CONTENTS
Friday, March 29, 1996
Bill C-13. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 1407
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 1407
Bill C-16. Motion for second reading 1407
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a
committee.) 1408
Motion for reference to committee of the whole 1408
Bill C-16. Consideration in committee of the whole 1409
(Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.) 1409
(Amendment agreed to.) 1409
(Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.) 1409
(Clauses 8, 9 and 10 inclusive agreed to.) 1409
(Clauses 11 to 44 inclusive agreed to.) 1409
Motion for concurrence 1409
Motion for third reading 1409
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 1410
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 1414
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 1419
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 1419
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1420
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1420
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1420
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1420
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1421
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1421
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1422
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1422
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1422
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1422
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1422
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1423
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1424
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1424
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 1425
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 1425
Bill C-254. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1426
(Bill deemed read the second time and referred toa committee.) 1426
Bill C-255. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1426
Bill C-256. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1427
Bill C-257. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1427
Bill C-258. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1427
Bill C-259. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1427
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 1427
Consideration resumed of motion 1429
1407
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 29, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-13, an act to provide for the establishment and operation
of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in
relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions, be read
the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Debate. Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-16, an act to amend the
Contraventions Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-16, an act to amend the
Contraventions Act. The amendments to this act are the result of
consultations and discussions with the provinces.
I would like to thank the critic for the Reform Party and the critic
for the Bloc Quebecois for agreeing to expedite the proceedings of
this bill and for treating it in a non-controversial fashion. I
appreciate the co-operation. The end result will be an effective and
harmonious contraventions system throughout Canada.
This bill is but another example which clearly demonstrates this
government's willingness to work with its provincial partners and
to avoid unnecessary duplication in federal and provincial
activities.
To understand the bill, it is important to understand the act which
it amends. The Contraventions Act was given royal assent in 1992
but it is not in force yet. It creates a contraventions scheme for
federal offences. Currently those who are charged with an offence
under federal statute or regulations are treated in the same way as
those who are charged under the provisions of the Criminal Code.
The Contraventions Act provides for the establishment of a
contraventions scheme as an alternative procedure to the Criminal
Code. It will permit enforcement authorities to issue tickets to
persons who are charged with an offence designated as a
contravention under the act. Individuals who wish to plead guilty
and pay a fine could do so, thus avoiding a formal court process and
a formal court appearance.
There are three objectives to the contraventions scheme. The
first is the decriminalization of certain federal offences.
Decriminalization in effect means that a person convicted of a
contravention will be subject to both civil and administrative
sanctions without criminal stigma. Certain traditional criminal
consequences of conviction such as finger printing, having a
criminal record and being denied a passport will not apply.
The second objective is to ease the court's workload. The courts
are presently administering all federal regulatory offences. Taking
most of these cases out of the court system will reduce costs. The
defendant will still have the option of taking the matter of
contravention to trial for a hearing.
The final objective of the contraventions legislation is the
improved enforcement of all federal regulations and legislation. It
is much more efficient and effective to have enforcement
authorities enforcing the law rather than spending a great deal of
time testifying in courtrooms and getting ready for trial in order to
bring a conviction.
The Contraventions Act is a great tool to achieve compliance
with rules that protect Canadians. The act and amendments which
are before us are designed to provide Canadians with a fairer, more
1408
efficient and more practical process for federal offences. It will
ease the workload of courts, prosecutors and enforcement officers.
Over the years the provinces have developed expertise in
handling tickets for offences under provincial legislation. Some
provinces have central agencies capable of dealing effectively and
at a reasonable cost with a large number of tickets. Quebec and
Ontario for example have central computerized systems that deal
with all their provincial tickets. These systems will be able to
handle the federal tickets issued on their territory.
Using the provincial systems would avoid the creation of a
complex federal administrative structure. Also, the provinces have
indicated they prefer that we use their respective offence schemes
rather than establish a federal structure in duplication of their own.
Indeed it is simpler for Canadians to know one system within a
province.
The government is dedicated to finding solutions with its
provincial partners. The current bill would allow us to accept the
provincial offer and use their systems. This bill would allow
federal contraventions to be dealt with under the ticketing
procedure and process of each province.
(1010)
In other words, the Ontario Provincial Offences Act, the Quebec
Code de procédure pénale and the Manitoba Summary Convictions
Act would apply to designated federal offences committed in their
respective jurisdictions. Therefore an Alberta resident who has
contravened federal regulations will face the same administrative
and judicial system as if that resident had committed a provincial
infraction.
It is important to note that fines levied for federal contraventions
will be the same across Canada for the same offence. Some
provinces impose court costs and administrative fees in addition to
the fine. Bill C-16 would permit these provinces to continue to
collect these costs and fees.
The bill would also authorize the Minister of Justice to enter into
revenue sharing agreements with the provinces. Under these
agreements part of the fine revenues collected by the provinces
would be used to compensate provincial costs and efforts. This I
believe is a very reasonable approach.
Some provinces are ready to proceed immediately with the
implementation of the Contraventions Act while others would need
more time. Bill C-16 would allow us to bring the legislation in
force province by province and provide the flexibility required for
the smooth implementation of the Contraventions Act across the
country. Federal departments and enforcement authorities are
waiting for these changes to help them with their workload.
This bill reflects our government's willingness to co-operate
with our provincial partners. It demonstrates flexibility and
understanding of the realities of Canadians and Canadian society. It
has the support of the provinces and I would urge all members of
the House to support this initiative.
Once again I would like to thank the Reform Party and the Bloc
Quebecois for providing their assistance in expediting passage of
this important bill.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I will add a few comments to those made by my
colleague on the other side of the House, the hon. member for
Prince Albert-Churchill River.
