliberation? It was important for two reasons.
First I know we can compete in Atlantic Canada. The port of
Halifax will be able to generate the new revenue, the new traffic
required but I know it is going to take a little bit of time. It is not
going to happen overnight nor is it going to turn on a dime, it is
going to take some time.
My concern then and what still concerns me is that over a period
of time, over the first two or three years with a privatized company
with CN, decisions will be made which may not be similar to the
decisions CP made and would put the very existence of that rail line
in doubt.
I do not think we need special treatment in Atlantic Canada. We
have to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps and we can do that.
The port of Halifax is experiencing a growth in traffic, not because
of government subsidy, but because we have the best darn location
to be found on the eastern seaboard of North America for that type
of business.
Second we are going to succeed down there because increasingly
as we get more trade from Europe and as post-Panamax vessels
start plying Atlantic waters as they are currently doing in Pacific
waters, there are very few ports on the eastern seaboard of North
America that can handle those vessels. Halifax can handle those
vessels.
We have reduced our costs of operating the port of Halifax. My
government has come in with a marine transportation policy which
will have a local port authority established, something I have
begged the previous government for. The member for Thunder Bay
knows that from the past Parliament. I said to let us do what we can
do best, let us compete.
My port has said that on port fees it is prepared to have user pay
as long as it is reasonable, transparent and that the government
provides its service that it is paying for as cost competitively as
possible.
I look with a great deal of optimism on the future of rail in
Atlantic Canada but those concerns I have just expressed are ones I
will continue to be very vigilant about. If I do see that the recently
privatized Canadian National starts talking about making decisions
similar to what CP has made which would jeopardize the main rail
line from Halifax to Montreal, I give a guarantee to my constituents
and I give notice to my government. I will be the first on my feet in
this place and any other public forum to make sure that the
privatization of CN, along with the very good provisions of Bill
C-14 which have reduced the owners regulations, are not used by a
newly privatized company, CN.
Mr. Hermanson: You will have zero impact. You will be a big
zero.
Mr. MacDonald: The big zero is on the other side and perhaps
he can ask the question when I am finished my speech.
Somewhere you have to have a little faith. This issue has been
one where it has been difficult for me to put faith in a large
privatized corporation.
Over the last number of years, as we all change when we are
exposed to new things, I have changed a great deal. When I started
in politics in 1988 I really believed that government had a large
role to play in my economy in Atlantic Canada than what I do
believe today. I know that governments in the past through
protectionism, through regulation, through transfers, through
regional development programs and policies have tried to do
something to create economic growth but by and large they have
failed.
(1220)
In places like Atlantic Canada far too often we see the wonderful
entrepreneurial spirit which built that part of the country over
hundreds of years crushed because of inappropriate government
1227
supports and transfers. Clearly, the people in my part of the world,
my sons, daughters and family want to be able to work and live in
Atlantic Canada. In order to do that public modes of transportation,
all modes, be they rail, road or air, must be as competitive as
possible. As a government or a Parliament we may think we can
protect those industries, but we cannot protect them from the
competition from south of the border and competition which is now
upon us from all over the world.
I know we can succeed in Atlantic Canada. This bill is a step in
the right direction. The reduction of regulation and the
privatization of CN both will inevitably lead to a more competitive
CP. The recently constructed Sarnia tunnel means we will be able
to attract a volume of traffic necessary from the Chicago markets to
come in through Halifax instead of Baltimore and New York and
thus create jobs in Halifax and along the Canadian line down into
the Chicago markets. In order to do that we must increase our
volume so that we will have full train loads leaving Halifax and
going straight to the yards in Chicago.
We have some way to go, but I am absolutely confident that
those who are responsible for public policy and those responsible
for the entrepreneurial zeal in Atlantic Canada will seize the
opportunity and CN will see the rail line from Halifax to Montreal
as an important profit centre, not as a cost centre.
With the advent of things such as short line operations, because
the bill allows for easier establishment of short line operations than
did past legislation, it will ensure that there is a competitive rail
link. A rail link is absolutely essential to the economy of places like
the port of Halifax.
Nearly $400 million a year in annual net revenue is generated in
a city of 320,000 people by the fact that container traffic and bulk
cargo comes into our port. It is not for distribution to local markets
but serves central Canadian and northeastern and central U.S.
markets.
In the tough times of the recession we did not shrivel up and die.
CN was not competitive. Rates were too high because of regulatory
burden. We have succeeded in the tough times. In the good times
that are to come through expanding trade this type of legislation
will assist my part of the country to take its rightful place as an
entry and exit point to the North American market. Maybe the bill
will go a long way to establishing a dream worth pursuing, the
establishment of the port of Halifax as the NAFTA port north.
I support the bill with some reservations. However, I will be
vigilant during the years ahead to make sure that this newly
privatized company does not abuse the new regulations it has been
given, but that they are used to ensure that the line between Halifax
and Montreal is as competitive as possible.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask one question dealing with the hon.
member's concerns he expressed at length about the CN rail line
from Montreal to Halifax.
I do not know if the hon. member heard my speech this morning
when I talked about my concerns. The people of Halifax came to
the committee first on Bill C-89, the CN privatization and later on
Bill C-101, the new Canada Transportation Act. They asked,
begged and implored the committee and Parliament to offer some
guarantee of continuance for a period of time for the reasons the
member stated, so that the line would not disappear before the
post-Panamax traffic was in place.
They wanted assurance for investors that they could invest in the
newly privatized or commercialized Halifax port which does not
get government support for these loans. I have no problem with that
and they did not either, but they said to at least give them the tools
to develop their financial self-sustaining characteristics. This is
something which will not take traffic away from interior ports such
as Montreal or the lakehead because post-Panamax freighters
cannot and will not go up the St. Lawrence. They either go to
Halifax or they go to the United States. Those are the two choices.
(1225)
I talked to the president of CN Rail. I asked him if it would be a
hardship for him if this was put in. His response was that it would
not be.
What the hon. member should know is that the Bloc Quebecois
has a private member's motion coming up on April 19 or
thereabouts, because CN is not living up to its responsibilities to
repair and rebuild the bridge which links the north shore to the
south shore. If CN does not do that, if it is allowed to let it run
down to the point where it is no longer practical to run it, that rail
line will be gone.
We proposed in Bill C-89 on behalf of the member's people in
Halifax that there be a 10 year continuance. That is what they asked
for. The Liberals shot it down.
They asked for it again when Bill C-101 was in committee. They
said: ``We have cut our plea to the minimum. We can live with five
years. We would like to have 10, but we can live with five. Please
give us the five years we need''. I reiterate, it is at no cost to
anyone. It is not a cost to the internal ports of Canada. It will not
take business away from them. It is not a cost to CN Rail. The
president of CN Rail said it would not be a problem. I introduced
this as Motion No. 38 which was voted down by the Liberal
government.
The hon. member said that he would rise after the fact and speak
on behalf of Halifax. It is too late. He either speaks now or
1228
whatever benefit this may have brought Halifax will be gone. No
matter what he says, it will be gone. He should know that one
backbencher rising in Parliament after the fact will not make a
difference. He should have been there when we were trying to put
this through for Atlantic Canada.
Is the hon. member categorically stating that the Liberal
government made a mistake in not passing Motion No. 38 which
would have allowed that five years of continuance at no cost to
anyone? Is he prepared to stand in the House today to say that he
supports the motion now, even though it has already been defeated,
against the position of the Liberal government which has turned its
back on Atlantic Canada?
Mr. MacDonald: Madam Speaker, we have been listening to a
speech from a Reform member whose party has been basically shut
out in Atlantic Canada because of its harsh slash and burn policies
toward regional development. It wants to privatize everything that
walks, moves and crawls, yet the hon. member suddenly rises and
pretends he has the interests of the people of Halifax at heart.
I do not need to take lessons from him or from anyone else in the
Reform Party with respect to looking after the interests of Atlantic
Canada. In the last Parliament 48 sets of questions were asked of
the Tory ministers of transportation with respect to the
competitiveness of the port of Halifax. Those questions came from
the member of Parliament for Dartmouth. There were probably just
as many questions asked by the member of Parliament for Halifax
in the last Parliament.
In this Parliament it was the member of Parliament for
Dartmouth who visited the Minister of Finance on a number of
occasions to seek changes to the Customs Act and the Income Tax
Act which would allow a port such as the port of Halifax to become
a de facto duty free, value added trade centre.
Mr. Hermanson: You are avoiding the question. You do not
have the courage to answer the question.
Mr. MacDonald: If the member wants to talk about courage, I
will talk about courage. The courage is that in the past I have stood
in my place here, in my place in my riding and in my place in my
caucus and I have never been afraid to speak up for the people in
my area. I have done something which members opposite have not
done. I have been able to impact in a positive way public policy for
the benefit of the people who live in Atlantic Canada.
We need no lessons from the Reform Party. The Reform Party, in
the last few weeks of the campaign in Labrador, suddenly found out
that Labrador existed. The Reform Party gets up every day in the
House to talk about cutting social transfers to the poorest
provinces. However, when it is on the election campaign in
Labrador it talks about paving the Labrador highway at a cost of
$1.1 billion. We need no lessons on this side of the House from
those members opposite.
As the member of Parliament for Dartmouth, I raised with the
task force on a number of occasions my concern that the rail line
should be protected. I still had the concern that rail line should be
protected.
(1230)
Unlike members on the other side who do not think their voices
count in this place, I happen to think the voices on this side are
listened to by the front benches. I have received commitments not
just from the front benches but from people like Mr. Tellier, the
president of Canadian National. If we go back to the committee
record, when he was asked the question he said that CN had no
problem with the continuation of the rail line because CN was not
going to abandon the investments it had made in Atlantic Canada,
that it saw Atlantic Canada as a future profit centre for the
operation.
To answer my hon. colleague's question of whether I give my
unequivocal support, no I do not. Am I concerned about a
privatized company, whichever it is, coming forward and changing
its corporate direction? Yes, I am. However, am I confident that a
rail line from Halifax to Montreal will be maintained as a viable
entity, either as part of the main line or part of a short line, which I
would support although I do not know if the hon. member would? I
am confident that will continue because business goes where there
is opportunity. There is no greater place in the transportation sector
in Canada for new opportunities than there is at the port of Halifax.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I will ask a brief question of the member for
Dartmouth.
He began his speech by talking about a new trading agreement.
He talked about NAFTA, GATT and the like. I remember before the
1988 election when the Liberals were fighting the NAFTA
agreement, they had advertisements in which they erased the
boundary between Canada and United States. Now he has the gall
to stand up in the House and support NAFTA, saying how
wonderful it is. That is a big flip-flop on the part of the Liberals.
The transportation act we are dealing with, Bill C-14 replaces the
old WGTA. The minister of agriculture stated as late as November
1994 that the Crow benefit was going to remain intact, that he had
no intention of abolishing it. Three months later, in the 1995
budget, the Crow benefit was gone, another big Liberal flip-flop.
The member is praising the privatization of CN. Reformers have
always been on the record as favouring privatization where the
private sector can do a better job than the public sector. History is
proving that position is right. I would like to remind the hon.
member that his party's position was the opposite. It said that
privatizing CN was despicable. I believe those were the words
Liberals used. Now he is praising the privatization of CN. That is
the third flip-flop.
1229
The fourth flip-flop is that he said there should be a guarantee
that the CN line remain between Montreal and Halifax. This
member is from Dartmouth. He should have the interests of his
constituents in mind, yet he is not supporting Motion No. 38 put
forward by the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, a motion
that would have put that in the legislation.
My question is really simple. Why should we believe anything a
Liberal says?
Mr. MacDonald: It is unfortunate Reform Party members do
not know whether they are punched or bored, which is part of their
problem. The Reform Party opposite cannot believe for a second
that the actions of the government have led to unprecedented
popularity and support for our policies.
In Atlantic Canada, including Nova Scotia, the place Reformers
are so concerned about in terms of transportation policy, the people
are so certain they have made the right decision, in the latest public
opinion polls 74 per cent said that they would continue to support
initiatives like this and the privatization of CN because they know
these initiatives mean economic growth and jobs in Atlantic
Canada.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill
C-14. I hope I remember to call it Bill C-14. This bill had another
title in the last session, Bill C-101. It is one of the bills the
government brought back at its original stage. I talked about
flip-flops earlier. The reinstatement of bills is another Liberal
flip-flop. They said it was an abhorrent practice while in opposition
yet they have followed that same practice themselves.
It is rather amazing we are already at the third reading debate of
Bill C-14 on this Tuesday morning. I left on Thursday and was back
in my riding over the weekend to attend to commitments. There
were no sign that Bill C-14 would come up for debate. However,
the government suddenly decided to slip it on to the Order Paper on
Thursday and the House was doing report stage on Friday and
Monday. One has to wonder about the motivation of the Liberal
government in bringing this bill in around a weekend and trying to
move it quickly through the House. I believe there is a little bit of
mischief involved in the scheduling of Bill C-14.
(1235)
What I will be talking about is primarily the rail transportation
component of Bill C-14, although the bill is broader. I would like to
bring to the attention of the House, and particularly to the attention
of Liberal members, the market difference between rail
transportation and other modes of transportation.
The best illustration that I can offer is the difference between rail
and air transportation. When I want to fly home to Saskatchewan I
go to the airport where I have access to more than one airline. I can
decide what time I want to fly and which airline to use, based on
the schedules and services they provide. Madam Speaker, when
you want to fly back to New Brunswick you have some of the same
opportunities. I suggest that when the Minister of Transport flies
back to his riding in Victoria he also has a choice of airlines and
times that he can fly. The same is true of the minister of agriculture
when he flies back to Regina.
My constituents and thousands of prairie producers in the grain
growing region of Canada are dependent on transportation for their
very livelihood. However, they do not have the same options and
opportunities as the Minister of Transport, the minister of
agriculture or even you and I have, Madam Speaker, as to how we
are going to get from here back to our ridings.
Prairie producers have to ship their commodity, primarily grain,
through rail as it is the only commercially feasible means of
transportation that they have. They are captive to two railways and
at most times one railway. They have no opportunity to take their
commodity down to the station to decide on which rail line they
want to ship their products. That puts them in a category which is
classified as being captive shippers.
It creates real problems for the industry if there is not legislation
in place that ensures balance and fairness when disputes arise
between the shipper and the transporter of these goods.
A couple of clauses in Bill C-14 are particularly obnoxious to
shippers, primarily in the prairies but also right across the country.
The most odious of these clauses in the bill are subclauses 27(2)
and 27(3). The other clause that has caused a great deal of
consternation is clause 112.
If it was just myself who was standing here and complaining
about these clauses, perhaps members might question whether or
not the concern was a significant factor. However, group after
group appeared before the transport committee and talked about the
inadequacies of Bill C-14 and particularly the clauses that I
mentioned.
A number of shippers appeared before the committee. I have a
partial list of those shippers which is a who's who of the shipping
industry and farm organizations across the country. I am going to
list a group of organizations which has stated their public concern
or opposition to subclauses 27(2) and 27(3).
They include the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat
Pool, the Manitoba Pool Elevators, the United Grain Growers, the
Canadian Wheat Board, the Pioneer Grain Company, Cargill, the
Western Canadian Shippers Coalition, the Canadian Dehydrators
Association, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, the Western Grain
Elevator Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the
Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the National
1230
Farmers Union, Southern Rails Co-operative, the Canadian
Chemical Producers Association, the Atlantic Provinces
Transportation Committee, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation,
the Chamber of Maritime Commerce, Wabush Mines, Great
Western Rural Development Corporation, Novacor Chemicals
Limited, Luscar Ltd., Stelco. The list is longer but this is a who's
who of shippers in Canada that have expressed opposition to
subclauses 27(2) and 27(3) of Bill C-14.
(1240 )
The shippers hoped they would have an opportunity to see the
bill amended. They wanted to see clause 27 deleted from the bill.
They asked the government to do that. The former Minister of
Transport and the Liberal members on the committee refused, in
spite of an overwhelming cry from people against this clause in the
bill.
There was a cabinet shuffle and a new session of Parliament
started after the Christmas holidays and the new year break. Hope
was rekindled in the hearts of many farmers in western Canada and
many shippers across the country that perhaps with this change of
leadership in the Department of Transport, new members on the
transport committee and time for the government to digest all of
the opposition to Bill C-101, which became Bill C-14, that it might
change its attitude and become more concerned about some very
real problems that occurred with the bill.
Many people had an opportunity to contact the new minister and
ask him, a western Canadian minister, to reconsider Bill C-14. As
the member for Kindersley-Lloydminister on behalf of my
constituents I wrote a letter to the minister on February 8.
Unfortunately the minister has not even seen fit to answer my
letter. I have not received a response even though it was written a
month and a half ago. There seems to be no concern on the part of
Liberal ministers to whether they answer their mail.
In my letter I stated: ``A number of farmers in the livestock
industry in British Columbia have expressed some concern over
legislation initiated by the previous Minister of Transport. Under
Bill C-101'', and that is the number of the old bill, ``grain destined
for export would be under a freight rate cap, whereas freight rates
for grain intended for domestic use in British Columbia would not
be capped. It has been suggested that rail rates to the lower
mainland of British Columbia for grain would be approximately
$10 a tonne higher than grain destined for the export market. The
livestock industry feels that the $10 a tonne price difference will
have a detrimental impact on farmers facing increased costs.
``As well, there is some concern by prairie producers that a
two-tiered freight rate may instigate allegations from outside our
borders that the lower rate is a subsidy unacceptable under GATT.
A further concern expressed in no uncertain terms by shippers and
producers of goods shipped by rail was a strong opposition to
clause 27(2) of Bill C-101. It was argued that this clause provided
the railway with an unfair advantage when challenged by shippers
over unfair, insufficient or overpriced service. This factor is
extremely important to shippers of prairie grain who are captive to
the railroads.
``With that said, the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue
Parliament has resulted in Bill C-101 dying on the Order Paper. If
you intend to reintroduce similar legislation in the new session of
Parliament, I would call on you to make the necessary changes to
alleviate the discrepancy in freight rates and remove clause 27(2)
from the bill''.
I felt that this would be just one more letter that would perhaps
tip the scales in favour of the shippers to provide more neutral
legislation, better legislation for the Canadian economy but the
minister did not even have the good sense to answer my letter.
Mine was not the only letter. Other letters went out from
shippers asking the minister to take this opportunity to reconsider
the bill. In fact, the minister said: ``Come and talk to me. I am open
to changing the bill. There is a good chance that we will change
some of the more reprehensible clauses in the bill''.
A number of shippers came to Ottawa and met with the new
Minister of Transport. They were very disappointed in the results
of that meeting. I have a copy of a letter written to the minister by
Mr. Alex Graham, president of the Alberta Wheat Pool. He is also
the chairman of Prince Rupert Grain and Pacific Terminals:
The competitive access provisions provided in the legislation include the
right of shippers to obtain a ruling from the Canadian Transportation Agency on
rates or service, where the shipper has access to only one railway. As we said
during our meeting, subsections 27(2) and (3) inject subjective language into
the agency's decision-making process.
Our legal counsel advises us that any time subjective language is placed in
legislation, it results in legal challenges to define the language. We have been
told that the legislative requirement for the agency to be satisfied that the
shipper will suffer ``substantial commercial harm'' could result in as many legal
actions as there are negotiations with the railways.
Mr. Minister, during our meeting, and for the first time since this debate
began, we were optimistic that our message was actually being received by the
government. We were encouraged by your stated commitment to investigate
fully our claims that these sections will result in increased litigation around
applications to the Canadian Transportation Agency, and to take action if you
found the claims to be valid.
However, as report stage debate began in the House of Commons this
morning, without any indication of additional amendments to address our
concerns, it appears that there was really no intention to address them in the first
place.
As we said in our meeting, subsections 27(2) and (3) fly totally in the face of
the intent of Bill C-14, which was to create a more commercial transportation
environment, and to facilitate direct commercial negotiations on rates and
services between shippers and carriers, without government or legal
intervention.
1231
The government's approach to developing this legislation also flies in the face
of its promise to enhance the ability of Canadian industry to compete on world
markets. As has been pointed out on many occasions, all of the major shippers in
Canada called for the removal of subsections 27(2) and (3), citing the disastrous
effects these subsections will have on their ability to negotiate with carriers, and to
remain competitive. They were supported by four provincial governments, and by
a number of industry and municipal associations. We are perplexed and disturbed
that the government chose not to respond positively to this overwhelming
consensus.
As long as this bill is before the House of Commons, Mr. Minister, you have
the opportunity to make it right. In the interests of Canada's shippers, and the
Canadian economy, we urge you to do so by removing subsections 27(2) and (3)
or at least refer it back to the Standing Committee on Transport for specific and
narrow examination before we all suffer the consequences.
(1245)
That is a strongly worded letter from a respected person in the
grains industry, someone whose constituency's livelihood depends
on its ability to ship products at a fair price from the prairie region
to port.
I also have a news release issued by United Grain Growers. It
strongly condemns the government for the way it handled Bill C-14
with its heavy handed approach to saying it is interested in making
some changes to the bill to make it more balanced as it relates to
both shippers and the railroads, and then throwing dirt in its face,
more or less, by slamming the door and saying it will not submit
this bill to any changes whatsoever.
The government is ramming it through at report stage without
considering any of the good amendments put forward, several by
my colleague, the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, and by
other members, which would have made the bill far more
acceptable to the shippers.
To help us realize how important this is, the rail transportation
sector, particularly in the prairies, used to be governed by the
Western Grain Transportation Act, the WGTA. This legislation was
considered to be shipper friendly. That is one reason the
government brought in legislation that tipped the balance to being
railway friendly, Bill C-14.
Under the Western Grain Transportation Act railways made their
profits, guess where, shipping western grain. Here we had a piece
of legislation that was shipper friendly and yet it was the shipping
of prairie grain that was regulated under the act which provided the
railways, CP and CN, with some of their largest profits.
It boggles my mind to think how we could tip the scales in
favour of the railways and introduce and pass railway friendly
legislation to allow the railways not only to make more money but
to hold a hammer over the industry in such an unfair manner. For
the Liberal government to be so unconcerned about that is beyond
belief.
The people who presented the briefs to the transport committee,
the many delegations that came as witnesses, must be shaking their
heads. I read the list of the organizations that made submissions to
the transport committee and said they had very grave concerns with
this bill.
They must wonder why they bothered coming to Ottawa. There
was clear consensus that there needed to be changes to this bill.
This is one of the most clear indications of concern in a bill that I
have seen since I have been here after first being elected to the
House in 1993.
(1250 )
I have never seen such a strong, united effort on the part of the
grains industry. One criticism of the industry is that it never gets its
act together. One group will tell Ottawa it must do this, and the next
group will say no, it has to go in the other direction. This did not
happen in this case.
The groups that appeared for the transport committee were
almost united in the their condemnation of clause 27(2) and clause
112. Yet the government chose to ignore them. It did not seem to
care. Perhaps adding 5 cents more in value to CN shares it was
selling was more important than the entire western grains industry;
not only western grain but potash, iron ore and coal.
We have talked a lot about Atlantic Canada. Some Liberals from
Atlantic Canada who just toed the party line as they had been told
have asked why we suddenly have an interest in Atlantic Canada.
One group that appeared before the committee was Wabash Mines
from Labrador. It told us the bill was flawed and needed to be
changed. It was not only western Canadians who were concerned;
the concern came from across the country.
Did the members who serve that part of the country speak on
behalf of the livelihood of their constituents, the job creators in
their constituencies? No, they were silent. They let the flawed
legislation progress and did not even speak against it. This is truly
unfortunate.
Now we are at third reading. This is our final chance to debate
Bill C-14. It cannot be amended in any substantive way. We can no
longer delete clauses. We have gone past that stage. It is very sad to
realize that so many people were opposed to a piece of legislation
and the government would not budge. In the past significant
concessions have usually been made when there was general
opposition to a bill not only from members across the floor but
from the public at large. However, in this case the government
chose to have deaf ears and not hear what Canadians were saying.
This is extremely unfortunate. It means the bill will have to be
changed in the future and it will be a lengthy process. I assure the
House that there are members on this side listening to Canadians.
We are taking notes and there will be a day of reckoning for the
1232
arrogance of the Liberals and their inability to hear the concerns of
Canadians.
I am thankful that through the democratic election process we
will have a chance in the future to redress these wrongs.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, this
morning, I heard the minister praise Bill C-14, which is only Bill
C-101 reinstated under that new name after the hearing in
committee.
The minister presented that bill as something totally new,
something we could never hope for, something never yet
submitted. The bill as such is not a bad one. I think we must be
honest and, even if we are the opposition, admit that the minister
meant well when he created what we will now call the Canadian
Transportation Agency.