We do support this bill. It is not providing major changes and
seems to be streamlining the justice system somewhat. It will
provide a procedure for the prosecution of regulatory
contraventions as designated by the governor in council through
what is essentially a ticketing scheme much like that of highway
traffic offences.
This bill assists the process by introducing administrative
agreements of the provinces and territories, their municipalities
and agents to utilize existing resources and to share the revenues
generated.
We have looked at the bill and I have been in communication
with my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot, who is the
justice critic for our caucus. He informs me that the bill will not
forfeit provisions. The forfeiture of provisions in fact will be
maintained and the provinces have agreed to this legislation.
The bill will make our justice system more effective and
therefore I am happy to add my support to Bill C-16.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
you would find unanimous consent to deal with this bill in
committee of the whole and subsequently at all stages immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, I do now leave the chair for
the House to go into committee of the whole.
1409
(By unanimous consent, House in committee on Bill C-16, an
act to amend the Contraventions Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.)
(1015)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order. The House will now go into committee
of the whole to consider Bill C-16, an act to amend the
Contraventions Act and to make consequential amendments to
other Acts.
[English]
(Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.)
On clause 7:
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, the parliamentary secretary will be back momentarily.
He will be indicating to the committee of the whole the text of the
amendment being proposed in order to deal with the issue.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
the amendment is to the English text as its meaning does not
conform to the French text put forward.
I move:
That the English version of clause 7 of Bill C-16 be amended by striking out
line 31 on page 3 and substituting the following: ``menced under this act''.
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, we would like
to know what words would be replaced by ``under this act''.
The Chairman: Does the hon. member for Joliette have a copy
of this amendment?
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, the words were not mentioned in
what was read by my hon. colleague. I therefore wonder if my copy
conforms with what my colleague said.
[English]
The Chairman: Would the parliamentary secretary indicate if
what he has said conforms with the wording of his amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, if it can help, is it the words ``by
means of a ticket'' on line 31 that would be replaced by ``under this
act''? That is what I was asking, but if that is indeed the intention,
we have no objection.
[English]
Mr. Kirkby: That is correct.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he
would make it clear that the wording does not change the effect of
the legislation. In other words, by adding the words ``under the
act'' to replace by means of a ticket, are the same ends being
accomplished?
That is my understanding but I want to confirm with the
parliamentary secretary that this does not change the substance of
the legislation.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this
amendment does not in any way change what is being proposed in
the bill. It is merely a technical amendment to ensure that the
English and French texts are equivalent.
(Amendment agreed to.)
(1020 )
(Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.)
(Clauses 8, 9 and 10 inclusive agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, there are no additional
amendments. I wonder if the Chair would consider asking if all the
remaining clauses carry, up to clause 44, so that we could do them
all at once.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Are all the clauses that have been listed agreed
to?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clauses 11 to 44 inclusive agreed to.)
[English]
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rock moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to take the opportunity to
mention to the House that the original Contraventions Act, which
was passed in 1992 and amended today, began a long process that
dates back to 1982. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor,
Mr. Stan Darling, who initiated the legislation.
I want to let my colleagues know how important this piece of
legislation is to my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. We have
1410
long suffered a safety issue on our waterways and have needed
better enforcement procedures. This bill will give us that
opportunity. It works well through provincial regulatory authorities
to make that happen.
Negotiations are taking place right now between Ontario and the
federal government and within a very short period of time
enforcement officers will have the means to enforce safety
regulations.
I would like to thank my colleagues from the Bloc and from the
Reform Party for agreeing to this process today. It has allowed this
bill to be passed quickly so that enforcement can be on our
waterways this summer.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief. I would like to take this
opportunity, particularly when the Minister of Justice is with us, to
say that when his department brings forward good laws we can
move co-operatively to have the legislation pass quickly through
the House. It is in stark contrast to legislation such as Bill C-68,
which was a bad law and which the minister had considerable
difficulty getting through the House.
The bill is basically cosmetic, but it does provide minor
improvements to existing legislation. The bill permits changes to
prosecution by provincial attorneys general or their agents. This is
an improvement and it will likely reduce the cost of enforcement.
That is one reason why we can support it. Therefore, we would like
to see this bill passed and go to the Senate to become the law of the
land.
(1025)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to move immediately to private members' hour until
shortly before 11 a.m. and to resume private members' hour
immediately afterward to complete that item on today's Order
Paper.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, because we always come in prepared,
we agree to move to that stage, especially since our speaker is in
the House and has excellent points to share with you.
1410
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in conjunction
with the Canadian National (CN), carry out repairs to the Pont de Québec.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the mover of the motion, I welcome this
opportunity to speak to this motion, but before getting to the heart
of the matter, I would like to remind the hon. members of an
incident that happened at the Standing Committee on Transport last
June, during the clause by clause consideration of Bill C-89, the
CN privatization bill.
One day in June, the Coalition pour la sauvegarde du Pont de
Québec appeared before the committee to support an amendment
put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, which was designed to exclude
the Quebec bridge from the operation of the privatization bill.
The coalition was represented by Mr. Jobin, the coalition's
leader, and Mr. Beaulieu, an engineer and Laval University
professor who has been taking an active interest for nearly 10 years
now in the important matter of the repairs to be made to the Quebec
bridge.
They made their case, then the government members spoke, and
the attitude they displayed was an absolute disgrace. They started
by saying: ``Look, one bridge cannot be excluded from the
privatization process; there are 6,000 bridges in the Canadian
railway system'', which was like saying that the Quebec bridge had
no more value than any of the 6,000 small bridges crossing over
gullies, brooks and small rivers. This is the first indication of the
government's absolute ignorance.
The second one is the fact that several government members who
sit on the Standing committee on transport and who only
understand English, and this is certainly their prerogative, did not
even bother to use their earphones to listen to the comments made
by the two individuals who were representing the coalition. Worse
still, some committee members would get up, leave and then come
back, so that the meeting took place in a circus-like atmosphere and
these two people had the impression of being treated the way they
might have been in a school yard.
Let us now go back to the motion itself. Why are we submitting
motion M-202? We do so out of despair, because the Quebec City
bridge is in such a deplorable and preoccupying condition.
Let us not forget that when the Quebec bridge was built to span
the St. Lawrence River-until the day it collapses-it was the
easternmost bridge, all the others being located in Montreal. At the
1411
time, trains could not cross the St. Lawrence when travelling from
the maritime provinces to Montreal.
(1030)
Consequently, the Quebec bridge was a very important addition
to the economic development of the Quebec region. This is still
true today. I will not discuss the historical aspects or the actual
construction of the bridge. The hon. member for Lévis will deal
with these issues later on, and he will also talk about the bridge's
heritage value.
Today's motion is important because it reminds the Canadian
government and the CN that they have a duty to maintain this
monument, because it is indeed a monument, which is also an
essential component for the economic development of the Quebec
region.
To give you an idea of the state the Quebec bridge is now in, I
have decided to read you a few paragraphs from an article by
Louis-Guy Lemieux that appeared in Le Soleil on September 10,
1995. It is entitled: ``Bridge of Shame''.
The article reads as follows: ``It is possible for a person to lift off
shovel-sized chunks of rusted iron with their bare hands. Motorists
are treated to pieces falling on their hoods and windshields.
Pleasure boats do not like to pass under the bridge-for fear of
falling debris, of course. It is going to crumble into the river one
day, and sooner than you think. You do not need to be an expert to
see that the Quebec bridge is on its last legs. It is in such a decrepit
state that traffic should not be allowed on it''.
The article continues: ``After the alarm sounded by the coalition
to save the bridge, and the on the whole comforting conclusions of
the study by CN's experts, I went to see it up close, this marvellous
old bridge I remember from my youth. I did not recognize it. The
old bridge, this heap of rusted iron, abandoned to the elements,
cannot be the longest cantilever bridge in the world, the triumph of
civil engineering, the eighth wonder of the world. These were the
glowing terms used in all the newspapers at its inauguration on
September 20, 1917. Today we would have to call it the first
cantilever bridge no longer fit for use, an embarrassment to local
civil engineering, a perfect example of the inertia of government''.
The question we must ask ourselves is the following: Who owns
the bridge? There is no doubt that from the moment construction
began in 1907, until 1993, there was no possible doubt, it was the
Canadian government, represented by Transport Canada, which
owned the bridge, although it must be understood that
responsibility for its maintenance was given to Canadian National
several decades ago.
Since 1993, however, the bridge has belonged to CN. It must be
kept in mind that this was exclusively a train bridge between 1917
and 1928, however. Its sole use was for the railway. From 1929 on,
the Government of Quebec obtained the right to have automobiles
use it, back in the days, some forty years ago, when vehicular
traffic was light.
This makes no difference in terms of who owns the bridge. Even
if the Government of Quebec has used the Quebec bridge, is still
using it, and the use is increasing, this does not in any way cast
doubt on the ownership, since the Quebec department of transport
has been doing this on a leasing arrangement.
(1035)
Since 1949, the Government of Quebec has been engaged in an
agreement renewable more or less every 20 years. I doubt that the
Quebec government forced the federal government to sign it at gun
point. The federal government has, therefore, signed this
succession of agreements willingly, and in full knowledge of the
situation.
The current agreement will terminate in 2012. If the arrangement
no longer suited the Canadian government when the last renewal
came up, during the 1980s, it had only to terminate the leasing
agreement with the Government of Quebec. It did not. Instead, it
extended the agreement to the year 2012, at a rate I would agree is
somewhat low, $25,000 a year. I do not think this rate was imposed
by Quebec. It is my understanding that the Canadian government
was in agreement on it.
Earlier, I waxed somewhat poetic in describing the location and
the appearance of the Quebec bridge, because Mr. Lemieux is a
poet as well as a journalist.
Now I shall offer a description, not by a journalist, but by an
American company. It appears that no Canadian company was
capable of offering an expert opinion on the true condition of the
bridge. This is particularly surprising when one of the designers,
Dominion Bridge, has a business office in Quebec, if not its head
offices. But no.
Mr. Dubé: It bought out MIL Davie.
Mr. Paré: As my colleague from Lévis has reminded me, they
have just acquired MIL Davie. So it was an American firm,
Modjesky and Masters, that the Canadian government asked in
1994 to thoroughly assess the state of the bridge at a cost of $1
million. The money might better have been put toward maintaining
the bridge, but that is what they did with it.
The results of the study are fairly alarming. The bridge has
reached a point where it is rusting at a much faster rate than it ever
did in past decades. Repair and maintenance work are needed to
extend the useful life of the bridge well into the 21st century. The
bridge, therefore, is in real danger.
1412
A little further along they go on to say that, while the structure
shows no signs of falling apart, if it is to remain intact and
irreversible damage avoided, work must be done within the next
five years.
This is not the dream or the vision of a group of Quebec bridge
lovers, who are defending the bridge. No, the bridge is really in dire
straits.
The price tag is a big one, we have to agree. The company
expects that full repairs, including architectural lighting will cost
$63 million.
This is the funny part. The federal government says it is washing
its hands of it. A real Pontius Pilate. It is washing its hands of it,
because it handed the bridge over to Canadian National in 1993.
However, the government fails to recognize that, over the
previous 10 or 15 years, maintenance of the bridge was seriously
neglected. It is, therefore, not true that CN alone is responsible for
getting the work done.