But, we are conferring powers to that office and this is where the
minister should have paid attention to the recommendations of the
opposition. Members of the opposition, even if they are Quebecers
and sovereignists, are well aware of the fact that rail transportation
in Canada, as air and sea transportation, has a great impact on their
daily lives.
For example, the Reform member just spoke about mining
companies owning private railways, such as the Wabush Mine and
Iron Ore Company of Canada in Sept-Îles which also serves
Labrador through the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway.
So there are railways in Canada that will be affected by the
provisions of the bill and by the regulations which will stem from
it.
On that point, the minister should have listened to members of
both opposition parties who made recommendations, because the
Reform members also raised serious objections just as the
members of the official opposition did.
(1255)
Since party line rules in these committees, none of the proposals
of the official opposition, none of the some 35 motions that we
introduced, were accepted. Yet, they would have improved the bill
and the transport industry in Canada, whether it be rail, air or
maritime transport.
Personally, there is one thing I would like to tell the Minister of
Transport. In the old days, last century, an independent colony had
been set up because of the vastness of the country and, at the time,
settlers were promised a dreamland, a country where remoteness,
for example, would no longer be a problem.
They wanted to build a country then. Therefore, those who
agreed to go further north, farther into the cold or into difficult
terrain, in areas barely accessible, were told that people in large
urban areas like Montreal, long before Toronto, were going to help
pay the additional costs incurred because of the vastness of the
country.
That view of things prevailed until recently, I would even say
until today, but at least until 1987. Consequently people in remote
areas knew that, despite everything, they would be in constant
communication with the heart of the country, that is Montreal,
Toronto or Ottawa, at a relatively reasonable cost. Of course, the
real cost of operation was not fully reflected in what they paid since
the community as a whole had chosen to assume a large part of
these costs because people in remote areas were opening up new
territories.
We know that an east-west railway was a main concern of the
British government which feared at that time that Americans would
push into Canada, court the settlers, and try to create a huge
American entity. That was the main concern of the British
government.
As you know, following the Halsbury Treaty of 1843, the British
government had clearly defined borders between Canada and the
United States. However, that border was contested especially in the
west. American presidents who had expansionist views wanted
their rights recognized, precisely at a time when the French
speaking population-the friends of the hon. member for St.
Boniface-was rebelling.
Even then, the Fenians, Irishmen living in the United States, had
extremely expansionist designs. They tried to convince the
American president to push toward the west, toward the
north-west. That is what prevailed during the establishment of our
railway system, our railways and much later, of course, air
transportation.
Today this bill might be an attempt to achieve greater
effectiveness. It is understandable that because of the globalization
of markets-it is one of its effects-in order to be competitive we
must-to put it rather inelegantly-``flush remote communities
down the toilet'' because they cost too much. The cost of serving
them is invariably or inevitably reflected in average administrative
costs and our transportation costs are a little bit higher than those of
our neighbours. This is reflected in our production costs and our
products as well.
It is probably in order to respond to market requirements under
all kinds of treaties, dictates of trading in the year 2000, of modern
trade, that the Canadian government, through this bill, is making a
clean sweep of its past, completely denying the very rationale for
our railway system.
(1300)
I want to talk about the more legal aspect of the bill, because my
colleagues, the hon. member in front of me and my friend from
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, have amply demonstrated the flaws
in this bill. Without underestimating the seriousness of their
judgments, which incidentally I agree with, I would like, neverthe-
1233
less, to talk about the perhaps more regulatory or legislative aspect
of the bill.
The government is creating a commission or at least is
transforming a commission that already existed with certain
powers, giving it a new name. Then it says clearly in the bill that
this agency will have the powers of a court. This is not bad in itself.
In our parliamentary system, there are many agencies that have
quasi-judicial powers. But, to reinforce these powers, the bill says
that the agency's decisions may be approved by a superior court in
a province, for example, the Superior Court of Quebec, the
supreme courts of the maritime provinces, for instance, the
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, and the other Supreme Courts of
British Columbia.
So, the agency was given teeth, was given the power to use its
teeth and also the power to regulate, to legislate, a delegated
legislative power. Where I have something against this procedure,
which tends to extend to almost all government services at the
present time, is that, once the agencies are created, parliamentary
control is non-existent. Parliament does not have control over its
agency any more.
The agency may edict regulations and determine whether they
are appropriate or not. In short, an agency is asked to do the
legislative work instead of the legislator. Within the bill, the
minister still retains the power to intervene, perhaps in a slightly
arbitrary manner, because he would not be called on to intervene by
this House, but at his own discretion. He is the only judge of the
appropriateness of the intervention; only he can decide whether the
intervention is justified or not. He may, through the governor in
council, make regulations or directions for the Canadian
Transportation Agency, but without consulting the House in any
way.
This is where it becomes sad. When we look at this, after the
bills that were introduced last session-I am thinking specifically
of Bill C-62 on regulation, and also Bill C-84, which amended the
Statutory Instruments Act-we see that the government is showing
great single-mindedness. All it is trying to do at this point is to push
aside those who were elected to think, to discuss, to develop, to set
objectives. It is faster to push us aside, thus allowing them to move
forward without being tripped up.
Although this may sometimes be desirable, what will happen to
Canada's railway system 15 or 20 years from now, for example?
Even the minister would be unable to tell us, because he has no
vision, no long term policy for developing Canada's railways. I
think this government is showing us that it has thrown up its hands.
It is selling off Canada's railways a little more slowly so as to save
the best assets, but still moving inexorably toward their total
dismantling. The government does not, however, have the courage
to admit this to the people. The government goes all over the place
boasting about this great country with communications from coast
to coast, from east to west, from north to south, when it is in fact
systematically shutting down our railway system.
(1305)
I was looking at clause 25. Here we have a legal device of which
we are becoming increasingly aware. The government creates an
agency that is responsible for developing policies and regulations
and, by virtue of its status as a superior court, judging those who
could violate or be subject to these regulations. So, this court is no
longer independent. It is losing its independence because it is
responsible for both making legislation and enforcing it.
In our parliamentary system, we all know that when questioning
the validity of a law, we can go before a tribunal that hopefully is
independent. It is a bit like a divorce, where one party wishes to
appear before the divorce court having jurisdiction in the area,
while the other says: ``Oh no. We will not take this matter to a
common law court, but to my mother. She is the one who will
decide who is right.''
Can you imagine where this could lead? We could end up with
decisions that would be legal monsters. This is precisely what we
are about to do with this agency, with the new powers we are giving
it, powers that are completely unlimited.
The Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations is
specially appointed by the Speaker of the House and mandated by
Parliament to study subordinate legislation. It acts as a watchdog
for rights conferred by statute.
This committee has no interest in having a regulation quashed,
replaced or enforced. Its only purpose is to verify compliance
between regulations and the statutes that have been adopted and
enacted by Parliament. For 20 or 25 years, this committee has
reported regularly to the House, and the government has responded
to its reports. Not so long ago, as we were submitting a report to the
House, ministers wrote us saying: ``Yes, we do realize that such
subordinate legislation is justified, or is not justified''.
Here, it is no longer possible. What monitoring power does
Parliament have over an agency whose decisions are final and may
not be appealed, as per clause 25? None. There is no such power
left. Is the government trying to render Parliament ineffectual? Is it
trying to transform it into an empty shell? Is it trying to turn the
300 or so members in this House into insignificant bystanders?
Everything will be decided by a few ministers who are close to
the Prime Minister. From now on, these people will control
practically all of Canada's economic, social and political
development. We must put a stop to that. This can no longer go on.
Where will this take us?
Earlier, we referred to Bill C-62. Public servants, we do not
know which ones exactly-either at the top or the bottom-had the
power to set standards that could be complied with, or not, subject
to an exemption or a fee, or provided an alternative solution could
1234
be found. This opened the doors wide to the lobbyists in Canada,
and was unheard of.
(1310)
Some weeks or months before, the Prime Minister had talked
about introducing a bill. That was done with Bill C-41, which dealt
with lobbyists on Parliament Hill. So, there is an incredible
discrepancy between the statements made by ministers taken
together, and those made by a minister alone. There is something
wrong.
If government members will not do it officially, I ask them to at
least tell their ministers, in caucus, that they have to shape up
because the situation no longer makes sense.
In the end, we will hear about bills and acts of Parliament by
reading about them in the newspapers, and the decisions will have
been made by a handful of people. Consultation and democracy are
on the way out in this country. So, as far as the regulatory powers
are concerned, they will have to be reviewed, frankly, because we
are in the process of making terrible mistakes.
I would like to deal briefly also with clause 104 and the
following clauses of the bill. When the bill deals with mortgages, it
is to allow mortgaging by SLR, the definition of which escapes me,
but it relates to small, secondary railways.
An hon. member: Short line railways.
Mr. Lebel: Exactly, short line railways. We know that they are
owned by groups of business people, often with limited financial
resources, who have joined forces to buy a section of railway from
the CN, the CP or some other railway company. Those railways are
then given the right to mortgage the rolling stock. However, the bill
is very evasive about the mode of publication of the mortgage or
about its rank when there are several mortgages. If there are two,
three or four, which one comes first? Will mortgage rank be
determined by precedence of registration or of publication? The
bill is totally silent on that.
With regard to the mortgage on movable property, there are
provisions about that in Quebec legislation, but the bill is silent on
that. So, railway cars could be seen as movable property. In
Quebec, immovable property by destination has been eliminated
under the new Civil Code. So, one could register in the registry of
real or personal property in Montreal a mortgage on railway cars,
whereas someone else would register the same property pursuant to
clause 104 at the office of the registrar. Which one would take
precedence? That is something that was completely overlooked,
and I would like the minister to reply on these points.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I want to make a few comments and ask a few questions. You will
remember that, earlier today, I pointed out to one of my colleagues
from the same political party that he had made a mistake and I
would like to quote the exact clause we were talking about. Then, I
will tie up my comment to what my colleague just said and which is
unfair and incorrect.
Clause 102 reads as follows:
102.If an owner's land is divided as a result of the construction of a railway
line, the railway company shall, at the owner's request, construct a suitable
crossing for the owner's enjoyment of the land.
And then in clause 103, it says:
103.(1) If a railway company and an owner of land adjoining the company's
railway do not agree on the construction of a crossing across the railway, the
Agency, on the application of the owner, may order the company to construct a
suitable crossing if the Agency considers-
I made the same comment this morning, because the hon.
member's colleague who spoke before said something else. I do not
mean to say that he did not tell the truth, since he may have made a
mistake, but what he said in the exact opposite of what I just said.
Having said that, I now worry about the Bloc members, because
my colleague talks about a court which would not be unbiased. I
find this shocking.
(1315)
Then he says that Parliament gives it directions it must abide by,
but then he argues that the court is not free, or rather that it is free, I
do not know what his argument was all about. It is all very
conflicting.
For my colleague's information, I would like to quote the
following: ``A direction issued under subsection (1) shall not affect
a matter that is before the Agency on the date of the direction and
that relates to a particular person''. And then: ``A direction issued
under section 43 is not binding on the Agency until the expiration
of the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament after the direction has been
laid before both Houses-''
This is a clear indication that there is a process in place, that the
process is open and public, that it will be referred to Parliament, to
a committee for further debate, etc.
If I had listened to every member of his party, I would have
found similar mistakes. This morning, when I quoted from the
document, why did his colleague not mention this mistake, why
does he not recognize that we have an unbiased court and an open
process, that what we are doing is both honest and right? Why are
they always so negative when they do not need to?
Mr. Lebel: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for St. Boniface
quoted the first paragraph of clause 103, but he should have quoted
up to and including the third paragraph. It is said that we should
always assume that things are done in good faith but I am
wondering if this applies in the hon. member's case.
1235
The hon. member for St. Boniface should read clause 103(3):
The owner of the land shall pay the costs of constructing and maintaining the
crossing.
Mr. Duhamel: If he buys a second piece of land.
Mr. Lebel: The hon. member says: ``If he buys a second piece of
land.'' Maybe he had too much beef from England to eat, too much
British cow.
It is specified in clause 103. The hon. member for St. Boniface is
a sly one. He rises in the House to add or remove from the bill as he
wishes.
Mr. Duhamel: That is it. I am writing my bills on the spot.
Mr. Lebel: The hon. member quoted the first two paragraphs of
a clause, completely ignoring the third, which is precisely the one
that the hon. member for Frontenac objected to this morning.
Partial as he is, not only does he not read between the lines but he
does not even read the lines themselves. That is what I blame him
for.
Mr. Duhamel: I do not doubt it.
Mr. Lebel: The hon. member for St. Boniface has interrupted
me so much that he has finally succeeded in making me lose all
concentration. I am still wondering where he was going with his
second question and even what this question was. But I can tell you
that the hon. member for Frontenac had raised this issue in good
faith. He had also spoken of the environmental study. The member
does not want to go back over that. Regarding the environmental
assessments, nowhere is it mentioned in this bill that the person
must conduct these assessments before getting the certificate of
fitness required to operate a railway. It is not mentioned anywhere.
I agree with the member for St. Boniface that there is an act
which requires the conduct of environmental assessments when the
federal government and a province are involved. But it is far from
being obvious that the environmental assessment act would apply
to a SLR, a railway constructed and operated by an individual like
the member for St. Boniface or myself.
The member for St. Boniface knows that very well. He does not
mention it because it does not bring grist to his mill.
Mr. Duhamel: Is the court unbiased?
Mr. Lebel: Take an act, any act. Parliament enacts it and the
court has to monitor its enforcement. But if the court establishes its
own rules and says to the taxpayer that he did not comply with it, I
would say to the member for St. Boniface that it is clearly in
conflict of interest! What else does it take to make him understand
the difference between a conflict of interest and impartiality?
(1320)
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first,
I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to a position
of responsibility. I am sure you will fill it with honour and a great
sense of responsibility and wisdom.
[English]
I will say a few words on sustainable transport. The bill, which is
former Bill C-101, lends itself very much to some considerations
that ought to be related to the overall context of sustainable
transport. In the 1993 red book as a party platform we devoted an
entire chapter to sustainable development. Therefore, it is
appropriate that we endeavour to launch new policies, including
transportation policies within that overall concept.
This is not a new thought. It was adopted in Bill C-46 when the
new Department of Industry was launched a couple of years ago.
The same happened by incorporating a reference to sustainable
development in Bill C-48 which bill created the new Department of
Natural Resources. More recently the House debated and approved
the creation of the position of the Commissioner for Sustainable
Development which I believe was followed by a proclamation in
December.
Therefore, it would make political logic to also insert the
concept in the National Transportation Act and consolidation of the
Railway Act and to put forward some thoughts on sustainable
development. I will do that very briefly.
I congratulate the former minister who produced the bill, a
massive effort no doubt, and for having decided that this aspect of
our economy needs rationalization. We fully agree with him.
There is something which would have carried the matter a step
further and would have been desirable. In section 5 of the act under
the declaration section a reference is missing, one that would refer
to the need for our national transportation system to be operated
and developed in keeping with the principles of sustainable
development. It is unfortunate it has not taken place yet. Those
principles can be found in the legislation I referred to a moment
ago which will be guiding the activities of the Commissioner for
Sustainable Development in the auditor general's office. It is a set
of principles which would be extremely useful within the context
of national transportation.
Let me explain what sustainable transportation really means. It
means a number of things. It means finding ways of reducing
carbon dioxide emissions, keeping in mind the commitment we
made internationally of stabilizing our carbon dioxide emissions
and reducing them after the year 2000. It means keeping in mind
that damage to the atmosphere is caused by air traffic in particular,
which is an issue that needs to be addressed and is a matter of
increasing urgency. It means that within the context of ground
transportation we want to encourage movement of people with the
1236
least consumption of energy, with the least production of pollution,
with the least congestion of traffic. We want to find ways of
transportation that move people with the lowest energy
consumption per unit.
(1325)
Finally I might add the necessity of conducting research for
alternative fuels for the ones we are presently using. Research
badly needs a shift in emphasis from the one we have so far applied
when it comes to the energy sector.
The Ontario Round Table on Environment and the Economy has
produced a number of interesting sectoral task force reports.
Carbon dioxide emissions related to transportation account for 31
per cent of all emissions. Of this 31 per cent, the largest
component, to the extent of 81 per cent is attributed to road
transportation.
Imagine the importance of short, medium or long distance
railway transportation in relation to the impact it could have in
reducing the dependence on road transportation. This debate is not
new on this continent but it has to be raised at every opportunity
which is what I am doing today.
Rail transport produces significantly lower emissions per tonne
of freight carried than does road transport. Tables and studies have
been produced to this effect. For every tonne of freight switched
from road to rail, energy used is reduced by some 86 per cent which
is a considerable amount.
The ``Green Paper on the Impact of Transport on the
Environment: A Community Strategy for Sustainable Mobility''
was produced by the Commission of European Communities. It
confirms the results of the Ontario round table to which I referred
earlier.
In December 1995 the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development produced a report entitled ``Keeping a
Promise Towards a Sustainable Budget'' and dealt with the
question of transportation and sustainable development albeit
perhaps in a superficial manner. We came to the conclusion that the
transportation system in Canada is currently not sustainable and
requires significant changes. I refer particularly to pages 23 to 27
of that report.
We were quite struck by the submission by a witness on behalf of
the Transportation Association of Canada who stated that the
playing field in transportation is anything but level. I quote: ``It is
tilted in favour of the automobile and there are many reasons for
this. Our cities have been designed for cars. Cars would never have
gained the popularity they have today if it had not been for roadway
infrastructure provided for by the public purse. We need to tilt the
playing field away from the single occupant auto and more in the
direction of other means of transportation including of course
railway''. This is what the Transportation Association of Canada is
advocating.
Two of the witnesses before our committee said that the laws
should be changed and a tax exemption made for employer
provided transit passes. Around Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver
there are a number of short railway systems which move
commuters in rush hour and therefore the question of transit passes
is relevant. Such a move, namely the employer provided transit
pass, would encourage employees to use public transit rather than
single occupancy automobiles. This would reduce energy
consumption, decrease atmospheric pollution, reduce traffic
congestion and the like. An initiative of this kind would send a
strong signal to employers and to society in general about the need
to change attitudes toward urban transportation.
(1330)
The recommendation which emerged as a result of the
consultation was that the Income Tax Act be amended to provide a
tax exemption for employer provided transit passes to encourage
people to use public transit rather than private automobiles. The
change would apply to any future taxation year. The applicability
of this would not be for rural Canada but for urban Canada and the
transit railway systems that surround and feed into our major
metropolises.
It would also be interesting to put on the record another
recommendation to the effect that the federal government put in
place a surcharge on the purchase of new fuel inefficient vehicles
and redirect the revenue to a fund dedicated to improving the
sustainability of Canadian transportation. This may sound a bit like
pie in the sky but nevertheless it is a germ of an idea whose time
will come and which could be implemented with perhaps some
modification.
Another recommendation on the subject of sustainable transport
is directed to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport.
They are being asked to re-evaluate the subsidies that are being
directed to the railways and to road construction and maintenance
in the context of sustainable transportation. They are being asked to
determine whether a new allocation of resources between rail and
road funding is needed and desirable at this time.
No doubt it is good that we have a bill to streamline rail
regulations and promote the formation of short line railways. The
question, however, which arises in this debate is whether we have
the environmental and economic impacts available of the proposed
short lines and have these impacts been studied.
These are factors of some importance because of the carbon
dioxide emission issue, per tonne of freight in this case, and
because of the fact that the emissions by the railway system are
much smaller per unit transported than the emissions by road.
1237
Taking this fact into consideration, environmental and economic
impact studies are needed to ensure that the lines proposed by this
bill will not result in greater road transport and hence greater
carbon dioxide emissions because this would be contrary to
everything we are trying to do under sustainable development.
I appreciate the fact that this debate on road transport versus rail
transport is one which has bedevilled the imagination and skills of
many governments and politicians before. It is not the first time it
has been raised. However, it is becoming more and more relevant
because of the urbanization of Canada and the increase in
concentration of people in our urban centres, therefore, the
transport requirement by rail and ground that follow this type of
human settlement which is converging into our urban centres.
This kind of debate would have been much less significant 100
or even 50 years ago but it will be extremely relevant in the decades
ahead.
(1335 )
I congratulate the government on this initiative. However, I
would urge it to develop a sustainable transportation policy which
would take into account the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on
climate change. We must come to grips with those modes of
transportation which are more energy efficient than the ones we
presently have.
I would also urge the government to identify subsidies which are
not desirable in the achievement of sustainable environmental
goals and to identify modes of transportation which are less
consuming and less polluting than the ones on which we rely today.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-14. I note that this is a rehash of Bill
C-101 which the government forced back into the House after it
died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued. It is a
travesty of the democratic process, but nonetheless we are talking
about it once more.
Unlike the previous speaker, I cannot find it in my heart to
compliment the government for introducing the bill. I believe it has
some serious shortcomings. However, our role is to be critical of
legislation introduced by the government and the Reform Party has
been doing an excellent job in that role.
Hon. members may have noticed the results of the byelections
last night. The Reform Party gained considerable ground in
Atlantic Canada and in Etobicoke North. Obviously the people are
quite concerned about the message being delivered by the
government. The way it is running the country is coming under
closer and closer scrutiny. At the next election, when Canadians are
given a real choice, they will choose something else, such as
Reform.
The intention of the government in Bill C-14 is to regularize or
streamline the process by which the main railway companies can
abandon rail lines. I am thinking about the government's platform
of jobs, jobs, jobs. With this bill it is creating an easier opportunity
for the rail companies to abandon lines instead of maintaining
them. All the jobs that go along with those lines will be lost.
The communities served along those lines will be diminished.
Rural Canada will find it more difficult to maintain itself on a
sustainable basis when competing with urban centres.
However, the government finds it quite appropriate to introduce
rules and regulations which will make it easier for those companies
to abandon lines. They will still have to justify what they are trying
to do, but the government has given them a mechanism whereby
they can say: ``We will allow this line to deteriorate and we will
abandon it without any real public input''. It is shocking because
this is the government that ran on jobs, jobs, jobs.
From the Reform point of view, a job in the country is every bit
as important as a job in the city. Rural Canada is in jeopardy. It
would have been a great opportunity for the government to protect
and sustain rural Canada and rejuvenate the small cities and towns
which have a way of life that is fading fast. It is a way of life that
has produced great Canadians. It provides an opportunity for
parents to raise their children without concerning themselves with
crime and other things that little kids should not be getting into. It
was a wonderful opportunity, but it is gone.
(1340 )
Let us look at the other side of the coin. If it is the government's
intention to allow the railroads to abandon tracks, why is it not
coming up with a plan to encourage small business entrepreneurs to
operate these branch lines?
Unfortunately these small entrepreneurial companies do not
seem to be of any concern to the government. It is just concerned
with the big picture. As long as it can say that jobs, jobs, jobs are
being created, it does not care about the small business
entrepreneur who could help achieve that objective. The
government has done nothing to create an environment in which
these entrepreneurs could compete successfully by taking up the
challenge of rejuvenating branch lines which are being abandoned
by the major railroads. It is a great opportunity missed totally and
completely by the government which does not seem to care.
Some branch lines in Alberta are run by small organizations. The
member for Crowfoot has a branch line going through his riding. It
is working profitably. It provides much better service that the
major railroads. It is responsive to clientele. Its frequency is much
1238
improved. It does not wait until there are 100 cars before it sends a
train down the line. If there is grain to be moved the train is there.
It is time for us to recognize that small business entrepreneurs
are capable of running railroads every bit as good as the large
monoliths that are now being given the opportunity to abandon rail
lines across the country. These railroads have been instrumental in
the development and building of our nation. It is tragic to see them
go.
The elevators are going along with them. My eldest son laments
every time he hears about a grain elevator being demolished
because he sees it as a part of our history disappearing. He is only
17, yet he realizes they are part of our history and will never return,
again courtesy of this government. It does not have the foresight
and the vision to realize that jobs can be created and protected.
I will now discuss another area of concern to my riding, the
alfalfa business. I have been critical of the government in its
treatment of the railroads by allowing them to abandon Canadian
jobs. The alfalfa business is being treated in exactly the same way.
The alfalfa business has over 1,000 directly related jobs, yet the
government ran roughshod over the entire industry when it
cancelled the WGTA program. It did not give a hoot about the
industry and how it will work in the new environment which has
been forced on it.
As I have said, over 1,000 jobs are directly maintained in rural
Canada. They are dependent on the alfalfa business, not to mention
those spin-off jobs related to repair and maintenance. It is a $100
million export business. It generates the better part of $100 million
in revenues although the government does not seem to care.