The state of the bridge reflects the negligence of Transport
Canada over the past 15 years. Who then should pay the $63
million? The answer is very clear: Canadian National and the
Government of Canada.
The Government of Canada claims that Quebec has significant
responsibility.
(1040)
I mentioned earlier that Quebec only leases the bridge. In spite
of the fact that it is only the leaseholder, the Government of Quebec
has shown incomparable magnanimity in offering to tear up the
$25,000 per year lease agreement if the CN and the Canadian
government promptly commit to initiating the work called for in
the agreement entered into by Transport Canada and CN in 1993.
The Government of Quebec is prepared to tear up the $25,000 per
year lease and to pay $1.5 million per year instead.
This is 1996, and the lease agreement expires in 2012, which
means that there are 16 years left in the term of the agreement. If
the federal government and CN had the wits to realize what the
Quebec government is offering, they would jump at the offer.
While under no obligation to do so, the Government of Quebec is
offering to change the terms of the agreement, putting $24 million
on the table, and all the Canadian government has to do is to say:
``Yes, we readily agree; this is a deal for $31.5 million'', especially
since the repairs, which will take between seven and ten years to
complete, will create 400 to 500 summer-long jobs for many years
to come. It is estimated that this would generate approximately $10
million in taxes for the federal government.
So, adding the $24 million the Government of Quebec is putting
on the table and the $10 million the federal government will collect
in taxes, we get a total of $34 million. But when a $31.5 million
contribution is requested, the federal government does not want to
have anything to do with it and says: ``No. The government has
handed over responsibility to CN''. It certainly did.
Either the Canadian government pays the $31.5 million that
makes up its share or the CN will be forced to operate under the
agreement signed in 1993, a perfectly clear agreement, which
states at section 1 that Canada will hand over to CN all Canadian
government railway land, with a few exceptions. They gave CN a
present. Section 2 states that the commissioner shall transfer to CN
all national and transcontinental railway land. Another present.
In today's Le Soleil, the former mayor of Quebec City and
illustrious chief of staff to the PM is quoted as saying that the land
given to CN was worth $35 million. CN was to use the proceeds
from the sale of this land to initiate the work, but failed to do so.
Article 4 is very interesting. It reads as follows: ``Canada shall
transfer the Quebec bridge to CN-CN shall undertake to fund a
major maintenance program on the bridge, including the
installation and maintenance of architectural lighting, which shall
restore this structure to a condition which shall ensure its long term
viability and ensure it is maintained in this state''.
Without limiting CN's obligations described above, the company
was asked to try to reach a new agreement with the Quebec
government, and that was done.
Article 12 of the famous agreement signed by the former Quebec
transport minister, Mr. Gobeil, and CN's president, Mr. Tellier,
provides that the agreement can only be amended through an
instrument signed by the parties to it. The agreement does not
appear to have been amended. Article 13 says that the agreement is
subject to the law of Canada, is interpreted pursuant to that law, and
is binding on the parties, their successors and their assigns.
In other words, CN's privatization does not change a thing. CN
must do the work and the Canadian government must pay its share,
since it has a direct responsibility after 15 years of neglect. I will
stop here. Someday, we will have to expose the petty role played by
the Prime Minister's chief of staff.
In a memo released today, he says that the federal government no
longer has any obligation regarding the restoration of the Quebec
bridge, and that it is now CN's responsibility. It may be so, but then
the federal government should tell CN to do its homework.
(1045)
One thing is certain though: the taxes Quebecers everywhere
have paid since the bridge was built should have gone to its
maintenance, but nothing was done. Let those who had a duty to
maintain the bridge do it now.
[English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to continue the debate on the motion presented by the hon.
member for Louis-Hébert who would like to see the federal
1413
government in conjunction with CN carry out repairs on the
Quebec bridge.
I reiterate the Quebec bridge is a safe structure. The bridge is
inspected regularly by CN to ensure it is reliable and will remain a
safe structure. An in depth inspection on critical aspects of the
bridge is undertaken on an annual basis and every five years a
detailed inspection takes place on the railway section of the bridge.
As the hon. member may be aware, the Quebec bridge has been
the subject of a great deal of attention particularly by la Coalition
pour la sauvegarde et la mise en valeur du pont de Québec.
Originally built for $25 million, the first train crossed the bridge
in 1917. In 1923 the Government of Canada entrusted the bridge to
CN. In 1949 the federal government removed one rail line from the
bridge and moved the second rail line and widened the highway
section. The bridge has two sections, a railway line and a section
for vehicle traffic. A long term lease was concluded with the
province of Quebec at that time for a $25,000 annual rate. As my
hon. friend has acknowledged, that lease expires in 2012.
In 1993 as a result of an agreement between Canada and CN on
Canadian government railway lands CN became the sole owner of
the bridge. The bridge is recognized as a masterpiece in bridge
engineering. It spans a total of 3,239 feet. It has a clear centre span
of 1,800 feet.
In 1987 the American Society of Civil Engineers and the
Canadian Society of Civil Engineering jointly designated the
bridge a historic monument. It is a very historic structure. In
addition, the bridge was recently declared a national historic site by
the former minister of Canadian heritage. Steps have been taken to
have UNESCO designate the Quebec bridge an international
historic monument.
I have digressed from the hon. member's motion to emphasize
this bridge is a world landmark. CN has long recognized this fact
and has been spending more than $700,000 per year on the bridge's
maintenance. Following the transfer of ownership to CN the
company engaged the consulting firm Modjeski & Masters to
perform a detailed investigation to determine the state of the
bridge, its condition, and the work that would be required for its
long term maintenance.