When the government eliminated the WGTA, the subsidy
program for the railroads from which the alfalfa industry obtained
a benefit, it did not consider the specific concerns and needs of the
alfalfa industry. Alfalfa is a high volume, low value product. It is
not like cereals which are low volume, high value. Yet the alfalfa
industry has been eliminated from the subsidy entirely. Therefore,
the elimination of the subsidy will cause the cost of transportation
to increase much more dramatically for the alfalfa industry than for
the grain growers.
(1345 )
We know the grain growers received $1.6 billion as a final
settlement. The alfalfa people are going to get $40 million.
However, it does not stop there. The $1.6 billion being paid to
farmers allows them to reduce the capital cost of their land and
therefore is non-taxable. They are allowed to keep the money.
Because land is not a depreciable asset, farmers can leave that
reduced capital cost sitting on their financial statements until they
retire. Then of course there is the $500,000 capital gains exemption
for farmers when they sell out at retirement. This $1.6 billion is by
and large going to flow through to farmers tax free.
This is not so in the alfalfa business because those people are not
really in the business of land ownership. They will have to pay tax
on this money if it is income, and there is a reasonable chance
Revenue Canada will declare this to be income rather than a capital
cost subsidy. If it does that at a 50 per cent tax rate, the $40 million
subsidy becomes a $20 million subsidy because the government
will claw $20 million of the $40 million right back into its own
pocket. That is not going to do the alfalfa industry much good.
On the other hand, the government may say that this can be
applied to capital. Unlike the farmers who can reduce their land
values, they will have to acquire depreciable assets. This means
they will be denied capital cost allowance by virtue of the grant and
over the next few years will be paying higher taxes.
Again the government will get the $20 million back and not one
penny of it will benefit the alfalfa industry. This is Canada we are
talking about, a country in which this government does not seem to
care about the small entrepreneur, the railroads.
This government does not seem to care about the small plants in
my riding that generate jobs in rural Canada which are seriously in
jeopardy because this government, even though it ran on the
platform of jobs, jobs, jobs, is sitting back while its policy changes
are putting these jobs in jeopardy, if not destroying them. It does
not seem to care.
That is the type of legacy this government is leaving for
Canadians. I and the people in my riding do not like it one bit. I can
assure the government that there is absolutely no support from the
people in the alfalfa business in Legal, Alberta, which is part of my
riding.
The alfalfa people have been asking for about a $70 million
subsidy. They feel that on a pro rata basis that is much more
appropriate than the $40 million less tax being handed out by this
government. That is why they are asking for $70 million and that is
why they are asking that this amount be given as a prescribed
amount, which allows it to be income tax exempt and allows them
to get the money on the same basis as the farmers are getting.
If that type of insult were not enough, when the minister of
agriculture announced the cancellation of the WGTA program and
the introduction of the final payment, rather than paying the final
payment on arable acres, he decreed that it was to be paid on land
where cereals are being grown. Therefore the payment was denied
to farmers who were growing alfalfa in that particular year.
I listened to the previous speaker tell us how concerned he was
about sustainable development. Sustainable development is good
but sustainable farming includes growing alfalfa periodically.
1239
Because farmers were maintaining a policy of sustainable farming,
the minister of agriculture said: ``Tough if you happen to be
growing alfalfa this year because you are not going to participate in
the final payout under the WGTA that every other farmer who was
growing cereal that year was able to participate in''. If one member
of the government speaks about sustainable development, we
should also hear from the minister of agriculture and everyone else
on the other side of the House.
(1350)
We in the opposition agree with sustainable development and
sustainable agriculture. Canadians agree with it. Why do we not
hear from the minister of agriculture? Does he not care about the
small alfalfa plant which generates $100 million worth of exports
for this country, sustains 1,000 jobs in this country and pays taxes
in this country like everyone else? He does not seem to care.
It is a disgrace for me to stand and accuse the minister of
agriculture in that way but the unfortunate news is it is true.
I could go on about the alfalfa business, but the point is it is
entitled to a fair shake. As farmers, as producers, as rural
Canadians, as people who are participating in this economy and as
people who are trying to make a living in Alberta while this
government keeps pulling the rug out from underneath them, surely
they deserve the same type of treatment as cereal growing farmers
and as the railroads which are being allowed to abandon entire
branch lines, perhaps even the branch line that services the alfalfa
plant. Who knows, maybe in five years even it could be gone.
Finally we have the announcement by the Minister of Finance in
the budget that he will be selling off these railway cars. He will
allow a surcharge of 75 cents a tonne for the movement of
commodities. Who will get hurt the most? Again, it is the alfalfa
industry. It has high volume and low value. It has to move its
product from the prairies to the coast for export to Japan which is a
large consumer of the alfalfa pellets. What do we have? Another
charge being levied on it.
It has not even had the opportunity to adjust, reinvest and
improve its productivity to accommodate the elimination of the
WGTA. Now it will get hit with a 75 cent a tonne surcharge,
compliments of the Minister of Finance. After having dealt with
the minister of agriculture, the industry now has another minister
coming at it. Where will it stop? Is it the intention of this
government to beat it into the ground, suffer the losses of jobs,
suffer the decline of rural Canada and allow the railroads to dictate
the policies of this government by asking for the authority to
abandon lines as they so desire?
The government has a lot to answer for. With a bit of homework
it could do a lot better. I expected that with this bill we could have
had a lot better.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to my colleague
from the Reform Party on the part of his speech which focuses on
short lines.
It is not frequent for a member of my party to agree with a
member of the Reform Party, so I did not want it to go unnoticed. It
so happens that my honourable colleague rightly says that the bill
does not give enough support to small businesses which intend to
take over parts of the lines the big companies wish to abandon. He
also says that these small businesses can manage the lines as well
as the big companies.
I would even go further. Often times, they can manage them
better because they succeed where the big companies have failed
and, as the minister himself said this morning, in the United States,
it is these short lines that truly saved the American network. Just
like small streams feed big rivers, short lines feed larger ones.
(1355)
Our party was suggesting two things to help the SLRs. First, we
suggested that loans be given to small companies so they could
rehabilitate the lines. As the hon. member probably knows, the big
companies did not maintain short lines hoping that the service
would deteriorate and that as a consequence people would stop
using them which, in turn, allowed them to ask that the lines be
abandoned. Today, when the National Transportation Agency
authorizes a company to abandon a branch line, we can find buyers
for that line but it is usually a small company which is not strong
enough or does not have the money necessary to rehabilitate the
line that was deliberately neglected.
I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of our two
suggestions which are: First, to give interest-free loans to small
companies that want to buy branch lines, provided they rehabilitate
those lines; and second, that the federal government creates its own
branch line rehabilitation program since it is responsible for the
present state of those lines.
What does the hon. member think of our suggestions? Does he
himself have suggestions to help SLRs?
[English]
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to and
agree with the points raised by the hon. member.
We are fully aware that in many cases, years before a line is
finally abandoned, the railroad sets it apart, ignores it and allows it
to fall into disrepair and decay. After that, it can come before the
National Transportation Agency and say: ``Look how much money
it will cost to fix it up. Look how little traffic there is. This line is
uneconomical and we want to close it down''.
1240
Lack of maintenance, management and marketing leads to the
decline of that particular line and the community which goes along
with it. Therefore I think the hon. member has made a good
suggestion. If we were to ask the railroads to finance, interest free,
the rejuvenation of these branch lines then it would ensure that the
railroads would not allow the lines to fall into a state of disrepair to
begin with.
I do not see that the onus is on the government to pick up where
the responsibilities of the railroads left off. I would think we would
want to put it right back squarely in the lap of the railway
companies to ensure they realize their responsibilities are to
maintain adequate rail service in the country.
The Speaker: It being about 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
1240
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my constituents
are outraged by the controversial and unjustified trade sanctions of
the Helms-Burton bill which targets third country investments in
Cuba.
Canadians deplore and condemn the excessive and inappropriate
use of force by the Cuban government in downing civilian aircraft,
action which coalesced Congressional support for this
unacceptable legislation.
Equally, we deplore and condemn the excessive and
inappropriate use of trade sanctions by the U.S. government which
violates the spirit and text of NAFTA and WTO agreements.
The U.S. is an ally, our largest trading partner and a friend.
Friends do not do this to friends. I urge the U.S. government to
repeal this ill conceived legislation.
I strongly urge this government to vigorously support and
protect the rights of Canadian businesses and investment. Above
all, let us send a strong message that the United States of America
does not dictate Canadian trade policies.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party made remarkable gains in the six
byelections yesterday.
Liberal patronage opened the way for the election in five safe
Liberal ridings. Two of those safe seats gave the Liberals a scare
last night, thanks to Reform.
The byelections are over but the issues remain. Will the new
backbencher from Labrador fight to correct the injustice to his
constituents posed by the Churchill Falls hydroelectric contract?
Will the backbencher from Etobicoke North insist that the finance
minister abolish the GST like he promised? Will the backbencher
from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte demand that the Liberals
stop breaking their pledge to allow free votes in the House of
Commons? Will the two new Quebec ministers realize that a
majority of Canadians do not want special distinct society status
for Quebec but rather equality of all provinces?
I want to thank the six excellent Reform candidates who capably
communicated the Reform platform. I want to thank the thousands
of voters who said no to Liberal nonsense and yes to Reform
common sense.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Canadian Police Association are in Ottawa this
week to build support for the principle that RCMP officers should
be granted the right to collective bargaining and access to a
grievance process that involves an independent third party.
We in the New Democratic Party support this idea now just as we
did last year after hundreds of RCMP officers gathered on
Parliament Hill calling on the government to withdraw Bill C-58
which would have weakened the labour rights of RCMP officers
rather than strengthen them.
Other police forces in Canada enjoy collective bargaining rights
without undermining the special functions of police officers in our
society. There is no reason that RCMP officers should be denied
their basic labour rights.
I call on the government to listen to the Canada Labour
Commission and to begin the process of developing legislation to
grant RCMP officers what is after all only their right.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the Association canadienne d'éducation
de langue française for the tremendous success of the Semaine
nationale de la Francophonie. I would also like to congratulate two
teachers at the École Lavallée, in my riding, for winning the Prix de
la Francophonie canadienne in the education category.
Paul Sherwood and Dée-Anne Vermette developed and
organized an activity entitled ``Envolée FM 95'' with students from
their class. This musical show was presented in five
Franco-Manitoban villages. Promoting and teaching French in a
minority environment is a lot of work and a heavy responsibility.
Mrs. Vermette, Mr. Sherwood and the students at the École
Lavallée have been very successful in facing that challenge. In my
opinion,
1241
these enthusiastic teachers and students are excellent proof of the
vitality of francophone communities in western Canada. We have
not-poof!-disappeared.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday was an important day for Canadians of Greek origin.
[English]
The first reason is that the Liberal candidates they voted for in
the byelections were all elected. I want to congratulate my new
colleagues to this House.
The second reason is that they celebrated the 175th anniversary
of the independence of the Hellenic republic. On that day in 1821,
the Greeks declared their independence from nearly 400 years of
Ottoman rule. The struggle for independence and democracy put
forth by the Greeks of that time will forever be remembered by
their descendants no matter where they are in the world.
Today on Parliament Hill we will celebrate this special day with
Canadians of Greek origin from across Canada. I wish to take this
opportunity to welcome them to Ottawa and to offer them my best
wishes. I ask all my colleagues to attend if they can tonight.
ZHTO H ELLAS
ZHTO O KANADAS
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the efforts of Walter
Gumprich, a CESO volunteer who lives in my riding of
Saskatoon-Humboldt. He has just completed his assignment with
the Vologda regional government in Russia.
CESO is supported by CIDA, the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development and Canadian corporations and
individuals.
Speaking with Walter this morning, I learned that he had held a
seminar for 150 government, business and farm personnel on
consumer driven economics. I also learned of how he assisted
Russian farmers with management issues such as operations,
financial management and marketing. Before conducting such
seminars, Walter spent time in the area to familiarize himself with
the reality of farming in Russia in 1996. I was struck by his
comment that there is little value in fine marketing theories when
the biggest obstacle facing the Russian farmer in selling his crop is
a lack of protection on the highway against hijackers on his way to
market.
Walter said after his work in Russia he realized even more
vividly how lucky we are to live in Canada. I would add how lucky
we are to have committed volunteers like Walter representing us
throughout the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker,yesterday's byelections in the ridings of Lac-Saint-Jean,Papineau-Saint-Michel and Saint-Laurent-Cartierville
confirmed Quebecers' support for the Bloc Quebecois.
(1405)
In Papineau-Saint-Michel and in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville,
which, as we know, remain two Liberal strongholds, candidates
from the Bloc performed well. Our party is grateful to them.
As for Lac-Saint-Jean, the unequivocal choice of the people in
that riding will bring among us the youngest member of this 35th
Parliament. The election of that member confirmed the status of
the Bloc Quebecois as official opposition.
Thanks to all voters who supported the Bloc. Congratulations to
Michel Sarra-Bournet, Daniel Turp and Stéphan Tremblay.
Welcome to the new member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who will join us
in defending Quebec's interests and our sovereignist option.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
CBC documentary on the bombing of Germany during World War
II entitled ``The Valour and the Horror'' is an unbalanced portrayal
of Canadian servicemen.
Thousands of Canadian airmen gave their lives during this war
and I know from personal experience the sacrifices they and their
families made. My father, who was a navigator in the RCAF, gave
his life overseas during this war.
The Senate committee found serious inaccuracies in this
docudrama and strongly recommended that CBC fulfil its promise
to the Canadian public not to rebroadcast ``The Valour and the
Horror'' in its original form, yet CBC has refused to listen.
1242
I am personally outraged that CBC, funded by taxpayers,
intends to rebroadcast this production which completely distorts
history and casts a dark shadow on our brave airmen.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to salute the Canadian Police Association in general and the
Brandon Police Service in particular who are in town this week.
The Brandon Police Service has developed an innovative
approach to traditional crime prevention, one that is community
based with a focus on youth.
In January 1995 to increase informal accessibility of police
officers to young people, six Brandon schools formally adopted a
cop. The officer is sometimes a guest in the classroom or a walker
in the halls which provides students with the opportunity to interact
with the officer at whatever level they choose.
Canadian police forces across the country are making great
efforts to bring policing closer to the communities and are working
with the communities to address issues relating to crime
prevention.
I salute the initiative of the Brandon Police Service and the
administrative staff of the participating schools. I encourage more
involvement of this type across the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a news release
from Standard & Poor's brings the federal government back to
reality.
Federalists say that there will be no negotiations following a
declaration of sovereignty? Standard & Poor's thinks otherwise.
Federalists say that economic ties between Canada and Quebec will
suffer? Standard & Poor's says that they will be maintained.
Federalists are talking about a ruthless breakup. Standard & Poor's
says that negotiations will take place in a climate of responsibility.
In addition, the firm expresses confidence in Quebec's approach,
and this is reflected in the bond market, where there has been an
upswing in the performance of Quebec government bonds.
The markets are putting to rest the federal government's
campaign of fear. It is high time that the government faced up to
the inevitable and began to prepare for Quebec's sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate the people of Taiwan who have just voted in
that country's first truly democratic election. President Lee
Teng-hui received over 54 per cent of the votes last Saturday
despite the implied warnings made against him by China. For the
Taiwanese people this was the first democratic presidential election
ever held on the island.
Several weeks ago China began conducting military exercises
along the coast of the island of Taiwan in an attempt to influence
the outcome of this historic vote. Taiwan has demonstrated great
courage and has shown it will not be intimidated by China's
military manoeuvres.
Canadians and all others who believe in democracy must support
the Taiwanese people as they move forward.
* * *
(1410 )
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, good news, good news. A new Liberal swept to victory
once again last night in the Etobicoke North byelection. This
proves once again that the people of metro Toronto have faith in the
direction of the Liberal Party and its ability to govern this country.
It is interesting to note that in this byelection the Reform Party
gained only eight more votes than it received in 1993. Only eight
more votes despite a considerable sum of money and a great
amount of energy put into trying to win voter support in Etobicoke
North.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this a strong second? It is not even
striking distance. The voters of Etobicoke North have spoken. They
support the policies and vision of the Liberal government. They
recognize the Liberal government is good for Ontarians and is an
excellent government for the people of Ontario.
Welcome to the member for Etobicoke North.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is bad
news today. Today, a number of food banks throughout Canada and
Quebec will be holding press conferences to criticize, among other
things, the cuts to the Canada health and social program transfer.
According to these organizations, the cuts will add to the
difficulties already being experienced by those who depend on food
banks to survive.
1243
After the brutal cuts in unemployment insurance, the student
loans program, transfer payments to the provinces and, soon, in
the universality of old age pensions, we must ask ourselves what
has become of the fine principles that led to the creation of
Canada's social safety net.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
want to congratulate the wonderful Reform Party campaign
workers in the constituency of Labrador and their excellent
candidate, John McGrath. Working together with the constituents
they have changed the political momentum in Atlantic Canada
raising the Reform share of the popular vote from zero to 30 per
cent in our very first election there.
While the people of Labrador have set a new first, they have
soundly rejected the Progressive Conservatives of course and have
shown their willingness to consider a new political alternative in
the Reform Party of Canada. I can assure the people of Labrador
that we are in Labrador to stay and we will be even more active in
the months and years ahead.
We also congratulate the new member for Labrador. We hope he
enjoys his short stay in the House of Commons. We urge him, no
we dare him, to stand up for the rights of his constituents because
the voters have served noticed that in the coming days the person
who puts the party ahead of the constituents will have to find a new
job come the next general election.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes the byelections are over and the people have spoken
and I for one like the results.
I am happy to note that Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte is
giving us a gentleman we know and has given overwhelming
support for Gerry Byrne. The name is well known around
Parliament Hill as he worked with former member and now
Premier Brian Tobin. Gerry's experience is going to serve the
House and his people very well.
Labradorians had the good sense to put their confidence in
Lawrence O'Brien. In so doing I say to the leader of the Reform
Party they sent a strong signal of support for the Liberal
government here.
I look forward to working with both members. I want to extend
my gratitude and that of all the caucus to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador for their ongoing confidence and trust
in the government's efforts on behalf of Atlantic Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after being in office for over two and a half years, our
government succeeded in having five members elected in the six
byelections held yesterday.
Voters in Humber-Sainte-Barbe-Baie Verte will be well
represented by Gerry Byrne. So will those in Labrador, by
Lawrence O'Brien; those in Etobicoke North, by Roy Cullen; those
in Papineau-Saint-Michel, by the Hon. Pierre Pettigrew; and
those in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, by the Hon. Stéphane Dion.
Since 1993, our party has won four of the five byelections held in
Quebec, and eight of the nine held across the country. This is
Stanley Cup material.
(1415)
Canadians, in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, have once
again renewed their confidence in our government and our Prime
Minister.
_____________________________________________
1243
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Statistics Canada is preparing for its census, and is
therefore recruiting a number of census commissioners and census
takers in each riding. To fill these positions, the Minister of
Industry has asked each MP to provide the name of one volunteer
to recruit potential census commissioners.
Will the Minister of Industry confirm that, in nearly all ridings
represented by opposition members, additional lists of candidates
have been provided by the Liberal Party of Canada?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows since he also received an
invitation to name a contact person in his riding, that contact
person is a source of names for the appointment of census
commissioners. The same invitation was provided to all members
of Parliament. Experience has shown that it is not adequate to
generate all of the names required because the people whose names
are submitted must submit themselves to testing, both written as
well as interviews.
1244
As the names have come in, in fact, I have noticed that in the
ridings represented by the party of the hon. Leader of the
Opposition, 134 of the recommendations were accepted out of 754
referrals, a proportion which is not dissimilar to the experience
of others. I must say it is somewhat better than some of my
colleagues have experienced.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to find out from the Minister of Industry why
his office, or Statistics Canada, seems to be asking for additional
lists in ridings represented by opposition members far more often
than in ridings represented by Liberals.
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would like to take it up
with some of my colleagues, he is welcome to do so. If he asks
them he will know that additional names have been sought by
Statistics Canada other than those submitted by political parties in
all parts of the country. This has been necessary in order to ensure
that census commissioners are those who are the best qualified.
Those who have been named have had to pass what is a rather
difficult test of their skills. Very often, names submitted by the
representatives or by the contact persons named by members of
Parliament have been inadequate in number to fill the jobs.
Therefore, they have been recruited from Canada Employment
Centres, ads in newspapers and virtually any other source. They
rebut them. They were all subject to the same testing procedure. If
the member finds that unfair, I fail to understand it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I accept the Minister's explanations but I would like to ask
whether he will confirm that, under the system set up by his office,
by his department, there appears to be two kinds of lists, a regular
list and a priority list?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to be perfectly clear on this, the lists of names submitted
for the position of census commissioner have come from a number
of sources.
With respect to the Liberal Party, of 2,199 names referred for
census commissioner across the country, only 569 were actually
recommended, fewer positions than there are. Obviously names
come in from a variety of other sources in order that the census is
well performed.
Certainly political sources have been used in order to obtain
names of people for testing. Those sources have been, in each
riding, first of all suggested by the member of Parliament of
whichever party. The success rate for all parties is well below half,
including overall the governing party.
There is also a recruiting process to select census
representatives. There are over 35,000 of these people being hired
to work on the census across Canada. They will be subject to
testing. If the member has any names that he would like to submit
for those positions, I would be happy to receive them and we will
see that they are in.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the minister will be happy soon.
The practices the Minister of Industry established for the 1996
census leave us somewhat perplexed. There are regular lists and
there are priority lists.
Could the minister tell us whether the priority lists are the ones
provided by the Liberal Party of Canada?
Mr. Young: What we need to know is who chooses the television
commentators. Who chooses the television commentators?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already answered this question.
[Translation]
Mr. Young: The guys who talk on television, who chooses
them?
[English]
Mr. Manley: At the end of the day there will be one list of
people hired. They will be selected-
[Translation]
Mr. Young: They did not have a whole lot to say last night.
[English]
Mr. Manley: -by Statistics Canada and they will have been
qualified-
[Translation]
Mr. Young: When you lose, you are sad.
1245
[English]
Mr. Manley: -by taking a rather challenging written test. Only
those who are qualified will be selected to perform the task.
The Speaker: I remind you, colleagues, that sometimes we are
close to the microphones and our conversations carry over.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, like you, I also heard the Minister of Human Resources
Development making essentially irrelevant comments yet again.
This is what he does, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister responsible for Statistics Canada and thus for
its activities and its operations tell us his criteria for determining
whether a list is a priority one rather than a regular one?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope I understand the hon. member's question correctly.
Let me make sure we set out the process.
In the appointment of census commissioners, I wrote to every
member of Parliament and invited them to submit a name as a
contact person. From those names, Statistics Canada solicited
possible people to serve as census commissioners. In many cases
the contact person submitted their own name.
All those people were subject to very thorough testing at two
stages. They were required to write a written test and they were
required to submit to an interview process conducted by public
servants who were regular or term employees of Statistics Canada.
From that, over 2,000 census commissioners across Canada were
hired. Subsequent to that, there is a request for further names for
census representatives.
(1425)
As I explained a moment ago, 35,000 across the country is not a
bad number. I am forwarding any names left over or which come to
me from members of Parliament for those positions. I invite the
member if he has some names to submit them to me. I would be
happy to forward them on his behalf.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every senior government in Canada with the exception of
the federal government is now committed to deficit elimination and
balancing its budget.
Eight jurisdictions are expected to balance their budgets this
fiscal year or post surpluses. This means that a number of
provincial jurisdictions are getting close to being able to offer tax
relief to their people. Their concern is that the federal government,
still running a $30 billion deficit, will cancel out provincial tax cuts
with federal tax increases.
Will the finance minister today assure his provincial
counterparts that his government will not raise federal taxes when
provinces cut theirs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Reform Party has a tendency, I am sure due to a
difficulty in the research department, to ask the same question time
and time again.
He has asked this question before. I have said to him that at the
last meeting of the finance ministers we discussed this very issue
and their was complete agreement on the need for co-ordination,
that it made no sense for governments to fill in tax room, one on the
other in either way. We will continue to co-operate in that way.
Eight provinces have either balanced their budgets or are looking
to balance their budgets, absolutely. One of the reasons is that in
the transfers to the provinces established by the federal government
we have provided a formula for growth.
If the federal government had followed the policies of the
Reform Party to slash and eviscerate those transfers, those
provinces would not be able to balance their books.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the biggest problems the provinces are having in
balancing their budgets is the drastic reduction in transfers
instituted by the government, exactly opposite to what the minister
said.
These are not unfounded fears. Despite the minister's assurances
that this has all been discussed with provincial counterparts and
that there is agreement, there is not agreement. If the minister is so
confident this agreement can be reached would he be prepared to
enter into a formal federal-provincial tax relief agreement to ensure
that tax relief measures adopted by either level of government are
passed on to the long suffering Canadian taxpayer?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have made it very clear that with the provinces we are prepared
to sit down and take a look at the whole area of federal-provincial
tax co-ordination. We have made it very clear and we will be
discussing it at the next meeting.
I find it very difficult to understand how the leader of the Reform
Party could stand up not one minute ago and say that one of the
1246
problems is the drastic reductions we have imposed on the
provinces when in fact his budget from last year had reductions
that made ours look like a peanut hill; they were enormous.
Why will he not be consistent? How can he stand up here one day
and say one thing, then stand up the next day and say another? Is
there no coherence in the Reform Party at all?
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the statements by the finance minister concerning
Reform's budget are false.
This is not an academic matter. The finance minister will recall
that his predecessor, Michael Wilson, in the late 1980s attempted to
reduce federal taxes and managed to do that in a couple of years.
However, the provinces, particularly the Liberal provincial
government in Ontario, increased provincial taxes to sop up the tax
relief granted by the federal government, and the taxpayers never
saw any of it. Now people are afraid the same thing will happen in
reverse.
I ask the minister again for a yes or no answer. Will he enter into
a federal-provincial tax relief agreement to ensure that tax relief
given by one level of government is not taken away by another
level of government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have answered the question. I said that what we want to do and
what the provinces have agree to do is sit down and take a look at
the way the provinces and the federal government tax the same
taxpayer. We have agreed to co-ordinate.
(1430 )
Perhaps I should remind the leader of the Reform Party that in
our first budget there were no increases in personal taxes. In our
second budget there were no increases in personal income taxes. In
our third budget there were no increases in personal taxes,
corporate taxes or excise taxes; there were no increases in taxes at
all.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the Minister of Industry, who is responsible
for the census, has introduced a system of lists and names having
priority in the hiring of census representatives at Statistics Canada.
Does the minister confirm that it is up to his own office to decide
which lists have priority?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think I have answered that question. Let me answer a
different question.
If the hon. member is asking whether as minister responsible for
Statistics Canada I am involved in staffing the census positions, the
answer is yes. Under the Statistics Act the minister responsible for
Statistics Canada is authorized to appoint the staff required to
conduct a census.
However, the way we have gone about doing this in order to
provide as many names as possible so that the most qualified
people could obtain jobs was to use the political process as a source
of names.
As I have told the member, with respect to census
commissioners, that has been done through all members of
Parliament providing a contact person. In the case of
representatives from the Bloc Quebecois, from the Reform Party,
from the NDP and from the Liberal Party, many people did not
successfully qualify for the position.
Consequently, with respect to the 35,000 positions for census
representatives, we have asked that, being subjected to testing first,
people who have been submitted through my office be hired if they
are qualified.
I am prepared to do that for any member of Parliament who
indicates, as many official opposition members have, that they feel
their people were better qualified than the testing revealed them to
be on the first go-round. They are perfectly welcome to submit
names.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, that was a long answer to a question that was quite simple.
I want to give the minister another opportunity to answer a simple
question.
Does the minister confirm that Liberals are invited to provide
names on a list given priority by his office for federal ridings held
by non-Liberal members, yes or no? That is a simple question.
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again let us be perfectly clear. If the member is asking me
if names were being submitted from my office solely for Liberals,
the answer is no.
If he would like to make sure names are submitted from his
riding, from his list, for census representatives I invite him to do
so. Point final.
1247
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Nisga'a deal transfers ownership of a section of the
public highway from Terrace to New Aiyansh and Greenville to the
Nisga'a.
The minister knows that road blockades in B.C. have revolved
around legal ownership of right of way at Adams Lake and Apex
Mountain. These disputes remain unresolved and the minister
conveniently has washed his hands of responsibility.
Why is the minister promoting an agreement that removes
longstanding public ownership of public highways when he knows
the precedent is a recipe for future problems?
(1435 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, dealing specifically with
access, which was the point of the question, I am very proud of the
access provisions of the agreement.
They provide public access to Nisga'a lands for hunting, fishing
and recreation. The Nisga'a will regulate access based on safety,
environment, cultural and historic sites and habitat. The province is
to maintain the roads. The federal and provincial governments can
acquire Nisga'a land for fair compensation for access. It is a very
modern approach to access which the province of B.C., the Nisga'a
and the federal government are quite proud of.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is continuing to perpetuate myths which do
not stand up to scrutiny in the agreement.
Recently in the House the minister said there was no
constitutionally protected commercial fishery in the Nisga'a deal.
This same claim was made in some B.C. government ads which led
to complaints. This resulted in the provincial aboriginal affairs
minister's withdrawing the ads because they were inaccurate and
misleading.
Will the minister follow the lead of his provincial counterpart
and do the honourable thing by rescinding and withdrawing his
earlier misleading statement?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only thing mystical in the
Nisga'a deal is the absence of the member of Parliament from the
area on an invitation to the signing.
Concerning the fisheries, there was quite a bit of negotiation on
the commercial aspect of the fishery and whether it would be
constitutionally protected. The Nisga'a demanded that it be
constitutionally protected. In the end this was withdrawn.
The commercial aspect of the fishery is not constitutionally
protected. It is defined annually by a committee or commission of
two Nisga'a and two federal representatives and reports directly to
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, obviously,
the Minister of Industry is in the process of introducing at Statistics
Canada a patronage system that is incompatible with the very role
of the department.
By taking it upon himself to appoint Statistics Canada's census
representatives on a partisan basis, is the minister not guilty of
patronage in the performance of his duties?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suspect some of my colleagues would wish that I plead
guilty to that accusation.
The system in place is based on testing and qualification by
public servants evaluating the lists of names submitted for census
commissioner by contract persons and other sources from all
members of the House of Commons.
The second process is with respect to the hiring of the census
representatives. There are over 35,000 of these people across the
country subject to a two stage testing process.
In reflection of the fact that members of Parliament from all
parties expressed some frustration that not all the people they
considered qualified had succeeded in being chosen as census
commissioners, we have asked Statistics Canada to give priority to
those candidates who were tested and proven to be qualified for the
census representative position who were referred through the
minister's office. That includes names given by members of
Parliament other than members of the governing party.
I invite the hon. member to do this but he does not have much
time.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Senator Hervieux-Payette described the government as totally
upright. Would the Minister of Industry say that his actions related
to the 1996 census are in keeping with the government's rules of
conduct?
1248
(1440 )
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated in my answer to an earlier question, the
Statistics Canada Act gives full discretion for the minister to
appoint directly the people involved in the census process.
Rather than doing that, on a fully transparent patronage basis I
have invited all members of Parliament to participate by
submitting names. But I stress, with 35,000 of these people, most
of the hirees are going to be people recruited directly by Statistics
Canada either from the Canada employment offices or references
from various groups and organizations in ridings across the
country.
The census is going to be held and it is going to be on time. If the
hon. member has some names, he had better get them in this week.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on February 29 the Solicitor General of Canada
advised the House that he had been assured by the director of CSIS
that a mole was not operating within CSIS. He also advised that
SIRC was unable to confirm allegations that there was a mole
within CSIS.
Today I would like to hear the minister's opinion on the matter.
Is the solicitor general personally convinced that there is not a
Russian spy operating within CSIS?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will not try to give further information about employment of
census commissioners but instead I will say to the hon. member
who has raised a serious question that I have no information that
would lead me to change anything I have said in my previous
answers.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the solicitor general for being
somewhat hesitant in providing the House with a more positive
response.
Perhaps the minister should ask the director that if he is so
convinced that the employee in question is not a mole, why did this
employee have unreported contact with targets of the service,
travel to another region to meet a CSIS source without
authorization, have tens of the thousands of dollars in unexplained
cash, lie during his security interview and fail a polygraph exam?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as far as I can recall all these matters were gone into by SIRC when
it reviewed the matter and, as I say, I have no reason to question the
conclusions of SIRC in this matter or the advice I have received
from the director.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, from the way the Minister of Industry has been answering
our questions for the last while, he obviously seems to think that
there is nothing unusual in the census being prepared by Statistics
Canada. I would therefore like to hear what he has to say about
other information we have obtained.
In an information note from Statistics Canada, Census 96, we
read the following:
The priority given priority lists remains unchanged. Please note that a sticker
will identify these lists as priority.
However, representatives of the Liberal Party have until March 29 to provide
us with additional names and to follow up on your request. It is also possible that
the Liberals will provide us with other priority lists of candidates in federal
ridings not held by Liberals.
Are the minister's firm assurances based on his complete
ignorance of what is going on in his department or do they simply
indicate that he is trying to cover up the rather unorthodox
treatment reserved for us by these people?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how many times I can explain this.
With respect, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has given us a
list and it has been forwarded to Statistics Canada. I do not know
from what he is reading. I would be happy to look at it if he wants
to pass it over to me. It certainly did not originate with me.
(1445)
I can assure him that members of Parliament from all parties
who submitted names through their contact person for census
commissioner were disappointed with the results of the testing
process.
In order to at least give some opportunity to those many people
whose names were submitted-and there are many others that have
to be hired because those lists would not be adequate-we have
asked Statistics Canada to give priority to the qualified people,
after testing, that have been submitted through members' offices.
1249
That includes the names the Leader of the Opposition submitted
from Roberval.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that this is a minister with problems. How
can the minister make the sort of statements he has just made, when
a note on Statistics Canada letterhead says, and I quote: ``The big
news is that you may go to other sources to recruit enumerators-''
and the memo mentions the Bloc Quebecois, students-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Young: Go on, go on.
An hon. member: No, no, read the whole thing.
Mr. Gauthier: I will read the whole thing, at the general request
of the Liberal Party. Understandably, it will take a little longer, if
you insist that I read it all.
The big news is that you may go to other sources to recruit enumerators,
CECs, the Bloc Quebecois, students, Statistics Canada lists. However,
You asked and now you shall have the answer.
please inform these candidates that, even if they pass the test, there is no
guarantee that they will be called to an interview. It all depends on the number of
positions remaining that have not been filled from the priority list.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: They take their orders from the Liberals.
Mr. Gauthier: How can the minister give us such firm
assurances, when we know full well that the priority lists were
provided by the Liberals, identified by Cabinet, and that they take
priority over ability, as the note says?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would be kind
enough to table the documents so that I will have a chance to look
at them. They are not something that originated with me or my
office.
If the hon. member wishes to provide names, as members of
Parliament from all parties have done, those names will be passed
on. The people will be subject to some rigid testing. After all, this
is the census of Canada. We want qualified people to do the job. We
do not want some of those people who counted the ballots in the
referendum.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
People with vision impairment have been affected by the
definition of blindness used in the disability tax credit form.
Recently in the Hamilton area, Zena Duguay received a letter
revoking the credit which she has received for 20 years.
What is the minister doing to ensure that Canadians with
disabilities get the benefits to which they are entitled?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me begin by thanking the hon. member for Hamilton
Mountain for her diligence on this file.
As a result of her representations and representations from other
members in the House and the Canadian National Institute for the
Blind a problem has been identified with the eligibility certificate
used with the disability tax credit, particularly as it relates to
Canadians who are blind or visually impaired.
Some of these people were rejected under the credit when, in
fact, they are eligible. This will be fixed. The department will work
with the CNIB to review the files that were rejected as a result of
the problem with the form and that the form will be fixed.
(1450)
Finally, the department will administer the disability tax credit
with fairness and compassion, and where there are administrative
improvements that need to be made, we will make them.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the justice minister came under fire from the Canadian
Police Association for his non-committal stand on the repeal of
section 745. What did he do? He referred to a case where a victim's
family actually supported an application for a judicial review.
Can the justice minister explain why he did not tell them that the
victim's family was also the offender's family? Why did he
purposely deceive the members of the-
Mr. Assadourian: You will never learn.
An hon. member: You blew it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Once again I ask you to be very careful. The
words ``purposely deceive'' are not acceptable. I would ask the
hon. member to withdraw those words.
1250
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I withdraw
them. I would like to continue with the question for the justice
minister. Why on earth were the members of the CPA not well
informed of the situation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the case to which I referred made
the point I wanted to express, namely, that not all those persons
serving time for murder are career criminals, are dangerous
offenders and there are exceptional circumstances. The case to
which I referred was just that, an exceptional circumstance.
In the course of my address yesterday before the police
association I told its members that I am working with the solicitor
general on proposals which we are going to bring to caucus and
then to cabinet to change section 745 to deal with the issues that
have been raised in the public debate that has gone on now for some
months in this country.
We have not ruled out the repeal of the section but I made the
point yesterday that if we were to simply repeal, as the Reform
Party would have us do, many people contend it would overlook
the hard fact that serving time for murder are people in exceptional
circumstances. That is exactly the illustration I made with the case
to which the hon. member has referred.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would inform the justice minister that it is not just the Reform
Party that wants the section repealed.
In fact, yesterday the Canadian Police Association told the
minister it would not support anything short of an absolute repeal
of section 745, and that includes many other people in this country.
No amendments will be supported.
Why does the minister continue to tinker with this ridiculous law
in the face of mountains of petitions, loud and persistent requests
from victims, from police and from a majority of the members in
the House of Commons?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the solicitor general and I have
told the House, and as I told the police association yesterday, we
are bringing forward proposals for discussion in caucus and in
cabinet that will meet the issues that have been raised.
It is important for at least the members of this party, if my hon.
friend is not able to do it, to draw distinctions and to look at cases
that are different. As we consider section 745 we shall consider all
of its implications.
The simple point that I made yesterday, I make today: all of
those serving murder sentences are not necessarily in identical
circumstances and we should bear that in mind as we look at
section 745.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
On January 31, 1996, the following recommendation was made
on page 55 of the report by the task force examining part I of the
Canada Labour Code: ``That the government undertake an
examination to determine the appropriateness of allowing RCMP
officers to unionize and to conduct collective bargaining under
legislation other than the Canada Labour Code.''
(1455)
Yesterday the Solicitor General told the Canadian Police
Association that he was refusing to allow RCMP officers to
exercise their legitimate right to unionize. Does the minister not
acknowledge that he has thus rejected out of hand the process of
public consultation announced by the Minister of Labour
concerning RCMP unionization?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Sims committee had a very narrow term of reference which was
to receive representation on the working of Part I of the Canada
Labour Relations Act.
Part I deals only with people who are working in the federally
regulated private sector and does not deal in any way with public
employees. While the Sims committee had some comments on the
matter of labour relations and the RCMP, as far as I can see, it was
not within its terms of reference.
The section in the report did not deal with such things as the
existing labour relations system within the RCMP, whereby the
rank and file elect their own representatives to deal with RCMP
management on such matters.
Finally, I might add that any matter with respect to a change in
what is currently in the RCMP act would be a matter to be brought
to and considered by cabinet, then brought forward as legislation to
this House. It is not a matter for a decision by me personally.
As I also told the Canadian Police Association, there are a large
number of legislative items to be dealt with in the House. Whether
some people agree or not, these are the priorities of the
government.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
only things the government has done since its election with respect
to the RCMP have been to confirm the RCMP Commissioner's
imperial status as a distinct employer, to drag its feet in putting the
Gingras decision into application, to table Bill C-58 so as to
prevent the RCMP from unionizing and, finally, to thumb its nose
1251
at the most democratic rights of RCMP officers, for instance
blocking Sergeant Major Gaétan Delisle from running for mayor of
Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu.
When will the government begin to treat RCMP officers like
every other Canadian citizen?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with all due respect to the hon. member, I would like to correct
something he said.
The RCMP does not have the status of separate employer, which
is a very specific situation. It is being looked into in consultation
with the elected representatives of the rank and file of the RCMP.
I would say further that one cannot overlook the existing labour
relations structure within the RCMP. It appears there are those who
do not agree with this but I have not received any information to the
effect that it does not continue to be supported by most of the rank
and file members of the force.
Certainly we have great respect for all the members of the force
and the important role they play in our society. Their well-being
and their working conditions remain of great concern to the
government. We certainly want to see that any of these concerns
are dealt with in the most appropriate and timely fashion.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the tug of
war in cabinet over foreign ownership in broadcasting and
telecommunications is well known.
The heritage minister wants to go back to 1967 and the industry
minister wants to move ever so slowly, of course, into the 21st
century.
My question is for the industry minister. Consumer and industry
advocates are demanding a coherent telecommunications policy,
which is why I am asking him the question. When are we going to
get one?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a very coherent telecommunications policy.
The hon. member knows that in the joint submission to the
CRTC on the issue of convergence last year, we set out the
framework for a competitive, Canadian telecommunications
industry. We are looking forward to responding to the CRTC report
on convergence in the near future.
(1500 )
With respect to foreign ownership which was in the preamble to
the hon. member's question, I would like to point out to him
something which I think is very important. Canada has had one of
the most open and liberal foreign ownership regimes in
telecommunications of all countries in the world. We wait with
impatience for some other countries to actually deliver on their
promises of reciprocity which they have made so often.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in reality,
if we take a look at the DTH decision which was made last week
and the fact that cabinet was not prepared to overrule the policy
decision which the CRTC made, basically what happened was that
cabinet put the Canadian industry at a disadvantage to the
American industry.
Can the minister give us an idea of when he and the heritage
minister will finally get their act together and make some decisions
that are going to make competition by Canadian companies for
Canadian business a reality in Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has to be the height of irony to have the Reform Party
posing a question like that.
Last year when we as a cabinet gave direction to the CRTC to set
a framework which was going to lead to competition, it was that
party which rose repeatedly to say we were interfering with the
CRTC. It criticized us. It was not willing to take a stand with us in
favour of competition.
We walked a very careful line in deciding how we would
formulate our direction to the CRTC. We stayed within the law in
giving direction on policy matters. The CRTC implements those
policies. It did so.
If the hon. member does not like it, I do not know why he did not
support us when we were making directive orders to the CRTC on
this very issue.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. It relates to our red book
commitment to conduct a comprehensive base line study of federal
taxes, grants and subsidies in order to identify barriers and
disincentives to sound environmental practices.
When does the Minister of Finance intend to implement this red
book promise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we welcome and in fact are actively reviewing the proposals of the
standing committee on the environment concerning the base line
1252
study. We will be reporting shortly on how we intend to continue
the important work which has already been initiated.
I will give some examples of what we have done. In the 1994
budget we brought in tax deductions to encourage contributions to
mine reclamation funds. In 1995 we brought in a tax change to
encourage donations of ecologically sensitive land. In the 1996
budget which we just brought down, we acted on the key findings
of the environment committee's review to help level the playing
field between renewable and non-renewable energy sources by, for
instance, providing access to flowthrough financing. I would say
that we are very active on it.
I would also like to congratulate the environment committee, its
chairman and all members of the House who bring this very
important matter to the attention of the government.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for either the minister of trade or the minister of
agriculture.
The U.S. has claimed in arguments before the special trade panel
now sitting that Canada was fully aware that its conversion of
import quotas on supply managed products to tariffs violates the
NAFTA, even though tariffication is permitted under the GATT and
the World Trade Organization. Canadian officials say there is no
evidence of intergovernmental memos on this issue.
Can the minister give his word to the House that there is no
documentation of any kind to prove the U.S. assertions, neither
from a minister of the crown, past or present, nor from
departmental officials, past or present, nor a statement issuing from
any department which may jeopardize Canada's position vis-à-vis
the U.S. in this dispute?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly to the very best of my
knowledge and belief, no such documents exist. I have already
asked my officials to confirm that to my satisfaction.
I can tell the hon. member what I do know exists. It was
delivered to me in Geneva in December 1993 when the initialling
of the WTO agreement took place. It was a very clear, very strong
legal opinion on behalf of the legal counsel acting for the
Government of Canada that our position with respect to supply
management was not only fully consistent with the WTO which
was about to come into effect, but was also fully consistent with all
of our obligations under the NAFTA.
(1505 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, this would bring to a close the
question period, but I have notice of a point of order by the member
for Skeena.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. During the course of question period the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development made a statement to the effect
that I had refused an invitation to attend the Nisga'a signing
ceremony on Friday of last week at Aiyansh. The minister knows
this is totally false and I would ask him to withdraw this statement.
It is not a matter of debate but a matter of record.
The Speaker: I do not know exactly where this is going but the
hon. minister is here. Perhaps he could clarify this situation.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was told by the Nisga'a
leadership that an invitation was sent to the member. If he says that
he was not invited, I am prepared to accept his word.
The Speaker: All right, the matter is closed.
_____________________________________________
1252
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, indeed I think it important to put all arguments to the
House when a bill is being studied, and the point of this one is to
bring legislation on rail transportation up to date.
In order to analyze this bill, I decided to use a specific example,
because part of this bill concerns all of us and has a particular effect
on certain regions of Quebec and Canada. I am talking about rail
transportation and the sale of rail lines to private interests.
The example I would like to use is that of the line between Gaspé
and Matapedia, in the Gaspé region of eastern Quebec. For a
1253
number of years the fate of this line was up in the air, because there
was some doubt as to its continued maintenance.
Under the old way of doing things, under the present legislation,
there must be public hearings. The government, when it wants to
close a line, has to go through the transportation agency, hold
hearings and get opinions.
Under the new bill, and this is very important for the future of
these lines, there is no provision for public hearings where people
can come and present reasons why a rail link is important to their
community. For example, the year after we were elected, there was
a rumour the Gaspé-Matapedia line would be closed. Public
hearings were held. Hearings were even organized by community
groups and, as the result of representations made, we succeeded in
keeping the line running.
Today, under the new legislation, things would read differently:
the owner would simply have to announce its intention to divest
itself of the line, and the people in the community would have only
two weeks for consultations on the merits of buying the line.
(1510)
We are confronted with a situation where negotiations could
easily be conducted behind the scene, which could favour private
owners. We have a very real case in point here. The rumour has it,
and there have been reports in the press these past few days saying
that the Gaspe-Matapedia line may be sold to a company like
Irving, which already owns several similar properties.
In the meantime however, the local population does not know
how to react, for lack of information on whether or not the line is
for sale.
The bill provides that railway companies shall prepare a three
year plan concerning the lines they intend to sell, but this provision
is of no use in 1996. The companies have not yet been asked to
table these plans. Assuming that the bill became law by the end of
the current session and that the companies prepared their
plans-because they are required only to prepare plans, to have
them on file, not to file them-the stakeholders are in no position
to prepare their case, to determine if there would be any potential
local buyers. Instead, this will encourage the bringing of railway
lines under the control of foreign interests or big money.
Therefore, there is no guarantee that the line will remain open in
the medium term. Let us take a case like that of Irving, a company
involved in many areas, such as lumbering, automobile gasoline
and rail transportation. At times, its interests may conflict with that
of the local population.
The bill, as it stands, does not provide well enough that the local
population, those who live in that part of the country will have the
opportunity to thoroughly analyze the situation, take their
responsibilities, and find out if local interests would offer to buy.
In this case, the example of the Gaspe-Matapedia line could be
taken one step further by asking ourselves: providing sufficient
notice was given, what would keep the solidarity fund recently
established for the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspesian Peninsula
from being used to enable a consortium of local interests-this
money could be put together with money from other local sources,
local interests-to buy the facility and give it a future. Let us stop
throwing back into question, year after year, the future of this line.
I notice one disappointing fact and that is the fact that the current
federal government does not care the least for regional
development. It has really given in to market forces as we see in all
the legislation it introduces, of which this is but one example. They
say they will let the market forces come into play as much as
possible, and under the guise of deregulating, they are tolerating
things that do not promote regional development in Quebec and
Canada.
I believe it would be in the interest of the Liberal majority, in
particular members from the regions, to amend this bill so as to
give people in the areas more time to find out about the sale of a
rail line, about sale conditions, about the cost and about what kind
of development can take place around the line in question.
Other points could be raised. Before, carriers could enter into
secret deals to provide services at the lowest possible prices in an
effort to stay competitive. They could then remain on the market.
However, the law required these agreements to be submitted to the
National Transportation Agency. This requirement will be
eliminated. Owners of short line railways will no longer have some
kind of guarantee that they will have access to major national
railways.
In our opinion, this should be corrected to give equal
opportunities to owners of short line railways, as there is an
increasing number of such railways. We must ensure that these
short line railways have a future, that they have the same
opportunities as major carriers, so that these people are not sold
out.
(1515)
The other point I wanted to raise is that there is no assurance that
there will be a requirement that short line railways be connected to
the major networks. I think the bill should be amended to allow for
the smooth operation of short line railways. These railways are of
local or regional interest and would help develop the whole region.
This bill has another flaw: it says that, in the future, any short
line railway can be declared to be in the general interest of Canada.