I reiterate the inspection of the bridge revealed that its overall
condition is remarkably good given its age and the operating
environment of the structure. It is fully capable of handling
projected traffic for years to come.
(1050)
Nevertheless, as with any structure which is nearly 80 years old
with a very complex design, a major maintenance program must
from time to time be undertaken in order to ensure the structure's
long term use.
I understand the bridge is now at this stage. To achieve this goal,
CN plans a major maintenance program to begin this summer. CN
expects to invest between $1.5 million and $2 million per year on
the bridge over the next 15 years, in other words $22 million to $30
million. That planned expenditure is there.
An expenditure of this magnitude confirms CN's commitment to
maintain this important structure. The hon. member is
recommending that the federal government, in conjunction with
CN, participate in the repairs to the Quebec bridge.
I advise the hon. member that as of 1993 the federal government
is no longer a player, no longer the owner of the bridge and is under
no obligation to share in the maintenance.
In 1993 Canada and CN entered into an agreement stating in part
that the Quebec bridge and Canadian government railways lands
were to be conveyed to CN.
By this arrangement, CN agreed to fund a major maintenance
program on the bridge ensuring its long term viability and
maintaining it in the current state.
The 1993 Canada-CN agreement also transferred to CN the lease
between Canada and Quebec. Initially entered into in 1928, which
my hon. friend alluded to, the agreement allowed the province to
construct and maintain a roadway on the bridge for $25,000 a year,
a lease arrangement.
With the last option exercised in 1991, the current lease
agreement will expire in 2012. This annual payment, negotiated
decades ago, no longer comes even close to contributing to CN
sufficient funds to reverse the deterioration that has been caused by
roadway de-icing and other things used in maintaining a road.
Roads come under provincial jurisdiction. The predominant
users of the structure, motor vehicles, represent approximately 75
per cent of the bridge's volume now. It has become more of a
roadway than a railway.
I have already stated CN's commitment to the bridge. It also is
prepared to participate in a more complete restoration program if
the Quebec department of transport agrees to review the terms of
the 1949 lease agreement with the view to financing half the cost of
a major maintenance program. I have been advised that CN is ready
to discuss with the province of Quebec and its transport reps a cost
sharing initiative.
The hon. member responsible for bringing forth this motion may
wish to discuss cost sharing with his provincial colleagues or
examine other cost sharing alternatives such as contributions from
neighbouring Quebec City municipalities. This could lead to an
accelerated maintenance program.
1414
The Quebec bridge serves commuters who cross the bridge daily
to get to their places of work. Currently the bridge supports one
railway track and three vehicle roadways. There are approximately
10 trains a day utilizing the bridge, whereas there are upwards of
25,000 cars regularly crossing the bridge on a daily basis.
(1055 )
The Quebec bridge has, for all intents and purposes, become a
highway bridge for commuters from the north and south shores.
The former government made the transfer of Canadian government
railway lands contingent on CN's assuming full responsibility for
the Quebec bridge. The federal government's contribution was
made at that time. This responsibility is now clearly CN's.
The government recognizes the uniqueness of the Quebec bridge
and that it was and still is one of the engineering marvels of the
world. I am very confident that CN will fulfil its obligations agreed
to in the 1993 Canadian government-CN agreement at which time
the responsibility for the federal government's maintenance of the
bridge ceased.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley East, you have
the floor on debate. It is my intention to interrupt in you a few
minutes and so perhaps you would like to begin your statement
after question period.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is a dynamic speech and so I think it
best I keep it all together for after question period.
The Speaker: I would not want to miss it. I agree with you. It
being almost eleven o'clock, we will proceed to Statements by
Members and we will have a little room to manoeuvre on it today.
_____________________________________________
1414
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Sunday I attended a lecture which was part of a
discussion series marking the history of Jewish-Christian relations.
Last Sunday's lecture was called ``Childhood Survivors' Memoirs
of the Holocaust''.
I thank Dr. Israel Unger for sharing his story with us. It is
difficult to listen to the horrors of what happened during the second
world war and I cannot imagine what it must have been like to live
through it.
I hope that Dr. Unger and others like him will continue to
recount their experiences so that we can learn from our mistakes.
Ignoring these kinds of atrocities will only lead us to forgetting and
possibly repeating them.
I thank the organizers of this discussion series and encourage
others to promote similar events in their areas across Canada.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance has claimed victory in meeting his deficit
targets when it really is defeat in wrestling the deficit to the ground.
Debt and deficit elimination is possible. Recently the
agricultural society in the hamlet of Calahoo in my riding
celebrated the return to a debt free environment. Through good
times and yes, difficult times, it lived up to its obligation to repay a
$200,000 debt and not pass it on to the next generation.
Two months ago a constituent, Lyle Quintal, accepted the
challenge of getting the community to pay off the last remaining
portion and personally phoned everyone in Calahoo. The people of
Calahoo rose to the occasion, made the contribution to their
community and the debt is now gone.
Congratulations, Calahoo. Will the Minister of Finance
recognize that Canadians want balanced budgets and debt free
environments? Will he deliver results like the people of Calahoo or
does he intend to pass the debt on to the next generation?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 4
we will celebrate Refugee Rights Day in memory of the Singh
judgment, which extended to refugees the application of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 1996, there are over 23 million victims of persecution in the
world, and it should be pointed out that Canada is now taking in
fewer refugees than it did under the Conservatives. In addition, the
Canadian and U.S. governments are getting ready to sign an
agreement that would force thousands of refugee claimants now in
the United States but hoping to come to Canada to apply in the
United States, when that country offers a much lower level of
protection than that offered in Canada.
I ask the Canadian government to fully respect its international
humanitarian obligations and to demonstrate openness and
tolerance for victims of persecution.
On April 4, let us express our support for refugees and for the
organizations working in their defence in Canada and in Quebec.