This situation could hurt short line railway owners, since they must
co-operate with major railways such as Canadian National and
Canadian Pacific, and since that decision would not give these
owners the leeway that they would otherwise have if they were
regulated only by provincial laws. This would in fact make a lot
more sense, considering that almost all short lines are sections of a
1254
railroad in a province. Therefore, they should really be governed by
provincial legislation. However, the federal government is giving
itself the right to rule that any short line is beneficial to Canada. In
so doing, it more or less duplicates the legislation governing
owners.
Sure, it is necessary to update the legislation on railroad
transportation. However, the bill does not adequately take into
account the experience gained over the last 5, 10, 15 or 20 years
regarding the abandonment of railway lines.
All these obstacles and difficulties have helped us develop an
expertise. In fact, local groups that have developed some expertise
in the submission of briefs opposing the abandonment of lines are
being somewhat deprived of that expertise, since the bill will no
longer allow them to use it in the same fashion. These groups will
no longer have adequate information to help local authorities
decide what to do when faced with this kind of situation.
I should also point out that clause 99 does not stipulate that the
agency must conduct an environmental study before authorizing
the construction of a railway line. This seems unusual, given an
increasing awareness in Quebec and in Canada regarding the need
to assess the environmental impact of any decision of an economic
nature.
In short, this is more or less an omnibus bill dealing with several
issues. My main concern is with the railway sector. I believe we
must use concrete examples, such as the Gaspe-Matapedia line, to
show that the bill will become acceptable, if some amendments
allow local interests to be well informed about the decisions that
will be made by current owners. Furthermore, we must ensure that
they have time to draft counterproposals, so that these lines can be
taken over as quickly as possible by local interest groups, thus
avoiding the situation that we are currently experiencing with the
sale of CN.
(1520)
As we are now finding out, because of insufficient control over
the sale of shares, an architectural work of art like the Quebec
bridge is now owned in part by American interests. In any
discussion about cultural heritage, whether in Quebec or in Canada,
it is important to prevent anything of the sort from happening
again.
I would urge the government to make sure that the final version
of the bill provides for a more transparent process. We all agree on
the need for planning and for companies to make plans, saying:
``Over the next three years, we intend to get rid of such and such a
line'', but they should be required to submit their plans to the
National Transportation Agency, not just keep them on file.
Second, we should have access to this information as quickly as
possible so that the public is kept informed.
Time frames of 15 days or 60 days, at present, are inadequate.
More time is required, again, to protect local interests.
Let us hope that the approved version of the bill will include
these changes and that, if the Gaspé-Matapédia line changes
hands, this will be in the best interests of Gaspesians, Quebecers
and the people of eastern Quebec and all of eastern Canada,
because this is a high quality line. This line, which once provided
Gaspesians with their only means of travel in the summertime, has
become a major touristic tool. It is therefore important that those
who want to ensure its continued development have the opportunity
to buy it, in order to avoid unpleasant surprises like seeing the new
owner close down the line just a few years from now for reasons
that do not necessarily take into account the interests of the region.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of my
constituents involved in the tourism industry suggested that rather
than me being referred to just as the member for Kootenay East, I
be referred to as the member from the part of the beautiful,
fabulous, magnificent, sensational, thrilling Canadian Rockies.
I had a look at the old Bill C-101, which was the evil twin of this
bill, and found a speech which I had actually prepared for Bill
C-101. The design of the bill at first reading was rather interesting
because it was designed at a time when it was going to go to a
committee. There were things in the speech where we were
basically saying: ``The difficulty is that we really cannot trust the
Liberals in this process because of the way they have been seen to
use pile drivers to put nails into boards. We really cannot believe
that they are really to be open to the amendments that are
required''.
What is particularly scary as I reviewed this speech, which I
should note I never had the opportunity to give, is that I realized
that virtually everything in this speech came to pass. Therefore I go
ahead.
I come from a riding which relies heavily on rail transport.
Mining and forestry combine to make up a substantial part of the
economy in Kootenay East. It is understandable that when I had my
office contact companies in my constituency for their opinions on
the bill we were inundated with responses. I have compiled a
substantial amount of information. We received from some
companies detailed amendments to the bill which I will outline in
my remarks.
Before I carry on, as I say, this was a speech which was intended
to be made at first reading in the hopes that the Liberals would
actually follow through on their word and would make this a
workable process and make the legislation better. However, they
did not. All of the companies responding to our request for
1255
information made it clear they feel strongly that the bill is vital to
maintain and enhance competition in Canada's railways.
(1525)
One forest product company in my riding told our constituency
office that it no longer ships its plywood and lumber by rail. Rather
than be captive to rail, this company trucks its plywood to Calgary.
From there, it is shipped down east by rail but the company has a
choice of railways in Calgary.
For the past several years this company has shipped its lumber
by truck south to the U.S. to be loaded in rail cars there. It is just a
matter of 30 miles south of the U.S. border, which is the bottom of
my constituency, where there are two U.S. rail companies that have
freight yards.
The person we talked to said that it was cheaper to go through
that whole process than to simply put the wood on rail cars to the
point of origin. Lumber is also shipped east directly by truck.
I do not blame this company for taking these measures to
maintain and retain its position as a viable company. However,
having said that, I have to point out the pounding of our park roads
and the pounding they are taking in my constituency.
In my constituency I have Yoho National Park and Radium Hot
Springs. They sit adjoining Banff and Jasper Parks. Highway 1
goes through there and the amount of traffic that goes across there,
plus Highway 16 through Jasper, is growing. It is absolutely
immense. The pounding that is going on on those roads is beyond
all comprehension. However, the companies are forced to take
these moves, to do these things which are really deleterious and
detrimental to the parks and to the environment of the parks
because of the ongoing legislation of the Tories and the Liberals.
This issue happens to fit hand in glove with the issue of funding
our national parks. As a critic of the heritage department, one of the
largest concerns I have is how we will continue to fund these roads
and continue to make them safe. That is an issue which is directly
related to the issue of rail and this rail act.
In the southeast corner of British Columbia, the out valley in my
constituency, coal country, there is deep concern about the proposal
to eliminate the railway statutory common carrier obligations. The
people vehemently oppose this proposal since it would practically
render competitive access provisions ineffective. It is extremely
important that legislative reform allow Canadian shippers to have
access to a truly competitive transportation environment so that our
goods can get to world markets at globally competitive prices.
Another coal company in the same area said that the threat to
competitive rail prices lies in the overtaxation taking place on rail
companies. This example could also be attributed to the forest
product company that I mentioned earlier. Canadian railways are
taxed at a rate of 53 per cent more than the U.S. and this bill does
nothing to address this serious problem.
As a Reform MP, I am dedicated to give credit for any positives
if they exist. In this case there are a few places where I can
comment on the brighter aspects of this bill. My understanding is
that one aspect of the bill, actually supported by a majority of
shippers and the Reform Party, is the ability of railways to abandon
track that is no longer economically viable. The reason for this is
that shippers hope that a more cost efficient railway will eventually
translate into benefits for them.
We could also see smaller private rail companies pick up these
abandoned tracks and operate them with low overhead and a higher
rate of return. However, there are many negatives. As mentioned,
smaller private rail companies could take over the operation of
smaller track lines. However, this could mean tracks located within
provincial boundaries would not fall under the new Canada
Transportation Act but instead be regulated under provincial
jurisdiction.
A classic example, in this case in my constituency, is where the
CP Rail track comes through the Crow's Nest Pass, passes through
Sparwood on its way to Fernie on its way to the coast. The
difficulty is that the spur line which services three mines, two of
which are not associated with CP Rail, would be at the mercy of the
following little activity.
If CP Rail said it wants to abandon this line and does so and a
subsidiary of CP Rail picks up the line, then these two companies,
which are not associated with CP Rail, would come under the direct
power of the subsidiary company of CP Rail. This would mean that
it would be able to charge the rates it wanted to and the Canada
Transportation Act would not apply. They would come under
provincial jurisdiction. There is much concern on the part of the
people in my constituency over that little sleight of hand.
(1530)
Unfortunately, many provinces have no or inadequate legislation
to deal with rail transport. This bill has made an attempt to deal
with this problem but it has been unable to rectify it. Smaller rail
lines or short lines would be of possible benefit in regard to service
and rates but there remains the fact that short lines will still have to
feed on to the main line of CP or CN Rail. These companies
therefore do not lose the traffic, just the costs of running it, over the
now abandoned or sold lines. This leaves the shipper now having to
negotiate rates with two separate companies. In the example I just
gave we can see how that could become very convoluted and
anti-competitive.
A final concern on short line operators is the possibility of main
line railways using the availability of abandonment as a threat
1256
during rate negotiations. This would leave the shipper forced to
make a deal rather than lose access to the main line.
Other concerns have been outlined for us with respect to the
increasing lack of recourse a shipper has at its disposal to obtain
relief to a transportation rate or service.
In section 27(2) a shipper is required to demonstrate that it will
suffer significant prejudice if the relief sought is not otherwise
available. There is concern first that the term ``significant
prejudice'' is not defined in the bill, nor is it a term which has been
introduced or verbalized in the previous railways legislation.
I see from my notes that in spite of the fact that shippers have
lobbied hard to have this clause deleted from the bill and the
government had recently seemed to be coming around on this
concept, it nonetheless quickly extinguished Reform's motion at
report stage which called for the deletion of section 27(2). As I said
at the outset of my speech, the difficulty we on this side of the
House have is that the words of the Liberal government very
frequently do not match the reality of what it actually follows
through on.
Further, section 34(1) of the proposed legislation enables the
agency to award damages against a shipper should it be found that
an application is frivolous or vexatious. Unfortunately, this will
leave many shippers spending a lot of time and money trying to
determine whether or not there is a valid argument.
Section 40(3) of the National Transportation Act, 1987 enables
the agency to grant an interim injunction in an appropriate case.
This provision does not appear in the bill. If this provision is not
included in the bill, and it is not, it will mean that unsatisfactory
service will remain intact until a final determination is made by the
agency.
I also note that clause 112 of the bill does not clearly define the
terms of commercially fair and reasonable. The language of this
clause should be defined as a rate which does not cause either party
to operate below cost. The reality is that the government has been
unwilling to amend or delete this clause. A motion put forward at
report stage to delete clause 112 was also shot down by the
government despite the vocal concerns expressed by the shippers.
It really makes me wonder. In this and in past debates I have
observed the Liberals consistently talking about how they would
change the system to make it fair, balanced and equitable. They
have said they would expedite the system, when clearly all they do
is turn around, give us the words and give us the very old Liberal
actions which date back to 1867.
One forest company in my riding said that it spent $6 million a
year on rail transportation. It fears because of the points I have just
raised that it will be at the mercy of the rail line which will most
likely face increased rates with the implementation of this bill.
This was the concluding paragraph in my previous speech: In
conclusion, it is important that we see substantial amendments
some of which are included in the legislation. However, because of
the intricacies and potential impact of this legislation, and the fact
that this Liberal government has yet to exhibit an ability to listen
and understand the concern of Canadians, the legislative process
for this legislation is suspect. We are hoping we are wrong, but fear
we are right. One thing Canadians can count on, as Canada's
national opposition, the Reform Party is going to become extreme
in its vigilance to see that the government really listens.
(1535)
We tried. We really did try as we try on so many issues. No
matter what the issue is, we try to make the government listen but
the government will not listen. It has an aggressive growing
arrogance. Sooner or later, Liberal members are going to be
revealed for the people they truly are.
This legislation is not only badly flawed but additionally, the
legislative process it went through was a joke.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
The recorded division is deferred until 5.30 p.m.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, an act to
amend the Canada Labour Code (nuclear undertakings) and to
make a related amendment to another act, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for the Minister of Labour, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in.
1257
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time, by leave
now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Robichaud (for Mr. Gagliano) moved that the bill be read
the third time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion
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.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thought there would be a debate at
third reading. Is that also your understanding?
The Speaker: I asked if anyone wanted to speak on debate and
no one stood up.
(1540)
Mr. Ménard: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but there has been a
misunderstanding. I thought the government majority wanted to
debate this bill, especially since we support this measure. I would
like to speak to Bill C-3 if I may, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, as I understand it and you must
understand, we have already dealt with this bill, this motion. We
are now debating Bill C-7. I believe you wanted to discuss Bill C-3.
No member rose to speak. You may seek unanimous consent. Do
you wish to do that?
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I find it
strange that the House is debating a bill at third reading and the
government does not even bother to discuss its own piece of
legislation. It was agreed that we would have one speaker from
each side. If it is too late, then it is too late. However, this is a
strange way of conducting the business of this House.
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I did hear you ask if there was a
debate, but I think that members thought that the House was ready
for the question. We said ``question''. You put the question and we
voted on it.
I am sorry. I do not want people to think that members from this
side of the House refused to discuss the bill. I believe you were
very clear. You asked if we wanted to debate the bill and no one got
up. Consequently, we voted on it.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We
had a long debate on Bill C-7 yesterday. The government spoke and
members of the opposition parties spoke. As far as I am
concerned-
Some hon. members: We are on Bill C-3.
Mr. Harvard: We are on Bill C-7, are we not, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: In answer to your question, we are to be on Bill
C-7 but we are now discussing Bill C-3.
The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve understood that
he would be speaking on Bill C-3. When I called for debate, I
looked around the House and there was no one rising. Therefore, I
put the question and it was passed. That seems to have been the
agreement of the House.
I have explained that to the hon. member who has raised some
objections. However, it has passed. I asked the hon. member if he
would like to ask the House for unanimous consent. He said no, or
at least that is what I understood. Therefore, we will proceed with
Bill C-7.
We are now on Bill C-7 and I am asking if there is any debate on
Bill C-7.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: If there is debate, we will hear it.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with a colleague.
I am pleased to discuss Bill C-7, which is the former Bill C-52.
As my colleagues pointed out on numerous occasions during the
previous debates on this legislation, the Bloc Quebecois' position
is based, as with many other bills debated in this House, on the
government's alleged transparency or, rather, on its lack of
transparency.
During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada
used its now famous red book as its book of promises.
1258
(1545)
But we know that the government has broken its promises more
than once, and I give one example that comes to mind. Most of my
Liberal colleagues campaigned on a promise of scrapping the GST,
and we know what became of that promise. The GST is still with
us, and it will still be around for the next election, where it may
become yet another promise.
As the members on this side of the House take a malicious
pleasure in quoting from the red book in order to remind the
government of its broken promises, I would like to read from it two
brief passages. The first is on page 92 and reads as follows:
In the House of Commons, a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role
in drafting legislation, through House of Commons committees. These
committees will also be given greater influence over government expenditures.
A little later, on page 95, we read:
We will take an approach of openness in decision-making.
These passages are short, but they speak volumes about the
willingness of the government to keep its election promises. And
yet, during the last election, transparency and the openness of the
decision making process to all levels was a real profession of faith
with the Liberals.
It is my contention that the government has failed, in Bill C-7
before us today, to put in place a mechanism for demonstrating the
full transparency of the government. There is no longer any doubt
that the government is making no effort to keep its promises, as can
be seen with what happened to the GST. A point by point analysis
of the bill confirms this. You can hear every note of the lullaby the
government is hoping to lull us off to sleep with.
Let us keep in mind that the government opposed the motion we
proposed on public funding of political parties. It was my hon.
colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, who proposed at the
beginning of the session that the same thing be done in Ottawa as in
Quebec City as regards public funding of political parties, so that
the Liberals would no longer be funded by business, but rather by
individuals.
To quote an expression that is very popular in Quebec, ``He who
pays the piper calls the tune''. This government, this party is
funded by major companies, banks, organizations of all kinds, to
the tune of $25,000, $30,000 or $50,000. So the ties between these
two groups are quite obvious. But it was the Liberals who
campaigned with the promise of cleaning up Canadian politics by
eliminating this rather questionable cronyism. Yet this government
has demonstrated to us, unequivocally, its intention to preserve the
privileges it holds with those who contributed to its campaign
coffers.
The best example came very recently, in the last budget, when
the Minister of Finance announced the creation of a technical
committee on business taxation, at least five members of which had
together contributed over $80,000 to the party's coffers. The entire
question of tax havens is being studied by those who are
themselves the heaviest users of them. Are we to conclude that the
government adopted a transparent approach here? Hardly.
Let us keep in mind as well the famous bill on lobbyists. It was
meant to make the relationships between them and the government
more transparent. Here again, the Liberals bowed to the lobbyists,
who managed to amend the bill aimed at controlling their own
influence. Are we to conclude that the government adopted a
transparent approach here? Hardly.
We know that the Department of Public Works and Government
Services we are dealing with here is one of the hugest and most
influential departments, controlling as it does the procurement of
federal goods and services-we are, of course, dealing in billions
here. It administers all contracts entered into by the government,
and has one of the biggest portfolios around.
It is therefore up to the government to take all necessary
measures to ensure that the money spent through this department is
spent in accordance with our laws and regulations and, if possible,
in a transparent way.
The Liberals promised members of Parliament that they would
be allowed to monitor government spending much more closely.
This is another red book promise. Well, it is in this very area that
members of Parliament should get involved.
(1550)
It would be logical, cost effective and desirable for us, the
elected members of this House, to have the right to monitor this
government's numerous expenditures, but this right is not spelled
out. The federal government should follow the example of the
Quebec National Assembly, which demonstrated how effective
such a monitoring process can be.
Unfortunately, we must recognize once again that the
government made some very nice promises that it has no intention
of keeping. Today during question period, we talked about the
appointment of census representatives. We are being asked to
provide the names of people in our ridings who could help conduct
the census but they will, of course, come after the priority lists
drawn up by the department. So much for transparency.
Also, as elected representatives of the people, we have a right to
find out about the money spent in our ridings. We have a duty to
check if the expenditures ordered in our ridings by departmental
officials are really justified. Otherwise, how can we know if they
are useful? Should we not find out if these expenditures are
legitimate? Is this not the reason why we were elected? Why should
the people elect members of Parliament if we have no say in how
taxpayers' money is spent? We might as well have only a govern-
1259
ment and get rid of the opposition, because monitoring the
government's spending powers is one of our basic duties.
It is deplorable that we as members of the official opposition
have to raise this point, when we should be granted such a basic
right without having to ask for it. As elected members of
Parliament, we are accountable to the people so long as we have a
say in public matters.
We are consulted, we are asked to vote on a considerable number
of issues, yet we are denied the means to check in the field if the
government's decisions are consistent with the recommendations
made and legislation passed by this House.
Of course, elected members have the power to question the
government on all public expenditures. But how can we carry out in
good faith our duties in this House without the means to really find
out about the activities of the federal public service? That is the
basic question.
There is another point to consider: the accountability of our
officials. As you know, the federal public service is the largest
employer in Canada. Day in day out, public officials make
decisions that have or could have financial implications. The costs
involved, as minimal as they may be individually, add up to a huge
amount.
In times when we have to put our fiscal house in order, it is
imperative that we get a grip on government expenditures. And I
will remind you that, at the very beginning, the Bloc Quebecois
asked that an ad hoc committee be established to review
government expenditures, item by item, but we never got an
answer on that.
The public administration must conduct a self-examination to
assess the expenses incurred by the various departments, including
the one at issue today, namely Public Works and Governmental
Services Canada.
As I said earlier, this department handles most of the federal
government's goods and services procurement contracts. We must
therefore make sure that it does not make any excessive or
unnecessary expenditures. Judging from the auditor general's
report, year after year, I would say that many expenditures are
questionable.
The Bloc Quebecois had suggested putting in place a system
whereby public servants could blow the whistle on squandering. If
implemented, that solution might result in significant reductions in
government spending in the short, medium and long terms. As for
the public servants who oppose that measure, they should be told
the facts. They should know that it is in their best interest to
participate in this type of exercise if they want the government to
rely more on them, instead of contracting out. It would also be in
their interest to participate, because budgets are being reduced and
departments must face cuts, because of the ever increasing deficit
and debt. This is not very reassuring in terms of their long term job
security.
As regards contracting out, over the last few years, there has
been a definite trend showing that the federal public service is
relying increasingly on that process.
(1555)
The government contracts more and more outside the public
service. If it results in savings for the government and, indirectly,
for taxpayers, and if it stimulates the private sector, so much the
better. However, we should be able to know for sure that it does not
promote patronage and the awarding of contracts to friends of the
government. This is why much greater transparency is required and
why opposition members, regardless of their allegiance, must have
much more direct access to information.
The total figure for such contracts from the Department of Public
Works and Government Services is several billion dollars every
year. Such a level of spending should be subject to clear and fair
guidelines. The stakes are too high for federal public servants,
contracting firms and Canadians.
The government will soon have to tell us what it intends to do
about the contracting out process. It had a chance to do so with Bill
C-7, but it did not. I cannot understand why the government did not
take this opportunity to innovate. Measures must be taken to avoid
the wasting of public funds. The government probably thought that
we would turn a blind eye on that bill, since it is supposedly just a
bill establishing a new Department of Public Works and
Government Services.
We see nothing in this legislation that will make the contracting
out process more transparent, and that will make us, members of
Parliament, more responsible, since we do not have the necessary
information.
With this bill, the government distances itself from its election
commitment and its red book promises. It distances itself from its
obligation to ensure maximum transparency in all its activities. We
will continue to strongly condemn that as long as we are in this
House. If the government is afraid to give greater transparency to
its actions and decisions, then it is hiding things from the public.
If the government has things to hide, then it is doing things that it
should not be doing. We have no choice but to come to that
conclusion. Some day though, we will know what is going on with
this government.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just before
we begin to discuss Bill C-7, it seems to me that there was
confusion among certain members, both in the opposition and in
government. Each had at least one speaker on Bill C-3 and it
appears that when you invited the speakers to take the floor, neither
of the two speakers heard you.
1260
We wonder what has become of Bill C-3, since we have not
voted on it, nor have we spoken to it. We are wondering, from
a procedural point of view, how you see this bill, because we never
voted on it, you never asked if we were for or against, in any case,
we said nothing. First of all, I would like your answer to this
question so that we can determine if there should not be some sort
of solution to satisfy government as well as opposition members.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
the same point of order, may I suggest that it is entirely clear that
the Speaker did call for debate. Seeing no member rising for debate
the Speaker called the question. The question was carried and the
Speaker so announced.
I am aware that my colleague on the other side of the House is
disappointed. A colleague from our side is prepared and would like
to speak on the bill. If the opposition agrees, we are quite prepared
to give consent to go back to Bill C-3 for one speaker only from
each party, provided that we proceed with and complete the
business on Bill C-7 first. Then my colleague from the other side
may put his request for unanimous consent to the House. We will
be quite pleased to give it.
(1600 )
The Speaker: We have a situation where I need unanimous
consent. I want everybody to know what is going on. We are now
debating Bill C-7. But for one second I am going to put that to one
side.
I have also a point of order. I am going put it aside until I know
what I am doing.
I have been asked by the whip of the Bloc Quebecois to return to
Bill C-3, notwithstanding that the bill has been passed, so that one
of their members can put his speech on the record.
At this point we have had an intervention by a member of the
Liberal Party saying, yes, that party is prepared at some time,
which I will clarify in just a minute, to go back to Bill C-3 for one
speaker from each party. That is where we are right now.
I have not heard at this point from our colleagues from the
Reform Party. I presume they are in agreement. Is that correct?
Mr. Stinson: The bill has already been passed, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: All we are asking is for unanimous consent to
have one speaker from each party, if each party so desires, to go on
the record with a speech. Do members understand what is in front
of us?
Ms. Catterall: Yes.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to allow, at a future
time which I will describe in just a minute, for one speaker from
each party to make one speech on Bill C-3? Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I indicated quite clearly that my
party would give consent following the passage of Bill C-7. I would
ask my hon. colleague opposite to withdraw his request for consent
until we have completed consideration of Bill C-7 in order to not
further confuse the business of the House.
The Speaker: It was not my intention to intervene immediately.
It was my intention to finish up with Bill C-7. That is what we are
doing. Then at the end of Bill C-7, I will invite the hon. whip of the
Bloc Quebecois to put his motion for unanimous consent, as I have
described it here. That is what we are going to do.
Right now we have a deal. I know you will go with the deal after.
But right now I am staying on Bill C-7. That is where we are. Bill
C-3 is going to come after Bill C-7. All right, we all understand the
rules.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In the misunderstanding that arose over Bill C-3, you must, at
some point, have asked the Bloc Quebecois, through our speaker
just a moment ago, the hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, to speak to Bill C-7, when normally,
if procedure had been followed with Bill C-3, I would have had the
floor for 20 minutes.
Given the situation, will you allow me to speak for 20 minutes
on Bill C-7?
The Speaker: Yes. That is understood. And the hon. member
who preceded you was also entitled to 20 minutes. So you have 20
minutes. You have the floor.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-7, which is a resurrection of Bill C-52, an
act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government
Services and to amend and repeal certain acts.
The purpose of this bill is to join the former Department of
Public Works and the Government Telecommunications Agency.
(1605)
This bill could have done a lot more, however, for the people we
represent, especially as regards the transparency the government is
supposed to display before its electors. I see no transparency in the
bill before us, on the contrary.
1261
Since its election, the Bloc has been asking the government to be
totally transparent in connection with its expenditures. The
Department of Public Works and Government Services is the
department where the federal government should be cleaning
house from top to bottom. It is a shame this bill does not improve
transparency or access to information. Yet this is what the
government promised in the red book, but, as we know, the
promises in the red book fade.
I would first like to raise the matter of the awarding of federal
contracts. At the moment, anyone outside the government or the
public service trying to submit a bid must deal with a very
cumbersome system. The department has set up a series of
impressive obstacles to confound those trying to understand how
contracts are awarded under the federal system.
There are in fact innumerable contractors who are looking for
contracts from the department and who initially fail to discover and
subsequently fail to understand all the intricacies of the
government structure. I should have kept track of the number of
constituents who complained either to me or to my staff about this,
since the elections in 1993. Things are so complicated, the federal
government itself paid agencies in order to understand how this
administrative approach works.
Here is an example that I personally consider a good one. Last
year, the centre d'incubation technologique d'entreprise-Cité
2001-in the Outaouais region trained some 40 business
executives to enable them to find their way round the chaos of
federal contracts. The centre had noted that only 1 to 5 per cent of
federal contracts awarded in the region, totalling some $2 billion,
had been awarded to Quebec contractors. Not a very high
percentage.
So, Cité 2001 studied the computerized federal bidding system
for these 40 businesses. The results were decisive, and a number of
these firms now do business with the government. However, we
have to ask ourselves why these people did not bid previously. Why
were they not doing business with the federal government? Were
things too complicated, was there too much paperwork or were bids
made and then dropped because the criteria were too difficult to
target?
So a publicly funded pilot project was needed in order to look at
the system and understand how it works so people could deal with
the federal government. If ridicule could kill, I know a lot of people
who would be out of it.
Not all regions were as fortunate as the Outaouais. On the other
hand, the Outaouais is not fortunate enough to be represented by
members of the Bloc Quebecois. So much for that. In regions some
call remote, just imagine the hard time our businesses have in
dealing with the federal government. Of course they complain to
their MPs about the process, eligibility criteria, or the awarding of
contracts they consider unfair. This is the case in my riding.
(1610)
As for transparency, in 1994, my colleague from Richelieu
wanted the federal government to pass a law similar to that of
Quebec concerning political party funding. Of course, the Liberals
refused to go along with this.
Even though it was rejected by the House, the Bloc Quebecois
adopted these measures for its own funding. Yet, voters expect
elected representatives to serve the common interest, not those of
some privileged few. This bill would deny businesses the right to
finance political parties.
Voters who give political parties $5, $20 or $40 know very well
they can expect nothing in return. But no one can convince me that
a business is giving the party $50,000 just because it likes the MP's
looks. How can a $3,000 a plate dinner bring together people who
expect nothing in return? What goes up must come down.
This political practice hides many dangers. One of them
certainly is that friends of the government may be made aware in
advance of contracts to be awarded by the Department of Public
Works. The same logic applies to lobbyists. Lobbyists have much
influence on the government because the companies or interests
they represent are more often than not committed to a political
party and, therefore, the government owes them something.
Nothing in this bill would add to the openness of the contract
awarding system. I hope the new minister will not follow in the
footsteps of her predecessor as regards information given to
members.
The Bloc Quebecois believes it is very important to encourage
accountability of members, to keep them informed and to consult
them regarding the awarding of departmental contracts in their
ridings. Indeed, whatever their political affiliation, members are
elected to represent their ridings in Parliament.
MPs, or at least we members of the Bloc Quebecois, know
perfectly well that our responsibilities are not limited to legislative
considerations. We have to study the country's affairs. We have to
vote on a considerable number of things, but when it is time to
check what is going on in our ridings to see if decisions made by
the government comply with what was voted in the House, of
course we are denied this right.
A number of my colleagues have already mentioned the fact,
because I am not the only one concerned with matters of openness,
as you very well know. I want to quote again part of the letter the
previous Minister of Supply and Services sent me when I requested
a detailed list of all contracts over $100,000 awarded in my riding
since October 1993.
The minister replied that his department could not produce
statistical data on contracts broken down by riding and that no
document could provide the information I wanted. Finally, the
minister said that, in order to answer my questions, he would have
1262
to make thorough searches in various sectors of his department and
that, by and large, this would entail an excessive workload for his
department's employees.
Is this not the admission that this department's files are an
incredible mess? It is also an obvious lack of collaboration and
openness. The government could put in place a public monitoring
body whose mandate would be to scrutinize contracts and thus
ensure transparency.
Such a body would be asked to list, on a monthly basis, all
government contracts, in a simple, accessible and easy to
understand manner. These lists would always be available. This is a
step a government serious about transparency would take.
(1615)
As an elected representative, it is my duty to know what the
federal government is doing. How can an MP do his job seriously
and earnestly in the House if he is denied the means he needs to
check if the decisions made here reflect what is going on in the
field. Believe me, sometimes, a lot is going on in our ridings.
Giving members on all sides this kind of tool would restore the
credibility of the political world, a world which has an urgent need
to regain some prestige these days. This would provide people with
a new instrument. At long last, the federal government would
become accessible to all. I do not know if members opposite work
this way, but for my part, when I think that something could be
good for them, I tell them as soon as possible.
It is desirable, on both sides of this House, I am sure, for people
to have confidence in their elected representatives. Accordingly,
the government should make sure such confidence is truly
deserved.
I find it deplorable that we, the members of the official
opposition, have to intervene on such a fundamental issue. Our
position is clear, and I believe it to be extremely important, since it
shows the concern we have, and must have as elected
representatives, with regard to controlling public expenditures,
useless public expenditures which have such an impact on the
government's economic health.
We should never forget that we have an inheritance to pass on to
our children. It must be worthwhile. It is not by throwing money
out of the window, by wasting public funds that we will deal with
the problem. In a way, we must, all of us, become auditors of
government spending. We must do all we can to stop the
haemorrhage that now characterizes this spending. I really do not
understand why the government will not innovate. I also fail to
understand why it will not seize the opportunity this bill provides
and finally practice transparency.
One of the principles we should all consider is the possibility of
public servants blowing the whistle on the squandering of public
funds. They know about most of the goods and services acquisition
contracts. There is often some waste, it can go unnoticed.
Therefore, we must implement a mechanism whereby public
servants would have the right to blow the whistle on the
squandering of public funds and whereby that right would be
recognized and valued. Government expenditures are, for a good
part, generated by public servants and that is quite normal given
their role within the public service. However, the government
machinery is not perfect. The annual report of the auditor general
makes very disturbing revelations in that area.
Public servants know very well that decisions are made but that
they may be questionable. Let me give you a small example. This is
something a public servant told me last week. The Canada Post
Corporation launched a complete restructuring of post offices in
my riding. They centralized all of their operations in one building.
The old post office building will be disposed of. In addition to post
office employees, there were also human resources development
employees working in that building and they too will be relocated
in a few weeks. Last week all the interior doors of the offices of that
building were replaced. Where is the logic? The civil servant who
mentioned it to me was shocked by that, and he was right. Why is
the federal government doing such things? Because this civil
servant fears reprisals, he does not intend to go any further in his
whistle blowing.
(1620)
This is a very simple example, a very small one. One can easily
imagine that there are many more cases of the same nature.
We can also question all the moves that are planned in various
Quebec ridings by the Department of Human Resources
Development. The minister responsible announced the closing of
employment centres in several ridings. What will such moves cost?
In my riding, there will be a refitting of the building where these
civil servants will be housed. Are we saving money? Are we
consulting the people involved in order to get the best prices? Of
course not. Everything is done on the sly. Even managers, those
who are supposed to make decisions, very often do not know what
is going on: guidelines come from higher up.
Civil servants also deplore another situation, and that is
contracting out. In 1992-93, Treasury Board valued at $5.2 billion
service contracts awarded outside the federal government. In my
opinion this is enormous.
The Bloc Quebecois would have liked the department, in its Bill
C-7, to establish provisions forcing the government to regulate
contracting out in a proper way. Public servants would agree with
such a code. It would guarantee that when the government
contracts out it does so only after having exhausted all its
resources.
1263
How can you ask a company to put all its people to work on
a project when public servants are being fired or shunted into a
siding? It makes no sense.
The government must therefore put in place a mechanism to
respond to the people's expectations in terms of contracting out. In
the present context, government employees and their unions
certainly see contracting out as the evil thing to kill. If employees
see contracting like this, it is because it is done any which way. The
government must therefore clearly set out its policies concerning
contracting out and how it uses it.
If such a mechanism is put in place, I am convinced public
servants will no longer see contracting out as another way of
stealing their jobs. Contracting out is necessary, but I repeat, it
must be used advisedly.
Since you are signalling me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, I
will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois, during the study
in committee, made some proposals that were worthy of
consideration. Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois is concerned with
transparency. The government should take in consideration what
the official opposition put to it. It would feel that much better for it.
Access to information is crucial to the public, businesses in
general and elected representatives. It would be a proof of good
faith if the government were to accept putting these principles in its
bill, but it refuses to listen. I am forced to believe that it is satisfied
with the system. It had condemned it when the Conservatives were
in power, but now that it is in control, it is going overboard.
I truly hope that the people will remember that the government is
refusing to give them information about its spending. I also hope
the people will remember that it voted for a legislation that put it in
competition with their businesses.
Like the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, I do not trust this bill. It does
not respect the most fundamental principles of democracy. It does
not respect the moral values that must be part of each and every one
of us. Worse still, this bill gives more power to a minister who
already had too much.
Since I was elected to defend the interests of the people I
represent, I cannot accept that they be tricked by supporting a bill
such as this one. I will vote against the bill, and I invite my
colleagues to do the same.
(1625)
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, because of a misunderstanding I spoke before my
turn, but my colleague pointed out the difficulty companies, in
Quebec in particular, but I suppose it is the same in Canada, have in
negotiating with this department. This department has even to
some extent paid people so it could understand what it was doing.
The question is often raised in my riding as well: Why is it that it
was so difficult to deal with this department? We note, and perhaps
this is part of the answer, in the case of the task force on taxation
that was established, that the people who will be paid to study the
impact of tax havens are in the first place the main users of those
tax havens and major contributors to the Liberal Party.
In fact I think the difficulty in gaining access to this department
has something to do with whether or not one contributes to the
campaign fund. My colleague also pointed out that we-I think it
was the member for Richelieu-had already introduced a bill a few
years ago relating to party funding by the people. The Parti
Quebecois for example is funded under this formula, in other words
companies cannot make political donations, and the amounts
individuals can give are limited to a maximum and the names of all
people who contributed are made public.
We know that the Bloc Quebecois is doing exactly the same
thing. Even if the law allowed us to do otherwise, we voluntarily
agreed to restrict our fund-raising to the private sector, to avoid
business contributions, and to solicit relatively small amounts.
I know that, like myself, my colleague is currently raising funds.
We know what this means. It means that, night after night, we go
door to door to solicit donations of $10, $15, $20 or $100 if we are
lucky from the 200,000 members of the Parti Quebecois or the
100,000 members of the Bloc Quebecois until we reach the goals
we have set for ourselves.
In this context, I would like to ask my colleague who knows
about such things whether he feels like me that this fund-raising
formula for political parties, which was never adopted and against
which the Liberals voted-even those from Quebec who are
familiar with the impact of this legislation in that
province-increases transparency and allows people to buy their
own freedom to a certain extent by helping fund political parties in
this way.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member first raised the issue
of businesses which, through public works, should normally be
able to bid and participate. As we can see, Bill C-7, clause 16 in
particular, creates all sorts of difficulties for businesses wishing to
deal with the federal government. Remember that this department
handles more than $10 billion a year in supplies, services,
equipment, and so forth for the federal government.
No doubt small businesses, whether they are architect or
engineering consultant firms, have a very hard time doing business
with the government. But if you look elsewhere, you realize that
some businesses having many more employees, larger companies,
through lobbyists and employees they pay just to gain access to
government, go all out to negotiate contracts involving large sums
of money and contribute, through lobbyists, to party election funds.
Eventually, the party's coffers are well filled, so members of this
governement do not have to beg for $2 here or $5 there to fund their
activities.
1264
My mother used to say: ``They were born with a silver spoon''.
(1630)
The Bloc Quebecois gave itself a transparent way of getting
funds, which allows people to contribute minimal donations. Our
money comes from the grassroots. As donations must come from
individuals and not businesses, companies cannot interfere in the
contracting process. The same situation does not apply to
companies contributing to the Liberal or Conservative election
funds, because these companies expect their favour to be returned
some day. For Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, this is where their
money goes down the drain.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to comment on my hon.
colleague's remarks. I rise instead on a matter of procedure. Shall I
wait that my hon. colleague's time be expired?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would prefer that the
questions and comments period be over before we go on to
something else. We will come back immediately after to the
question you want to raise.
Any other questions or comments? Then I recognize the hon.
member for Joliette.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, since we have yet another member
slated to speak to Bill C-7, I would like to know whether it will be
possible for us later on, for the time remaining, to organize things
in such a way that we can share our time, as was asked by the other
member, with unanimous consent. Would it be possible to do that
again?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before reverting to the
question about unanimous consent on Bill C-3 agreed on earlier
today, I will nonetheless ask the House whether there are other
members wishing to speak to Bill C-7.
The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has the
floor.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-7 seeks to establish the Department of Public
Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain
acts. Why was this department set up? It is probably in order to
improve its services, increase its efficiency and allow it to operate
in the most appropriate way in the future.
However, this piece of legislation does not contain any change to
deal with the very blatant flaws currently found in the system. As a
new member of the committee on government operations, I was
able to how centralized the procurement operation of the federal
government.
Granted, they are trying to find ways to ensure that procurement
is made at the lowest cost. They are also trying to ensure some
openness in the procurement process. However, they forgot a very
important concern: is that process to the benefit of Quebec, of
Canada and of the various regions of this country and does it allow
for development of those regions on a fair basis?
In committee, I was told, for example, that the figures on the
actual breakdown of government procurements between the
various provinces were not available.
This to me is a major flaw because, while they put forward a
reform of the unemployment insurance system, while they say they
will try to find ways of helping the regions hardest hit by the
reform, regions with seasonal economies or with an economy
dependent on natural resources, they cannot put forward real
measures devised to give new impetus to these regions in
diversifying their economy. One of the more concrete ways to do so
would be for the government to ensure that its procurement
program has some impact throughout the country and that it can
efficiently assess this impact.
(1635)
During the 1970s, the federal government opened a number of
offices, for instance to process tax returns and other similar
information, which had some kind of synergic effect in some areas,
but we do not see that anymore and we cannot even get this kind of
information nowadays.
Another element which we think is being somewhat overlooked
in this bill is the fact that federal members of Parliament from all
political stripes should be consulted and kept informed of any
government contract awarded in the federal ridings they represent.
Right now, there is no systematic information mechanism to
ensure that the public is made more aware of what is going on. One
criticism that we can make-and I have seen this in my riding in
the last few months-is the following: what process do small
businesses have to follow to be eligible to join the bidding process
and to be included in the computerized contractors system. It is
very complicated and very hard to gain access to this network but
even tougher to reach the insiders, those who know how the
procurement system really works. Let me give you a very concrete
example by telling you about an experience a company in my
riding went through.
There was a call for tenders for the building of fibre glass
shelters. Upon seeing the ad in the newspapers, a company in my
riding decided, all in good faith, to request all the information it
needed. After reading the documentation-and I have seen all of
it-it dawned on us that it was impossible to develop a proposal
based on the information made available to companies.
To make things worse, the company called to get additional
information but could not get any. That came about because the
project was developed with a particular company in mind, and even
though the government called for tenders, it was in fact already a
done deal. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to compete
1265
because the companies are not even provided with all the
information they need.
So, with this bill, the government would have had a great
opportunity to act on this issue and on the creation of the
department, and to provide for transparency and get rid of the old
myth that government procurement is always based on patronage
and also to deal with the whole issue of administrative contracts.
There is still a lot of room for improvement. The government could
have done a lot more to better target its action.
They could also have tried to make public servants more aware
of the money they were spending. We are often told, these days,
that calls for tenders are done correctly and in such a way that
anyone can bid on them, but the government never tried to have a
real impact on the development of small or medium size businesses
in our regions. What would be more meaningful in an area with
high unemployment than to inform businesses in that area and to
have federal civil servants going on a tour of these businesses to
make sure that they can take part in the procurement system, have
the chance to know exactly how it works and submit proposals,
answer calls for bids and get contracts?
We have seen this as members of Parliament for the last two
years and a half. The system is often made in such a way that
people with a lot of potential and capabilities and who are already
part of the system get the information they need and are
encouraged to perform even better. But our responsibility in
government is not only to make sure the strong and the rich get
what they need, but also to see to it that new types of small and
medium size businesses can take off, develop as well as create and
maintain jobs. The federal government has still a lot to do in that
regard. I think some progress was made in recent years to make
tendering more available. There remains much to do but I can see
no will to do it in the bill before us.
(1640)
The Bloc Quebecois' approach is based on government
transparency and that of its administration. Currently, anyone
trying to deal with the government or the public service is
confronted with a colossal maze preventing them from getting
more information.
If the example I gave earlier was an isolated case, we could say
that it is an exceptional case, but there are also others. In my riding,
well known businesses, medium size and large ones that have been
operating for many years are having a lot of difficulty finding their
way around in the government procurement process, and I believe
that there is work to be done in this regard.
There is an element which, of course, cannot be solved by the
bill on the public works department, but which is always present in
these situations. It is the question of the political party fundraising.
As you know, Quebec has a law which provides that only
individuals can make donations to a political party. No bank, no
union, no community association, no foundation can make
donations and claim a deduction.
In the federal government, things are different. Businesses,
unions, community groups, everybody can make donations to a
political party. This does not necessarily mean that businesses are
dishonest, but it can give rise to conflicts of interest. I believe that
if we change the law governing contributions to political parties
along those lines, there would be more openness and transparency
in the awarding of contracts, and I believe that would be much
more appropriate.
Another element the Bloc Quebecois considers as important is
the establishment of a code for contracting out that would force the
government to adequately monitor the use of outside contractors
and to make the process transparent. The monitoring process
should be acceptable for all the parties involved in this important
question. The contracting out process is a current issue and it is a
dynamic process which can be very profitable. On the other hand,
as public organizations, we must ensure that we do this with
enough visibility, allowing people to see that their money is spent
properly.
I would like to come back on the consultations, on the
information required by the contracting out process and on the role
MPs must play. A federal member of Parliament, regardless of his
or her political affiliation, is someone who has been elected and
who is responsible for representing his riding as far as legislative
issues are concerned. But he has more than legislative
responsibilities. Administrative decisions have impacts which are
very real, and one of them has to do with public procurement.
There are public expenditures of this kind.
The elected representative has the power to question government
on all its expenditures. However, can we do that job properly if we
do not have the necessary tools to really know what the federal
public administration is doing in our riding? That kind of
information would be very useful and could even help in the
elaboration of economic development strategies for a given region.
An area that does not benefit from a lot of government investments
could think of attracting some or decide to continue looking for
other kinds of investments. If it does not benefit from that kind of
investments, it could try to find out why not.
(1645)
How could we do things otherwise? Could we have federal civil
servants give business owners up-to-date information? There could
be another reason. Perhaps some ridings do not get many federal
contracts, not only because the necessary information is not
1266
available, but because they do not try hard enough to get it. There is
an interesting economic potential that could be developed at a very
low cost.
The government is constantly seeking ways to create jobs. Well,
one of the ways to do it would be to make sure that its purchasing is
done fairly and appropriately in all areas of the country. So there
has to be a process where everyone has a chance to compete and to
be awarded a contract.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, would also like to have a mechanism
for blowing the whistle on any waste of public funds. It is not a
matter of hitting people over the head. Perhaps we should follow
the example of municipal governments. If you talk to a councillor
or a mayor in a small municipality, you can be sure that, when
money is spent on things that are not really necessary, they know it
quickly because people see those things in their daily life; they see
the work done at the street corner, they see everything. That is
probably why municipal governments follow what goes on very
closely.
At the federal level, governments may not have been as vigilant
as they should have in the past, as is shown by our deficit. We can
easily imagine the kind of unnecessary expenditures that are made
regularly. In the fight against the deficit, if we did things right, if
we followed the situation more closely, we could put less pressure
on social programs and stop chasing unemployment insurance
recipients. Instead of that, we could try to find the major elements
that we have to work on in order to save money.
So there could be significant cuts in government spending. I
think that it could imply greater accountability for public service
employees. The area of government procurement may be a priority
area where, in creating the department, the government could have
clearly shown its desire to improve the situation in this regard.
However, we do not find these elements in the bill as it stands.
There is another issue of interest to us, and it is the issue of
advance payments by the government. This practice is used by
public service employees and managers. These people are afraid of
having their annual budget cut if they do not use all the resources
allocated to them. In other words, when the end of the fiscal year is
near, suddenly the money has to be spent to be sure that next year's
budget will not be cut. We all have heard about that, we all have
seen it in the departments. I think the government should have done
something to provide for better control in this area.
Finally, the Department of Public Works is responsible for
processing requisitions from other departments. Maybe there is a
period during the year where the department should be particularly
vigilant to see if these purchases are really necessary. Do they
really need these things? Is it not at the beginning of the year that it
is finally realized that the full amount budgeted is not really
needed? The unnecessary purchases and horror stories we hear,
which often take place at year's end, would be avoided.
The Department of Public Works must therefore be a credible
watchdog over advance payments by departments. This department
spends over 50 per cent of government commitments. In each
department, the amount that can be authorized is minimal and
responsibility rests with the department of public works. This is
therefore very important because we are reviewing the act
governing this department.
It is therefore very important to be sure, at this stage, that the bill
contains all the means necessary to carry government purchasing
into the 21st century, allows a sufficient degree of transparency
and, above all, ensures that government spending benefits regional
development.
(1650)
For these reasons, I think that the government will have to
review its bill and see whether amendments are not required.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the division on the question now before the House stands
deferred until 5.30 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is
as follows: The hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup- unemployment insurance
reform.
1267
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Pursuant to discussions earlier today, of
which I am sure you are aware, I think you would find unanimous
consent that the House return to Bill C-3 only for the purpose of
allowing one speaker from each party on the bill.
This is on the understanding that the vote has already been taken
on the bill. It has been approved by the House on the understanding
as well that there will be no questions and comments and that the
remaining time between now and 5.30 p.m. will be divided equally
between the three parties for purposes of speaking. Should the
debate conclude before 5.30 p.m. we would agree to call it 5.30
p.m. and proceed with the sounding of the bells for the vote at 5.30.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we agree with everything suggested
by the government deputy whip, except for the allocation of time.
There has been consultation on this matter. Considering the time
needed by the three speakers, I believe you will find there is
consent to give ten minutes to the speaker from the government
side, five minutes to the speaker from the Reform Party and the rest
to the speaker from the Bloc Quebecois, for a total of 15 minutes.
The speaker from the government side told us that he would
probably need only ten minutes and the speaker of the Reform
Party said that five minutes will be enough. The rest of the time
could be allocated to the Bloc Quebecois and if the debate ends
before 5.30 p.m., we are ready to accept that the division take place
at that time and that the debate cease at the same time. In other
words, we will be ready to say that it is 5.30 p.m.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we agree to those terms.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The terms are clearly set out
in requesting unanimous consent. The question has been put. Bill
C-3 has been adopted. We are going back to simply put things on
the record.
I will try to follow this as closely as possible with all of you. I
would hope the member participating on behalf of the government
would take approximately 10 minutes during his intervention, that
the member for the Reform Party would take approximately 5
minutes, and that the remaining time would go to the member from
the Bloc Quebecois. If it should all end before 5.30 p.m., I would
see it as being 5.30 p.m.
(1655)
In essence, I will follow that rotation. To facilitate the debate, I
will go to the government, to the Reform Party and conclude with
the member from the official opposition. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this took a little while in arriving. We
had a little juggling to do in the exchange of some different points
of view. Finally we have agreed to end the day before 5.30 p.m.,
closing the debate on Bill C-3.
My remarks will be short. During the debate on Bill C-3 one
aspect all hon. members will agree on is the desirability to
administer labour law in Canada as efficiently as possible.
The government is committed to providing Canadian employers
and workers with a stable environment in which to conduct labour
relations. These goals are in essence the reason we have the
legislation before us today.