1415
(1100)
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to a great Canadian, Gordon Cook.
York-Simcoe suffered a great loss on March 22 with the
passing of this fine man. Gordon was one of those rare individuals
with great energy and a continually positive outlook, able to
manage a demanding public life, a full family life and a thriving
100-acre cattle farm in King township.
Mr. Cook's impressive public service career included 11
consecutive years on King council, five years as reeve and eight
years on county council. He was the last warden of York county. He
participated on York region committees and boards, including the
Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority.
Proud of his agricultural roots, Gordon bred an impressive breed
of cattle, the Lincoln Red Shorthorn.
To his wife Alma and his family, the people of York-Simcoe
and I express our great respect and appreciation of Gordon Cook's
legacy. Gordon, you have our thanks.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at a time
when considerable profits and tax refunds are being reaped by the
mining sector, it is worth highlighting an auditor general's report to
the effect that under provincial monitoring and enforcement,
industry compliance to the metal mining liquid effluent regulations
of the Fisheries Act fell from 85 per cent in 1982 to 48 per cent in
1988.
This finding brings into question proposed further delegation of
federal environmental responsibility if high standards of human
and environmental health are to be maintained for all Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the amount of direct mail or junk mail sent through
Canada Post appears to be increasing at a frightening rate.
A 500-unit condominium in my riding estimates that it receives
25,000 pounds of direct mail annually, 95 per cent of which, it
claims, is tossed into recycling bins.
Though this practice may generate significant revenue for
Canada Post, we should look at ways of reducing such wastage in
order to become a more environment-friendly nation.
* * *
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the constituents of Surrey North are horrified by the series of tragic
deaths caused by repeat offenders.
Canadians in Surrey and across the country want to know that
their lives are not in danger when a potential repeat offender is set
free.
Canadians want to know what the justice minister is going to do
to keep potential repeat offenders from victimizing other families
and communities. What is the minister going to do to keep repeat
offenders where they belong?
Our private members' motion M-139 asks the government to
direct parole boards in their deliberations to give any benefit of
doubt to the victim, the victim's family and public safety, not to the
offender who would make more Canadians victims.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government claims to be modernizing the unemployment insurance
program, but in reality what it is doing is adulterating it.
When one pays for protection, one expects to be able to benefit
from that protection when the need arises. That is the very principle
of insurance. With the new legislation, however, workers and
employers will be paying more for less. The government will be
pocketing a $5 billion surplus from UI contributions.
In addition, the burden on employers and employees will be
greater, because deductions start with the first hour worked. This
raise in taxes on the salary mass will have a devastating and
catastrophic effect on small business.
Part time workers will also be affected. In Quebec, 68 per cent of
part timers are women. Why has the minister chosen women, small
business and workers as his targets? Why is he taxing employment?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, March 4 to
March 8 was Engineering Week in Canada. It was a time for us to
1416
honour the achievements and contributions of all engineers, and to
thank all those who have dedicated their lives to this very important
science.
(1105 )
In Canada there are 140,000 licensed engineers. These important
men and women are represented by two excellent associations: the
Engineering Institute of Canada and the Canadian Society for
Professional Engineers.
Engineers are leading the way into the future. The government
has recognized the important work of engineers by establishing
Technology Partnerships Canada, a $250 million investment fund
to encourage research and development in high technology
projects.
Engineers design and build our roads, they pioneer technology
and they are responsible for putting people into space. Wherever
there is good there is an engineer. Wherever there is a problem
engineers find solutions. Engineers are everywhere.
I congratulate and thank all engineers across Canada and
commend them on a job well done.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday a member of the Reform Party stood up during
question period and launched yet another hapless smear campaign.
As usual, in his attack on the Minister of Finance, the member from
the Reform Party used no facts and had no hard evidence. In fact all
he had was cheap innuendo.
Canadians hope in vain that the Reform Party will find a new
tactic or change its style. These lame and baseless tactics are
getting very old and very tired, and they are totally irresponsible.
During the 1993 election campaign the Reform Party promised
Canadians better. The Reform Party promised it would raise the
level of debate, it would not sink to childish, pathetic name calling
and it would not depend on mud-slinging and innuendo.
Mud-slinging has been the order of the day for the Reform Party.
Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying I am sure you know, that you
never wrestle with pigs because you cannot win and all you do is
get mud all over you.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bridgenorth, Ennismore and Lakefield Rotary are hard at work
raising funds for the construction of a new firehall in the township
of Ennismore. The commitment of the many volunteers of the BEL
Rotary are making a dream come true.
BEL Rotary has only 25 members but they have already raised
$25,000 toward this project. Through events such as golf
tournaments and video dances, BEL Rotary is over half way to its
goal of $47,000 for the firehall.
In the past 10 years this small Rotary club has raised half a
million dollars for community projects. This is truly the real nature
of community service.
I would like to recognize the BEL Rotary for its hard work and
perseverance and wish its members well as they work to improve
the quality of life in Peterborough and around the world.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals promised Canadians a say on national unity. This
means they will put a vague unity package to a referendum or call
an election seeking a mandate to negotiate a deal with Quebec.
Those approaches are unacceptable to Canadians as they use the
buy now, pay later approach which sank the ``Charlatan'' accord.
However, from April 1 to 30 people in my riding of
Nanaimo-Cowichan will have a say in our country's future.
Tele-vote '96 on National Unity allows residents to vote on
proposals outlining the basis for a renewed confederation and a
federal bargaining position if Quebec attempts to separate.
Answers from constituents will form my position on these matters
in Parliament.