Flexible federalism allows us to smooth out the rough edges
where administrative difficulties arise. Ontario Hydro is a publicly
held corporation constituted under the Ontario Power Corporations
Act. It is the division of the enterprise responsible for the
construction and operation of nuclear facilities in the province.
Currently this division includes Darlington, Pickering and Bruce
generating stations and a number of other facilities.
[Translation]
This division groups together the three main power stations of
Darlington, Pickering and Bruce and a number of other facilities.
Before the Supreme Court ruling in 1993, it had always been
believed that the employees of Hydro Ontario nuclear power
stations were governed by provincial labour standards.
[English]
Before the 1993 Supreme Court decision it was always believed
that employees of nuclear facilities of Ontario Hydro were subject
to provincial labour laws. This was not the case. Consequently the
province and employees of the nuclear facilities found themselves
in a complicated situation.
In effect 42 per cent of Ontario employees are subject to federal
labour law while the remainder are subject to the labour laws of
Ontario. As members of the House we are in a position today to
enable both federal and provincial governments to untangle and to
dispense with this dilemma.
1268
At the same time it is certainly reasonable for hon. members
to want a clear understanding of the effects these amendments will
have. In 1993 the Supreme Court found that part I of the Canada
Labour Code which governs industrial relations is applicable to
employees of Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities.
As a result of the decision it became clear that parts II and III of
the Code and the Non-Smokers' Health Act also applied to these
workers. Part II of the Code addressed occupational safety and
health and Part III deals with labour standards, hours of work and
such like.
The Supreme Court decision created a complicated and
exceptional situation as employees, the company and unions must
conform to two comparable but slightly different labour relation
regimes. For example, Ontario Hydro and the unions must deal
with two conciliation processes during the negotiation of collective
agreements. In addition, they must conform with slightly different
occupational safety and health regulations which provide
essentially the same protection for workers. The provisions of the
bill demonstrate the government's commitment to provide the
parties with a stable labour relations environment.
(1700)
Here is how the bill eliminates the problem of a split jurisdiction
at Ontario Hydro. First, the company is exempted from having to
comply with the Canada Labour Code. At the same time, the
company is made subject to provincial labour laws which are
incorporated by reference through federal regulation.
The mechanism may be triggered by passing regulations dealing
with industrial relations, including ad hoc or emergency
legislation, occupational health and safety matters, labour
standards or workplace smoking rules and regulations. Once the
regulations are in place, provincial laws can be applied to nuclear
facilities.
In the case of collective bargaining, any bargaining agent that
was recognized under part I of the Canada Labour Code would
remain the bargaining agent under the provisions of the bill. This
was a question that we were asked by the power workers of
Ontario: would we guarantee that this would be the case? We said
we could guarantee that it would be the case during the transition
period and during the life of the agreement. That is all we can do. In
fact, that is all anybody can do. It ensures successor rights to the
bargaining agent and it prohibits other unions or associations from
applying to represent that bargaining unit outside of regular
procedures.
As I said, any collective agreement concluded under part I of the
Canada Labour Code will continue in force until the life of the
contract expires. That ensures that the rights, the privileges and the
duties of both parties to the collective agreement remain intact. The
solution is clear and it makes sense.
It is the desire of the government and the Government of Ontario
to have all provincial labour laws apply to the province's nuclear
facilities. Both governments agree that from a practical standpoint
it is logical to have all legislation related to labour law at Ontario
Hydro under one roof.
Since early 1994 both levels of government have been
examining various ways of accomplishing this. Much discussion
led to the development of Bill C-3.
However, the story does not end here. Nuclear generating
stations in the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec were also
affected by the Supreme Court decision. The Point Lepreau
generating station in New Brunswick and Quebec's Gentilly 2
appear to be in a legislative void for the purposes of labour law.
After crown immunity is lifted, the provisions of Bill C-3 can be
applied to these nuclear facilities, thus eliminating the legislative
void and providing a mechanism whereby provincial labour law
may apply.
In addition, the mechanism may be applied to uranium mines in
Saskatchewan which are also regulated by the Atomic Energy
Control Act. The province of Saskatchewan has for many years
been delivering its occupational safety and health programs to
uranium mines in Saskatchewan. Strictly speaking, these mines are
subject to the Canada Labour Code. There is no formal agreement
between the two levels of government concerning the situation and
the federal government would like to formalize the arrangement.
The way to do that would be to follow a similar route to that
which is being done with Ontario Hydro, namely: to exempt these
mines from application to part II of the Canada Labour Code; to
incorporate Saskatchewan occupational safety and health laws into
federal regulations; and to contract with the province of
Saskatchewan to deliver its programs to these mines. There is a
mechanism in part II of the code which could be used to achieve
this, but only with respect to the occupational health and safety
laws.
(1705 )
I want to stress that the passage of this bill will have no effect on
the mandate of the Atomic Energy Control Board. The board has
sole authority to ensure that the use of nuclear energy in Canada
poses no undue risk to health, safety, security or to the
environment.
For these reasons I ask all here today to support the bill. I know
they will.
Before I sit down, I would like to thank all those who took part in
the process. I thank members of the Bloc and the Reform Party who
worked on the bill in the subcommittee. I thank the chairman of the
subcommittee and other members, the clerk and the people from
the department and the witnesses who appeared before us.
1269
This bill simplifies the process. There is no need to have two
or three jurisdictions looking after basically the same legislation.
I thank all those who were so co-operative in helping me get
passage of this bill.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure if we are making parliamentary history today. It is the first
time that we have debated a bill that has already passed through the
House. Certainly, in my former life as a farmer I became
accustomed to this sort of thing on occasion. Many times I closed
the gate after the calves got out.
I am speaking to Bill C-3. Of course, this is precipitated by the
fact that the Supreme Court in 1993 rendered a decision on labour
relations in Canada that threw the atomic workers into a state of
flux.
At Ontario Hydro, for instance, 42 per cent of the workers were
under federal jurisdiction while the remaining 58 per cent were
subject to the Ontario labour code. Workers in Quebec and New
Brunswick were caught in a very similar bind. Needless to say, the
situation led to more and more confusion and duplication, all of
which was unnecessary and not conducive to good working
relationships.
The importance of nuclear safety cannot be stressed enough.
Indeed, it was a concern expressed by the Supreme Court and it is a
concern to everyone who works at the nuclear facilities, to their
families and all Canadians. A stable work environment will help to
alleviate the uncertainty caused by this split jurisdiction.
The Reform Party does not oppose this bill. I would encourage
the minister not to wait for future court rulings, but to move
forward with the devolution of federal control in labour matters,
devolving them to the provinces.
Part I of the labour code is currently under review and it would
be an appropriate starting point for the minister, who I know is
anxious to do away with duplication of service. The government is
strapped with a $580 billion debt. I know the minister will do what
is necessary to eliminate all duplication and overlap in order to
downsize, and do his part to get the debt under control.
The minister will find that the workers, management and the
people in my party would be most supportive of the direction taken
by him.
I believe that labour and management have a common goal in
maintaining a productive workplace and we as legislators should
do all we can to advance that goal. We can facilitate this by
relinquishing control over the bureaucratic regulations that stand in
the way of sound labour relations. Bill C-3 is a step in the proper
direction.
(1710 )
I encourage the minister to immediately convene negotiations
with those provinces whose nuclear workers are caught in this
legislative vacuum and allow these employees to be brought under
provincial governance as soon as possible. I believe the
government owes the nuclear workers of Canada that much.
When we were talking about the division of time I suggested that
I would be very brief and I am going to be true to my word. I
believe that one should be frugal with one's words as well as one's
mind.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member for
his co-operation.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as you know, today has been a very eventful day. So I
would like to thank our collaborators behind the scenes, especially
Sylvain Gauthier, who kept his cool under pressure.
As the parliamentary secretary knows, we support Bill C-3. It
might be useful to remind those listeners who have just tuned in
that the purpose of Bill C-3 is to devolve responsibility for labour
relations to the provinces that will ask for it through regulatory
negotiations. I think we should also remind them that bills such as
this one are related to the Canada Labour Code, an area from which
the federal government is willing to withdraw.
This bill results from a ruling made by the highest court in the
land, the Supreme Court. In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled in
response to an appeal filed by the union that part I of the Canada
Labour Code governing labour relations applies to the employees
of nuclear plants, including Ontario Hydro.
It is important to keep this in mind because Parliament has a duty
to adjust to court rulings. Through this bill, Parliament is
correcting a situation that would have been extremely harmful as it
would have created a legal vacuum. The parliamentary secretary
referred to it in the case of New Brunswick and Quebec. This
situation would have put us in an uncomfortable situation that no
one wants by allowing two different labour systems to coexist.
We must remember that it makes a lot of sense to ask the
provinces to define, frame and apply provincial legislation in this
area, as the Ontario government has done for 50 years in the area of
nuclear energy, for example. So we must commend what the
federal government has done by trying to maintain the status quo.
We must acknowledge that Bill C-3 concerns not exclusively but
mainly Ontario. I would like to remind you that, of the 10,000
nuclear workers across the country, there are 6,000 to 8,000 in
Ontario, 700 in Quebec, about 500 in New Brunswick and 500 in
Saskatchewan's uranium mines.
1270
The situation was particularly worrying for Ontario. That it why
they followed the work of the parliamentary committee very
closely. Both parties were heard, since the nuclear industry
accounts for 60 per cent of electricity generation in Ontario.
I am not saying that we did not try to introduce amendments to
Bill C-3. Although we agree with the principle of devolving
responsibility for this area-and we hope that this will extend to
other areas and that the Minister of Labour can influence the
minister responsible for intergovernmental relations and other
ministers in this cabinet to transfer certain areas of
jurisdiction-this bill nonetheless does not meet with unanimous
approval.
It does not meet with unanimous approval first of all because
Ontario Hydro union members are not too crazy about being
subject to provincial labour legislation in light of the Harris
government's shift to the right.
(1715)
Even so, we, in the official opposition, did not succumb to the
temptation of seeing things the same way as workers who did not
have an overall view. The government took the overall view of
withdrawing from the area of labour relations in the nuclear
industry because the provinces, and Ontario, New Brunswick and
Quebec in particular, had respectively 15, 30 and 40 years
experience in that area.
I am thrilled at the thought of being able to rely on the support of
the Minister of Human Resources Development, whose global
outlook on things make him take an interest in matters as diverse as
unemployment and energy, which in his mind are both explosive
issues.
That said, let me remind you that we suggested amendments that
the government rejected, with a rare elegance mind you, but
rejected nonetheless. I owe to the truthfulness of our deliberations
to remind you that the Quebec government had contacted the hon.
member for Saint-Léonard and Minister of Labour, requesting that
the applicable Quebec legislation be referred to specifically in his
bill.
It must be understood that, while we agree in principle with the
bill, we would rather this not be done through regulations but
through references in the act instead. I understand the minister for
giving in to his officials, explaining that he was not comfortable
with the idea of yielding to Quebec's demands, because of the risk
of creating a precedent that could have been detrimental to New
Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan.
At any rate, Quebec's position concerning Bill C-3, which, I
remind you, we agree with in principle, would have been that it
should refer directly to provincial legislation rather than to
regulations and that it should state that, as soon as the act came into
effect, after receiving royal assent, all provincial legislation
regarding those employed by the companies governed by the
Atomic Energy Control Act will become applicable.
For information, the legislation provides that, when the
Government of Canada, through its minister responsible, the
Minister of Labour, and his Quebec counterpart have negotiated an
agreement, no third party will be authorized to request that the
legislation apply on that territory. Naturally, the authority to
negotiate rests with the province or the provincial government.
I think that it is important to remember that, in Quebec's case,
six pieces of legislation are involved, including the act respecting
labour standards, the Quebec equivalent to the federal
government's Labour Code, Part III, and the act to ensure that
essential services are maintained. We always refer to this
legislation with great pride, because it was passed in Quebec by the
government of the late René Lévesque and is definitely the answer
to our labour relations problems. The Minister of Labour should
follow that model, so as to have similar provisions in the federal
labour code.
The measures that will also be applied through regulations are,
of course, the provincial labour code-it is essential to the
bill-Quebec's occupational health and safety act, its charter of
rights, as well as all the regulations governing the construction
industry.
You would have been touched by all the excitement around the
Minister of Labour. His whole staff was mobilized. This bill is a pet
project of the minister. His staff was truly excited and wanted to
make sure that we could pass the bill as quickly as possible. I can
understand the minister's enthusiasm; indeed, promoting
democracy is always an exciting moment in the career of a public
figure. This is the first bill sponsored by the new Minister of
Labour in this House. Still, it would have been nice if he had
accepted the amendments proposed by the opposition. As you
know, one would be hard pressed to find a single one of these
amendments that is either unreasonable or unjustified.
Yet, our amendments were rejected. Nevertheless, we will
support the bill, but we feel it would have been appropriate to refer
directly to the act, instead of going through a regulatory framework
which has a major drawback in that it does not get Parliament
involved.
(1720)
In the case of a bill on labour relations, it is vital that Parliament
be involved.
In any case, the debate is over and the issue has been dealt with.
As a democrat, I accept the parliamentary rules and I will abide by
the decision made by the sub-committee.
I also want to remind this House that, should a labour conflict or
an emergency situation occur, it will incumbent on each
participating province to ensure that the situation or conflict is
resolved under provincial laws.
In spite of the labour minister's enthusiasm because of the
imminent passing of Bill C-3, the real test for him will definitely be
the anti-scab legislation. As you know, consultations were held
across the country and the Sims report was tabled, so as to
immediately give an indication of what the government should do
regarding Part I of the labour code.
1271
I think the government will have to introduce an anti-scab bill.
This will be a test of political courage. As you know, in politics,
courage is a rather rare commodity; moreover, it is unevenly
distributed. Mr. Speaker, I would go so far as to say that it is
generally more prevalent on your left than on your right, but I
realize you cannot do anything about that.
Again, the real test will be the anti-scab legislation. We urge the
government to introduce this legislation. I even told the minister, in
sub-committee, that if he wishes so, we are prepared to continue
our work until the government can propose a model.
What does an anti-scab bill entail? The Quebec government
provides a very eloquent example. We are talking about an
instrument of last resort-after all, a strike is also an ultimate
means, not a marginal one. Yet, for reasons that are often related to
the deterioration of labour relations, a power struggle ultimately
results in a strike action. Consequently, it is necessary to have a
tool to alleviate tensions under such circumstances.
This instrument helps labour relations in such a context, because
workers who go on strike, usually on the advice of their union, are
aware that even if they walk out they will not lose their job once the
conflict is over.
I will conclude by saying that we will support this bill, that the
work in committee was rather pleasant, in spite of the fact that the
very reasonable amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois were
rejected. I remind the minister that we hope to work on an anti-scab
bill. This will be the true measure of his ability to deal with labour
relation issues.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant
to the order previously made, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division at the third reading 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.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 29)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-127
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
1272
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Manning
Mayfield
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -77
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Caron
Chamberlain
Copps
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Gerrard
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Lalonde
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Marchand
Marchi
Nunziata
Stewart (Northumberland)
Wood
(1750)
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage
of Bill C-7, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent
that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
The Liberal members will vote in favour, with the addition of the
Secretary of State for Youth.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the official opposition
will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will vote no to this,
except those who might wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, if I had been here for the first vote I
would have voted with my party against the motion. I want to say
that I am here.
The Speaker: I take it that it is the whip of the New Democratic
Party.
Mr. de Jong: Indeed it is, Mr. Speaker. All New Democrats
present today will be voting against this motion.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, if I had been here at the
commencement of the vote, I would be recorded as having voted
with my party. I definitely support my party.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, had I been here for the first vote, I
too would have voted with my party. I am very pleased to do so on
this second vote and be recorded as so doing.
Mr.
Peric:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded on the side of the
government.
Mrs. Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, had I been here for the vote I would
have voted with my party.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 30)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
1273
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-132
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Debien
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Manning
Mayfield
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -78
PAIRED MEMBERS
Augustine
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Caron
Chamberlain
Copps
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Gerrard
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Lalonde
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Marchand
Marchi
Nunziata
Stewart (Northumberland)
Wood
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.55 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
1273
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the
onerous burden of taxation upon the Canadian family, and the pressures that
such taxation places upon the family, and that this government take immediate
measures to provide the family with tax relief, including balancing the federal
budget.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Motion No. 148
which highlights the issue of the level of taxation that the Canadian
family faces and recommends the course the government should
pursue to relieve the financial and tax burden on families.
The debate today is particularly relevant in light of the federal
budget tabled earlier this month. I introduced this motion to
highlight the issue of taxation and the family. Normally the
taxation issue is associated with individuals or with corporations.
Rarely is this issue ever associated with the family in this place.
(1800)
It distresses me to say that it has certainly not been a theme of
this government to recognize families in its policy development
beyond its perfunctory rhetoric.
I recall my beginnings as a politician. In the town of Coquitlam,
there was a forum called together of federal candidates before the
last election. At that forum were the candidates from all parties and
members of our community. It was sponsored by a local communi-
1274
ty newspaper, the Tri-City News, that wanted to find out what the
issues were in our area.
Candidates from all parties were there: the NDP incumbent, the
Liberal candidate who was the provincial president for the Liberal
Party and many others. They were called on to answer to the issues
that were important to our community. There was free discussion.
It was all on tape. The report of that discussion went into the
newspaper the following week.
At that time I did not have much experience in politics.
However, I did have experience as a community volunteer, a
community member, a teacher and a mother.
The issue of family distress, the monetary and cultural pressures
on the families that I saw in my community, brought me to consider
that perhaps change might be possible in the political process. That
is what brought me to the political arena.
That afternoon in that setting the issue of the family was
primary. People talked about high taxes, their hopes for the future,
the choice for young mothers to stay at home, the value of
parenting and less government intrusion into families. Those were
the topics of discussion chosen by the people in my community.
That day I was able to answer their questions with conviction
because that is exactly where I come from and that is exactly why I
aligned myself with the Reform Party. The Reform Party listens to
the individuals, the families and the grassroots of the community.
That day again affirmed my decision to take on the risk of political
life.
Those families are not skilled at the lobby table. They are not
well funded to be able to bend the ears of politicians, to organize or
to pressure policy direction. However, the well-being of families is
what is in the hearts of Canadians and that well-being will predict
the strength of the future of the country.
By introducing this motion, I wish to establish the fact that the
Canadian family has been affected by the overspending and
resulting over-taxation of previous and present governments and is
in desperate need of tax relief. It is a fact that the federal
government can provide the Canadian family with tax relief by
balancing its revenues and spending.
Even as I stood as a candidate for the Reform Party, it proposed a
zero in three plan to balance the budget. Through reasoned
spending priorities and choices, if Reform had been elected in
1993, this year's budget would not have been looking at a projected
deficit of $25 billion but would have seen us making decisions on
how to allocate a budget surplus. The books would have been
balanced and debt reduction and/or tax relief would have been a
reality.
As my motion indicates, it is through a balanced budget that tax
relief for families will be realized.
How is it that we got where we are? The inability of governments
to address the real security of Canadians through proper fiscal
management has a very long history. Thinking back to 1972, the
then Liberal government came into power with a debt load of $16
billion. It was voted out of office in 1984, 12 years later, leaving
behind it the travesty of a $160 billion federal debt which has been
a millstone to the prosperity of our country and to every citizen.
The Tories could not rein in their spending and again the debt
grew, first to $200 billion in 1988 and then to $485 billion in 1993.
Today, still with no firm commitment to deficit elimination by,
once again, a Liberal government, the security and future of every
man, woman and child stands at the mercy of an incredible $578
billion debt which is projected to increase to $620 billion by 1997.
(1805 )
Meanwhile, political parties of all persuasions throughout the
provinces have recognized the need for deficit elimination. Even
the separatist government in Quebec now recognizes the need to
balance its provincial budget with a stated goal of a balanced
budget only four years away.
Not surprisingly, the results of overspending over the last 30
years by successive Liberal and Tory governments have produced a
record of continually increasing taxes on the Canadian family. For
instance, from 1961 to 1994, taxes on the Canadian family rose
some 1,167 per cent. The rate of those tax increases far outstrips
the corresponding increases in the cost of food, shelter and clothing
over the same period.
In 1994, the average Canadian family earned $46,488. The
Fraser Institute's Tax Facts 9 outlined the tax bill that this average
Canadian family faced by categorizing the taxes by type. This is
what it found.
Income tax, perhaps the most easily identifiable tax, accounted
for $8,250. Another continual frustration to families are the sales
taxes which take another bite of $3,278. Excise taxes gobble up
another $973. Then there is the auto fuel and motor vehicle taxes of
$709.
There is a big bite with social security, medical and hospital
taxes of $3,817 and property taxes of $1,848. There are import
duties of $331, a profits tax of $1,306, natural resource taxes of
$354 and all the other types of sundry taxes not included in the
above are $361.
If these are added up, the total taxes paid by the average family is
$21,228. That works out to 46 per cent of its cash income. It means
almost half of the working hours are spent on behalf of various
levels of government or others.
It is little wonder that increasing numbers of Canadians are
suffering from tax fatigue. For instance, in the Angus Reid survey
in 1990, 45 per cent of Canadians expressed their concern of being
1275
financially under stress, while in 1989 that figure was only 38 per
cent; still a large number.
According to a 1995 Angus Reid poll, over half of Canadians
stated that they were finding it harder to make ends meet than just
five years before that.
Tragically, this financial stress is especially common among
young families. A two-year project entitled ``Prospects for Young
Families'' found that in the 1970s, families headed by a person
under 25 had a median income of 80 per cent of the income of all
family groups combined. By 1992, however, young families had a
median income of only 54 per cent of the income of all other
families.
There is something wrong with this picture when hard working
families find that the harder they try, the farther behind they get. If
this is a land of opportunity and the envy of countries around the
world, why then do we rob our families of hope or achievement as
they continually run harder to accomplish less?
The effect of this level of taxation leaves the family with less and
less after tax income. According to StatsCan, since 1989, after tax
family income has dropped some 6.5 per cent. If we go back a full
10 years, the picture is no better.
The StatsCan study found that the average family's after tax
income in 1984 was $43,204. In 1993, the figure was $43,225. That
is a long time for the average family after tax income to rise by just
$21-10 years.
With declining disposable income, families are left with less
money to spend on their children and less money with which to
realize their dreams and secure their futures. It has been
demonstrated that it takes twice the working hours now to support a
family as in the 1970s. The opinion of Canadians again reflects this
reality. Fifty-two per cent of Canadians surveyed believe ``it is just
not possible to support a family on one income any more''.
There is a direct correlation between the levels of taxation and
the resulting loss of net income in families and the rise of dual
income earner families. For instance, in 1967, 58 per cent of
Canadian families had one income earner. By 1991, however, only
19 per cent of families were classified as traditional earner families
while dual earner families had skyrocketed to 61 per cent.
(1810)
Negative societal effects resulting from the rise of the dual wage
earner family have just begun to be reported. Particularly
distressing are the effects on children who with both parents
working are placed in institutionalized day care.
A recent study by Dr. Mark Genuis of the National Foundation
for Family Research and Education demonstrated that non-parental
care of children undermines the bonding between a parent and a
child. The study concluded that ``insecure bonding to parents in
childhood is a direct cause of clinical levels of emotional and
behavioural problems in adolescence''.
There are negative effects on families themselves. Thirty-five
per cent of homes with both parents working outside the home with
children under six experience moderate to severe levels of stress.
Those attempting to balance those same pressures while coping
with toddlers under three similarly report severe stress.
Excessive taxation does hurt families. What has been the
response of the government since being elected in 1993? What is
the Liberal approach to home economics? Their record is simply a
continuation of neglect and disregard for the financial challenges
of the Canadian family. It is a record of sly and subtle tax increases
in spite of the finance minister's rhetorical pronouncements to the
contrary. In short, it is a record that has failed to recognize the tax
burden that families face.
Let me list some of the examples of tax increases the
government has and will be implementing. The full fiscal impact of
the 22 tax increases from all its budgets will be to suck
approximately $8.8 billion from the pockets of Canadians and their
families.
For instance, recent proposed changes to the RRSP rules of
reducing the age of mandatory withdrawal from 71 to 69 will net
federal coffers some $100 million by the year 2000. Freezing the
RRSP dollar contribution to $13,500 until 2003 will garner the
federal government some $215 million more over the next three
years.
RRSPs are fundamental to a family's savings and wealth.
Families use them not only for retirement purposes but also for
purchasing homes and other investments. Instead of changing
RRSP rules to further line its pockets, the government should
empower families to have greater control over their private savings
and finances. Reform's super RRSPs would do just that. It would
empower families and give them greater control over their personal
finances.
Other examples of Liberal tax increases include excise taxes
which will amount to almost $1.7 billion over the next three years.