Starting today, constituents will receive a householder in the
mail providing details of Tele-vote '96. Starting April 2, I will be
door knocking and holding town hall meetings because this April
the voters in Nanaimo-Cowichan count for Canada.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to a great Nova Scotian. Wednesday night in
Halifax Bob Chambers died at the age of 91. He was a very well
known cartoonist for the Halifax
Herald from the mid-1930s until
1976.
He was born in Wolfville, Nova Scotia and studied art in New
York City. He could have stayed there and earned a very good
living, but like many maritimers he wanted to go home and went
back to Nova Scotia.
The Bob Chambers cartoon was for many years the first thing
people looked for in the newspaper each day. His cartoons were
often full of pointed and funny political humour but they were
never harsh, strident or cruel. In fact his victims were often the first
1417
to ask for the originals. They now hang all over the maritimes and
even in offices in Ottawa.
(1110)
Bob Chambers was known as a compassionate man with a
wonderful sense of humour. Nova Scotia will miss him.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the cities of Montreal and Quebec signed yesterday a
co-operation project with the city of Beirut, in Lebanon. One of the
objectives of this 18-month project is to rebuild the land
registration system of the Lebanese capital. The project, valued at
$387,000, will be funded by the Canadian International
Development Agency.
This co-operation agreement will allow students from the
Faculté d'aménagement urbain at Montreal University to work on
the implementation a system of urban management, urban planning
and local self-financing for the City of Beirut.
The Government of Canada is pleased to be associated with this
project, which highlights Canadian expertise in the area of urban
development, while helping one of the great French speaking
capitals of the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government of Saskatchewan tabled a
balanced budget with a plan to continue balancing its budget in the
coming years. NDP governments are not renowned for being good
keepers of the purse. Just look at the Bob Rae disaster.
Liberals will vilify Klein and Harris for moving from red ink to
black and for cutting up their credit cards. But now even the timid
NDP and the Quebec separatist government are singing off the
Reform song sheet. The sweet melody is: Balanced budgets create
jobs and preserve funding for health care and education.
Canadians knew that Liberals were not as committed to deficit
reduction as were Klein and Harris, but they are shocked and
angered that even the NDP and the separatists are leaving the
Liberals in the dust. Surely the Liberal government must be
ashamed to know that it is the worst money manager in the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I was amazed to find out that the Department of Public
Works and Government Services was planning a dredging
operation in the Sorel harbour which would involve discharging in
open waters more than 71,000 cubic metres of sediment
contaminated with copper, chromium and nickel.
With the solution selected by the department, the polluted sludge
would be dumped out on the other side of the river, on the shores of
Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola Island in the riding of
Berthier-Montcalm.
The department seems to have a double standard. What is denied
to private enterprise for environmental reasons is acceptable to the
department. If the department wants to work to improve the value
of the infrastructure, that is one thing, but to do it at the expense of
the environment and the wildlife is something else.
The residents of Saint-Ignace Island and the surrounding area are
concerned, and rightly so. If the work must be done, the
government should act responsibly and require that the polluted
sludge be disposed of on land. The shores of my riding do not have
to suffer from the carelessness of the government. You do not solve
a problem by creating another one.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently I was
pleased to assist at the opening of another infrastructure project in
my riding of Oxford. This was a $2.5 million project which has
made a modern performing arts centre, conference centre and art
theatre out of a 100-year-old market building in the centre of the
city of Woodstock.
The Woodstock Little Theatre, after 50 years of operation in
rented facilities, now has a new home in which to present quality
theatre for its growing audience.
As a Little Theatre member and sometimes actor I look forward
to enjoying this new facility for which the Little Theatre members
raised $400,000.
This project is another fine example of co-operation among three
levels of government and a community group. I was honoured to
present a plaque with congratulations from the Prime Minister of
Canada both to the city of Woodstock and to the Woodstock Little
Theatre.
>
1418
1418
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the camouflage operation under way at the Department of
National Defence and made public this week by the information
commissioner raises questions about the authenticity of over
80,000 documents, that is, more than 450,000 pages the department
provided the Somalia commission.
The Minister of Defence would not say yesterday whether these
documents could still be considered reliable.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not believe, now that we know
some documents provided by the Department of National Defence
were totally falsified, if not destroyed, that the government should
declare a moratorium on the work of the commission of inquiry,
until the authenticity of all the documents provided by the
department can be verified?
(1115)
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I acknowledge the question from the hon. member.
The Department of National Defence has acknowledged that
some very serious problems have arisen in the access to
information requests and how they have been managed.
However, two inquiries and an outside inquiry have allowed us
to take action. Strict measures have been taken to correct these
problems. Written directions are being reissued to all members of
the Department of National Defence to remind them of their
obligations under the Access to Information Act. This is in
accordance with a recommendation recently made by the
commissioner in his report.
Other measures have been implemented which allow us to
respond to requests in a manner Canadians have come to expect.
DND and Canadian forces officials are conscious of the need to
respond quickly, completely and fully to requests.
I can assure the House that we will continue our efforts, working
with the information commissioner when appropriate, to ensure
continued progress in our commitment to fully meet our
obligations.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is very comforting to hear that people at National
Defence are being told to stop falsifying documents. Quite frankly,
if they did not know this before, I wonder what business they have
being there.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that, by refusing to
declare a moratorium, because this is what we have just been told
about the work of the commission, the government is putting all of
the commission's work at issue, since it relies primarily on the
documents provided by the Department of National Defence? If
these 80,000 documents have been falsified, are we being told that
they will be updated? This makes no sense. How credible will we
consider the work of the commission, when it is based on
documents that may have been falsified?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I stated before, actions have been taken to make sure
that the rules concerning access to information are strictly
enforced.
I would like to go over the sequence of events that led up to this.
On September 21, 1995 three members of the Canadian Armed
Forces reported to their official that they had breached the code of
conduct and had altered documents.