Not to be forgotten of course is the government's failure to abolish
the GST which will be another $17.9 billion tax grab in 1996-97
alone.
In spite of the increased revenue gouging by this government, it
has no plans to offer Canadian families the tax relief they deserve
and desperately need. It still has not committed to deficit
elimination. The finance minister has even stated that there will not
be any tax relief for some time.
Rather than recognize the contribution and importance of
families and the incredible tax load they carry, the government has
other priorities. One of those is the federal plan for gender equality.
Millions of family tax dollars are being poured into every federal
department to fund gender analysis where the goal of all women
1276
must be to pursue economic autonomy and their value is
determined by their activity in the paid workforce.
Recent government initiatives in employment equity, pay equity
and day care are going to cost Canadians billions of dollars and in
the meantime remove value and choice from some of our most
fundamental institutions. This is all predicated on a warped and
intrusive government priority agenda.
The government's mindset of neglect and disregard for the
family is also reflected in other misguided spending priorities. This
is illustrated in the comparison of federal spending on major
diseases in our society.
(1815 )
In 1994-95 the federal government spent $43.4 million on the
national AIDS strategy, yet in the same year it spent only $4
million on breast cancer. Considering that one in nine women will
experience breast cancer in her life compared with approximately
2,000 deaths by AIDS each year, Canadian families have a right to
demand an explanation of how government determines and
prioritizes the allocation of their hard earned tax dollars.
These examples of overtaxation and misguided spending
priorities assault the sensibilities of families. In spite of the
observations I have made, there are policy alternatives. Less, not
more government is one of the solutions. Social policy spending
must be targeted to those most in need and public policy should
promote choice and empower families.
Income splitting is one practical solution. The Reform Party's
taxation task force is examining this concept to better the economic
and tax status of families. Presently two incomes of say $30,000
receive much better tax treatment than a single income of $60,000.
Tax treatment to allow spouses to declare and split their household
income would level the playing field between dual and single wage
earner families. Income splitting would level the taxation field by
recognizing and valuing the idea of a home team.
The child care expense deduction could also be reformed.
Presently this income tax provision allows parents to deduct
expenses incurred for child care that is non-parental. The effect of
this is that parents who send their children to camps or daycare
facilities, or who hire a nanny can deduct that amount from their
income tax. However, parents who stay at home with their children
are not eligible for this deduction.
This deduction could be converted into a child tax credit that
would expand choice and opportunity for families. In the last
budget this government instead raised the age eligibility limit for
children from 14 to 16. The result is that parental and
non-institutional child care options are still not recognized in our
tax law, but what is recognized is the subsidization of child care for
a 16 year old teenager.
Recognizing this tax inequity and the unfair tax treatment
families face, my colleague from Calgary Centre introduced a
private member's bill in the first session of this Parliament which
would have provided a tax deduction for all parents regardless of
their income status or method of child care chosen. What was the
response of this government to this innovative proposal? The
proposal was dismissed out of hand and relegated to the
overcrowded never never land of private members' business.
Earlier this month I joined with the member for Mississauga
South to support another private member's bill that would convert
the child care expense deduction to a $5,000 tax credit for parents
with children under the age of seven and a $3,000 credit for
children between the ages of 7 and 13.
This proposal was developed in conjunction with Dr. Mark
Genuis of the Calgary based National Foundation for Family
Research and Education. This proposal will expand choice and will
recognize the importance and value of parenting and family in our
income tax law. It is innovative proposals such as this one that can
and should be implemented immediately.
Reformers believe that just as a family must balance its books,
so too must the federal government. With this approach in mind we
developed our zero in three proposal which we presented to the
public prior to and during the last election campaign.
In February 1995 we presented our taxpayers budget which was
designed to balance the federal budget within three years and
implement measures to prevent future deficits and secure the
interests of taxpaying families. Reformers believe that balancing
the federal budget is the primary means by which tax relief can be
offered and realized for families in the long term.
It is no accident that the wording of this motion we are debating
today includes specific reference to deficit elimination. To date this
government has failed to present any plan to balance the federal
budget.
Government priorities in spending must also recognize not only
special interests but the best interests of families and thus the best
interests of society as a whole. Finally, the bias and discriminatory
aspects that impact negatively upon the family could and should be
eliminated from the Income Tax Act and its regulations.
(1820 )
In conclusion, it is crucial for the future of the family that
government acknowledge and recognize the burden of taxation it
has placed on the Canadian family. It must realize that this burden
1277
impacts the viability and the contribution of this fundamental
institution. It must realize that a dollar left in the hands of a
taxpayer is better than a dollar in the hands of a bureaucrat or
politician. It must realize that decisions made by parents are better
than decisions enforced through programs designed by bureaucrats
in Ottawa and funded by those parents' taxes.
I call on the House to design and implement new priorities;
priorities that will expand choices for families rather than constrict
them; priorities that will provide social and economic security for
families, both for parents and their children; priorities that will
provide economic social security for future generations; priorities
that will empower families to realize their dreams and allow them
to become a vibrant part of the future success of this great land of
ours.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address
Private Members' Motion M-148. It is a motion that asks the
government to recognize the onerous burden of taxation on the
family and to take immediate measures to provide the family with
tax relief, including balancing the federal budget.
Let me start by underscoring that the government fully
understands the impact of Canada's level of taxation on many
families. Unfortunately, what the hon. member fails to appreciate
are the dramatic actions we are taking to put the country's finances
in order. And she overlooks the measures we have introduced to
provide targeted tax relief for families.
It is because we are acting not with quick fixes but through a
strategic approach that will deliver sustained and permanent fiscal
progress that I must oppose this well intended but precipitous
motion. Allow me to outline how the government is addressing the
fiscal and tax burden concerns raised in this private members'
motion.
First let us remember not to put the cart before the horse. The
fact is that we cannot begin serious tax reduction until the deficit is
under control. To cut taxes in any other way would simply mean an
even higher deficit and that simply guarantees that taxes would go
back up again in the near future because it is the taxpayer who has
to pay the interest on government borrowing.
Again, let me make the relationship clear. It is because we have
had too many years of high deficits that our tax burden today is so
high. We are paying for the borrowing appetite of the past. That is
why we have moved on deficit reduction with courage and
commitment. But we have not acted in a way that will do more
damage than good. That would be the result if we took a slash and
burn approach to eliminate the deficit in just a year or two. We
would see too many Canadians facing real hardship, too many valid
government programs virtually eliminated.
That is not our approach because that is not what the majority of
Canadians want. Their choice is for a firm, balanced progress and
that we are delivering. That approach was again emphasized earlier
this month when the Minister of Finance delivered his third budget.
It is the third step in a comprehensive and determined effort to
restore fiscal health to the country.
The budget plan shows that the government is staying on course
to eliminate the deficit and put the debt to GDP ratio on a constant
downward track. The fact is the government bettered its deficit
target for 1994-95 and it is now clear that the deficit target for
1995-96 will be achieved or again, bettered. We are on track to
reach our 3 per cent of GDP target for 1996-97. The budget even
announced actions to reach a new deficit target for 1997-98 of $17
billion or 2 per cent of the gross domestic product. Indeed, these
actions will enable us to move beyond the 2 per cent target toward
budget balance.
These actions build on the major deficit reduction measures
announced in the government's first two budgets. They include
further cuts in federal departmental spending amounting to almost
$2 billion. These cuts will take effect in 1998-99. For most
departments this means further budget cuts of 3.5 per cent in
1998-99 and for some departments the cuts are even higher.
These measures together with the spending cuts announced in
our first two budgets add up to a dramatic decline in federal
government spending. In the 1993-94 time period, government
spending on programs was $120 billion. By 1998-99, after six
consecutive years of absolute spending declines, we will have
reduced it to $105.5 billion.
(1825)
In relation to the size of the economy the scale of this
achievement is even more evident. Program spending that
accounted for close to 20 per cent of the gross domestic product a
decade ago will be reduced to 12 per cent of the GDP. This will be
its lowest level in 50 years. These spending cuts will also reduce
the amount of new money the government must borrow on
financial markets every year.
In 1993-94 Canada's borrowing requirements were $30 billion or
4.2 per cent of our economy. By 1997-98 our actions will have
reduced this requirement to just $6 billion, or only .7 per cent of
GDP. This represents major progress in tackling our fiscal
problems.
In 1997-98 the federal government's borrowing requirements
will be at the lowest level in almost 30 years and lower than those
projected for the central government of any other G-7 country.
As hon. members know, this government has focused on
spending cuts not tax increases to restore the country's fiscal
health. Over the three budgets taken together we will have cut
seven dollars in
1278
spending for each one dollar in new revenue. Most important,
there have been no increases in personal income tax rates.
This should prove that our government is very conscious of the
tax burden on Canadians. Indeed our whole program of fiscal
measures is designed to achieve two payoffs. The first is to secure
the future viability of key Canadian social programs such as
medicare and our public pension programs. The second is to reduce
taxes for Canadians.
This government believes that it would not be responsible to
introduce major tax cuts before the country's fiscal problems are
resolved. Nevertheless in the 1996 budget we have been able to
provide targeted tax relief to families that most need it. We have
not done this though at the expense of progress in reducing the
deficit; rather we have reallocated revenues within the tax system.
Low income families with children are a priority concern for our
government. In the 1996 budget we introduced several changes to
address the needs of these families in particular.
First, we introduced a new child support system that includes
guidelines to ensure fairer and consistent child support settlements,
measures to help ensure that child support orders are enforced and
a change in the tax treatment of child support. The new tax rules
apply to new and amended child support awards beginning May 1,
1997.
Under these rules child support will not be included in the
income of the recipient for tax purposes, nor will it be tax
deductible for the payer. This will ensure that children who need
the support most get it. It will also eliminate the need for complex
tax calculations and planning by parents. Our approach will treat
spending on children the same for separated parents as for intact
families.
Second, to increase support for children the budget proposes to
increase the working income supplement under the child tax
benefit. This supplement assists low income parents to meet work
expenses such as child care, transportation and clothing. It also
helps to make up for the benefits lost by parents who leave social
assistance and re-enter the workforce. The maximum annual
benefit will be doubled in two steps. It will increase from $500 to
$750 in July 1997 and to $1,000 in July 1998. When fully phased
in, it will increase support by $250 million to about 700,000 low
income parents.
Third, the budget proposed additional support to parents through
an increase in the age limit on the child care expense deduction
from 14 years to 16 years. This will be of particular benefit to
single parents whose jobs require them to be away from the home
at night.
Fourth, the government proposes to provide additional
assistance to Canadians who provide in-home care for adult
children and other relatives with disabilities. The value of the
infirm dependant credit will be increased from $270 to $400 and
the income threshold for the reduction in this benefit will be raised
from $2,690 to $4,103.
(1830 )
Fifth, the government introduced several measure in the 1996
budget to increase support for students and their families. These
measures provide an additional $165 million in support over three
years so that students and their families will be better able to deal
with the increased costs of education.
The education credit will be increased from $80 to $100 per
month. This credit recognizes the non-tuition costs of schooling.
The limit on the transfer of the tuition and education credits will be
raised from $680 to $850 per year. This will provide a transferable
credit against costs of $5,000 per year, up from $4,000 under the
current rules. This measure will assist parents and spouses who pay
the education costs of students.
Again, the annual limits on contributions to registered education
savings plans will be increased from $1,500 to $2,000 and the
lifetime limit from $31,500 to $42,000. This will assist parents to
save for their children's education.
Finally, single parents attending school full time will be able to
deduct child care expenses against unearned income and the
deduction will apply to those completing high school. This will
assist parents to undertake education or retraining.
In summary, I feel I have demonstrated that this government is
taking responsible steps to put the country's finances in order and
so provide a sound platform for future tax cuts. At the same time,
the government is acting to provide targeted tax relief for families
that need help the most.
Accordingly, I urge this House to withhold support for private
member's Motion No. 148.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Port Moody-Coquitlam is asking the members of this
House to support motion M-148 which reads as follows: ``That, in
the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the
onerous burden of taxation upon the Canadian family, and the
pressures that such taxation places upon the family, and that this
government take immediate measures to provide the family with
tax relief, including balancing the federal budget''.
This motion has two important components: family income and
balancing the federal budget. These two components can, in certain
cases, be at odds. In fact, one of the ways of balancing the federal
budget could well be to increase the tax burden on families. The
1279
other possible ways of balancing the federal budget would be to
increase the tax burden on businesses, or to cut spending.
For the Bloc Quebecois, the only real way to reduce the tax
burden on individuals, in addition to balancing the budget without
cutting social programs, is to find new sources of revenue. In all
their interventions in this House for over two years, Bloc MPs have
always made it clear that these new sources of revenue, this new
money in the federal coffers, called for an immediate, in-depth
review of business taxation.
Reformers, true to their own brand of logic, as always, are again
suggesting spending cuts as the sole means of balancing the budget.
We must remember, however, that federal spending consists
primarily of transfers to individuals and to provinces, the latter
amounts going a long way towards paying for the provinces' social
programs. Spending cuts hit individual taxpayers the hardest and
do not produce the desired results. We are therefore opposed to
balancing the budget solely through cutbacks in federal spending,
the approach now being taken by the federal government.
The Reform motion emphasizes the family aspect of taxation.
Here, Reformers are making the same mistake as the Liberals, who
are now basing the new seniors benefit on the family income of
couples. When the family income has been established, the
government will divide the amount of the monthly benefit into two
equal parts. Is this the Liberals' way of lightening the tax burden on
families? By limiting their suggestions to spending cuts, Reformers
are on the wrong track. By targeting family income as the basis for
government assistance to seniors, the Liberals are also on the
wrong track.
We in the Bloc Quebecois want the budget balanced, but not at
the expense of families and seniors.
(1835)
The Bloc Quebecois is totally opposed to the government
initiative to base old age pensions on family income. Taxation
reform must address individual or business revenue, not family
income.
For cohesiveness, the Reform motion would require a business
tax reform. Successfully balancing the budget requires business tax
reform rather than merely tightening up on expenditures, which
will impact upon the transfer payments to individuals and to the
provinces.
Given the size of transfer payments to individuals and provinces,
major cuts in expenditures will, of necessity, impact upon those
same individuals and families.
Essentially, these transfer payments comprise the old age
pension, the guaranteed income supplement, spouse's allowance,
unemployment insurance benefits, and the taxation agreements,
health insurance and health care, the Canada assistance plan,
education support, family allowances and the child tax credits,
along with a variety of other transfer payments.
It can be seen that most of these are aimed at young people,
seniors and low income families. Interfering with them would
place the incomes of the least advantaged members of our society
at risk. Balancing the budget cannot, therefore, go the route of
cutting transfer payments, at least not in our opinion.
Between 1990 and 1995, these transfer payments accounted for
between 67 per cent and 71 per cent of federal program
expenditures. Their importance is therefore obvious, when we
realize that the only other equally large government expenditure
besides program expenditures is servicing the debt, which remains
untouched. Other revenues must therefore be found.
On the other hand, individuals are already paying more than their
share of taxes. Between 1990 and 1995, personal income taxes
accounted for between 78 per cent and 87 per cent of federal tax
revenues, while corporate taxes for that same period accounted for
between 11 and 20 per cent.
In order to lighten the tax burden on families and balance the
budget at the same time, we must look at the business tax aspect
before making heavy cuts to the assistance available to individuals,
which would only add to the pressure already being felt by our
families.
We know what a heavy burden families have to bear, and we
know that the only way to balance the budget without increasing
the burden of individual taxpayers or making drastic cuts in social
programs, as the Liberal government is doing, is to review the
corporate tax system to collect the government's missing revenues
from those who do not pay their fair share.
On March 6, in the budget speech, the finance minister
announced the creation of a committee to review the tax system.
Some members on this committee are experts in tax evasion: one is
a representative of Price Waterhouse, a firm with several branches
in countries considered as tax havens, such as the Bahamas, the
Caiman Islands, and Switzerland; and one is a representative of
Ernst & Young which is also a great user of tax havens.
For the past two years, the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding
a true reform of business taxation, the only way to lighten the tax
burden on Canadian and Quebec families while making it possible
to balance the budget.
The business taxation review process must be public. Input from
opposition members must be allowed to make the process as open
and transparent as possible.
The government is promising there will be public consultation
once the experts issue their report; in other words, people will have
their say once the decisions are already made. Business taxation
must be streamlined and businesses must be made to pay all the
taxes they are exempt from. In 1994, tax expenditures on Canadian
corporations amounted to $9 billion.
1280
Before the budget, the government was saying it wanted to get
businesses involved; the Prime Minister challenged them to create
jobs. This rallying theme seems to have disappeared somewhere
in between the throne speech and the budget. Businesses are yet
to be put to task.
(1840)
I fear that the Liberal government is once again going to ignore
the necessary contribution of businesses to the tax system of this
country, which badly needs it both to balance its budget and to
lighten the tax burden on families.
Up to now, the only fiscal effort on the part of some corporations
has been to contribute to the Liberal coffers; as we know, six of the
eight members of the business taxation review committee come
from businesses which contributed to the Liberal Party's coffers to
the tune of $80,000 in 1994.
[English]
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak tonight to the private members' Motion No. 148
which calls for the House to recognize the heavy burden of taxation
placed upon Canadian families.
This motion also calls for immediate action to be taken to
provide the Canadian family with tax relief, taking into
consideration the continuous reduction and balancing of the federal
budget debt.
In my opinion this motion is not very clear. It does not propose
specific measures. However, the motion does call for tax relief for
families and a move to a balanced federal budget, a very
commendable goal.
However, the government should not support this motion. The
Liberal government, in its March 6 budget, has taken several steps
and measures to address the serious concerns that must have
prompted this private members' motion.
We have seen that the budget does not increase taxes on the
family. With serious and well balanced measures, the federal
budget continues to provide expenditure restraint that will
eventually lead to a balanced budget. This in turn will bring about a
reduction in the broad based taxes paid by families.
The budget has shown that the Liberal government cares about
families and the welfare of children. This can be seen, for example,
through measures such as the doubling of the working income tax
supplement. The child tax benefit will increase to its maximum
level from $500 to $1,000.
These are measures that show how much our government cares
for families in our society. By restoring a climate of financial
health, we are paving the way for more dynamic job creation in our
economy.
It is well known that by lowering the deficit we will obtain lower
interest rates. This in turn will create growth and investment which
will lead to more jobs and a flourishing economy.
We know that the Canadian tax system is effective and fair.
According to a recent survey taken by the OECD, Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, we rank 14th in the
world. This means that there are 13 industrialized countries where
the tax burden is much higher than that of Canada. Our country
enjoys one of the highest standards of living of all the
industrialized countries in the world.
We have learned that Canada has the highest index of human
development. Of 173 countries around the world, Canada ranked
first in terms of longevity, average income, spending for education
and health care. This is according to the human rights development
report prepared and published every year by the United Nations.
This means that in Canada our tax dollars are well spent. We are
all receiving an exceptionally high value for the taxes we pay. With
the new budget, the government has proven that it is meeting the
fiscal targets it set.
After a lower than projected deficit last year, the government is
now on track to meet or better the target of $32.7 billion in 1995-96
and 3 per cent of the GDP in 1996-97.
The budget also announced $1.9 billion in spending cuts for
1998-99. This, together with actions introduced in the last two
budgets, will ensure that the deficit will continue to decline for
years to come.
This motion asks for the relief of pressures that taxation places
on Canadian families. The budget has already done this. Let us look
at the support for families.
(1845)
The Liberal government is moving ahead with improvements to
the child support system in Canada. This strategy announced with
the budget includes guidelines for setting child support, fairer
taxation of support payments, better enforcement, and increased
income supplements for working families.
The current system places the tax burden on the custodial parent
and provides a deduction for the non-custodial parent. Under the
new child support strategy, custodial parents will no longer pay
income tax on child support payments and non-custodial parents
will no longer claim a tax deduction.
These new tax rules will apply to agreements and court orders
made on or after May 1, 1997. They will not apply to existing
orders unless the orders are varied by the courts or unless the
parties have agreed to the changes. This means children will
benefit from a fairer and consistent child support which will be
paid in full and on time. In addition to these measures, the parents
1281
will be allowed to file a joint election with Revenue Canada to
apply the new tax treatment.
Moreover the current age limit of 14 years for children with
respect to whom the child care deduction may be claimed does not
recognize the need of many parents, especially the single ones, who
work at jobs which require them to be away from home at night.
Accordingly, our government proposes to raise the age limit for
eligible children to 16 years. This measure will complement the
other changes made to the child care expense deduction and it will
without any doubt assist single parents and support learning.
The increased assistance is important to the many Canadians
who are caring for and supporting adult children and other relatives
who have moderate to severe medical conditions. I am aware of
many constituents in Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake who
are providing home care for invalid members of their families.
These families will find relief in the government proposal to
increase the value of the infirm dependant credit from $270 to $400
and to raise the dependant net income threshold for the phase out of
benefits from $2,690 to $4,903.
The measures proposed in the budget promote fairness: fairness
to the Canadian taxpayer who complies with his obligations under
the Income Tax Act; fairness that will ensure everyone shoulders
their fair share of the tax burden. These are reasons enough for me
to vote against this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There being no further
members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a
votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
1281
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the context of the adjournment proceedings, I would
like to go back to a question that I asked the Minister of Human
Resources Development in early March. It referred to the fact that
the minister had acknowledged that the bill on unemployment
insurance reform, known as employment insurance, would penalize
several workers if thorough changes were not made.
Essentially, what we would like to know is what are the changes
that the minister will put forward. The committee has now been
sitting for a few days on the subject and the minister has given us
very vague indications. On every occasion, on amendment
proposals coming from the Liberal members, they were always
talking about very cosmetic, very technical changes. These are
minimum changes that do not go to the heart of the issue.
(1850)
Essentially, the real question is this: Will the minister be able to
change budgetary parameters? In the unemployment insurance
reform, the government expects to use the surplus in the UI fund to
compensate for the federal deficit. Even though the UI fund money
is provided totally by workers and employers, the Liberal
government expects to use the money that is in the surplus. It is $5
billion for this year alone. Yes, $5 billion.
Will the minister to able to do anything to ensure that the reform
will be changed root and branch? Because the one that is presently
on the table has been condemned everywhere, by all people
involved in this reform.
Will the minister be able to do anything in the budgetary
parameters? Will there be a strategy for regional economic
diversification? It is one thing to try to put the burden of the
unemployment issue on the unemployed, but seasonal workers do
not want unemployment. These are people who are caught in a
seasonal economy, an economy of regions that live on natural
resources. They have the jobs that they can, and if they could have
more, they would take them.
In the reform project, it would be important that the minister
gives up this principle that is found in the documents saying that
seasonal workers are lazy. That is essentially what is being said. In
all testimonies, we have seen that does not reflect reality.
In conclusion, will the minister be able to come back to common
sense? Will he use the fact that there was a change in ministers to
thoroughly change the unemployment insurance reform, to put
back on the table the main things that concern him and to ensure,
once and for all, that there is a reform, but a reform that will really
make it possible to fight unemployment and allow more people to
get jobs?
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, employment insurance reform was
designed to minimize the number of people who will not be eligible
for income benefits. In fact, the new hours based entrance system
opens up eligibility to people who were previously not covered by
unemployment insurance.
In addition, while some individuals receive benefits for shorter
periods, more individuals will have increased duration. This will
have a net positive impact on social assistance.
1282
The family supplement means benefits will increase by 7 per
cent on average for claimants in low income families with
children. By protecting those most in need, impacts of the reform
on social assistance will also be lessened.
HRD has estimated the impact of employment insurance reforms
on social assistance across the country will be in the order of $75
million by the year 2000. However, this impact will be offset by
both the $300 million jobs transition fund and the $800 million
reinvestment in direct re-employment assistance. About 45 per
cent of current social assistance clients will meet the new
eligibility requirements for these measures.
I would like to remind the hon. member that these employment
benefits will give people meaningful employment and keep it. By
doing that, the reforms will again reduce, not increase, the burden
to provincial social assistance.
Further, the government realizes the interaction between
employment insurance and social assistance clientele is a complex
one. Departmental officials are now in the process of talking to the
provinces in order to get their feedback on this impact analysis.
They have now met with five provinces and will meet with the
remaining five over the next two weeks. A key purpose of this
reform is to create needed jobs and help people increase their
employability.
Another issue that the legislation addresses is that of a business
environment that is conducive to job creation. Lowering premiums
for employers and employees is a step in that direction. That, when
considered with the job and growth agenda, will help create more
jobs and this will further reduce social assistance rolls.
Over all, many elements of the new employment insurance
legislation benefit low income Canadians. Therefore, I urge the
hon. member who professes to be concerned about the fate of this
group to support the legislation and thereby be of real help to
Canadians most in need.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.54 p.m.)