On September 22 the deputy minister and the chief of defence
staff sent a letter to the chief of review services tasking him begin
an internal inquiry into what happened in the situation.
The deputy minister, then to be sure that they were doing it right,
contacted the commissioner, John Grace, to tell him what she had
discovered and the measures she had taken to deal with the
investigation.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): We are not looking for a
speech.
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the member wants a clear a
thorough answer. I am trying to give one.
She asked if there was anything she could do. This is important
to establish the veracity of the Department of National Defence.
Mr. Grace said she was doing the right thing and would keep him
informed.
Later, Mr. McAuliffe, a reporter, asked for an investigation
under the regulations of the act. The commissioner complied and
made his report. His report is truly congruent with the conclusions
of the internal investigation of the Department of National
Defence.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the problem with National Defence is that it pretty well
always takes a video for an inquiry to be called. There has to be
some sort of revelation before things start happening.
1419
(1120)
We are told that three officers admitted to having altered
documents. We are not told their names, however. Not bad, in
terms of transparency. There are 80,000 documents, and we are told
that they will not do it again. I would argue that the commission of
inquiry is not investigating the future, it is investigating the past.
Commissions of inquiry rarely investigate things that might
happen. It might not be a bad idea at National Defence, but there
has been so much in the past that they have enough to keep
themselves occupied for a long time, I can assure you. The
commission spokesperson, Sheena Pennie, says she herself is
concerned and is keen to know whether the information received
was not falsified as well.
I would therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister if she could at
least tell us what resources the government will make available to
the commission to get through the 80,000 documents and the
450,000 pages? I hope they will provide resources and, especially,
that these resources will not come from the Department of National
Defence, because the army's art of camouflage looks like cover up.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the questions put forward by the hon. member are serious
questions. Of course, the inquiry is at arm's length from the
government, but there are qualified and quality people on that
commission. If they suspect any of the documents, they have the
right to return them and ask for verification.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister. At a press conference yesterday, a
former member of the armed forces was very critical of the
government for dragging its feet on the gulf war syndrome issue.
She said that over 200 former soldiers are affected. While the
American administration has acknowledged the existence of this
syndrome, the Canadian government simply stated that it has been
impossible to find a clear relation between certain symptoms
affecting some members of the forces and their involvement in the
Gulf War.
How can the government remain so passive and refuse to have
this issue really looked into, thus depriving those allegedly affected
by the syndrome of all public support?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again this is a very good and serious question. I would
like the House to know that the epidemiologist for the armed forces
has asked for further studies because of the seriousness of this
claim of the gulf war syndrome.
We are not the only country that is wrestling with this problem.
Britain has done the same thing. The leading epidemiologist has
undertaken to make further and more extensive investigations into
the serious problems which face all who served in the gulf war.
When the final conclusions come forward we hope they will be
acted on.
I know that in the Department of Veterans Affairs they are
getting a good hearing but I will leave that for the Secretary of
State for Veterans to answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to
understand that the position of the government is that potential
victims of this syndrome should be left to fend for themselves, so
that the government can avoid compensating them, should the
department be found to have some responsibility?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State
(Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has a long and proud tradition of taking care of its
veterans. We have one of if not the best packages of benefits for
veterans in the world.
There are a number of gulf war veterans who receive disability
pensions through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the defence minister told this House that his department
initiated the information commissioner's investigation into DND's
document tampering. That is just not true. According to the deputy
information commissioner, the investigation was launched at the
specific request of CBC radio.
I ask the government, why did the defence minister mislead this
House?
The Speaker: Colleagues, the word mislead usually is not used
in the House. Of course it would be completely unparliamentary to
say ``deliberately mislead''.
(1125)
I would take it that because there is nothing else to qualify it, I
am going to permit that question to go ahead. However I would ask
the hon. member to couch his question in such words that it would
be more acceptable to the House.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the debates the minister alluded to our
1420
involvement with the commissioner through the involvement in
process and conclusions. In that sense, we did get involved with the
commissioner. It was Mr. McAuliffe, a CBC investigative reporter
who did request the investigation.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
take that then as an admission of guilt, shall we call it.
Let us go over the facts one more time. At the written request of
CBC Radio the information commissioner investigated allegations
that the Department of National Defence tampered with
documents. It was at his initiation. Yesterday however the minister
said it was the defence department that went to the information
commissioner and that is false, false, false.
I ask the government again, why did the defence minister say
what he said?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not deliberately mislead this House. The
minister was going through a series of contacts with the
commissioner and inadvertently mentioned it. There was not a
deliberate falsification. There was not a misleading of the House.
The hon. member knows that.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
then we have other problems. As a former member of the armed
forces like the member himself who just spoke, I can tell this
government a thing or two about leadership, honesty, integrity and
responsibility.
The Minister of National Defence cannot keep blaming his
subordinates for the chaos in the department. He is the Minister of
National Defence. Documents were altered. Unlawful orders were
given and cover-ups happened on the minister's watch.
If the minister is not willing to take full responsibility for the
chaos in the Department of National Defence, will the government,
the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister demand his
resignation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada as represented yesterday by the Prime Minister in the
House of Commons has full confidence in the capacity of the
Minister of National Defence.
I would point out that the Reform Party is very intent on
claiming a cover-up. Why would the government of the day be
interested in the cover-up of a mess that was created by the
Conservatives?
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.
Yesterday, in a poverty profile report, the National Council on
Welfare stated that the average poverty rate was higher in Quebec
that in the rest of Canada, and that it remained significantly higher
than the national average.
How can the finance minister explain his refusal to immediately
close all the loopholes, which amount to billions of dollars and
benefit rich Canadians, as shown by the council?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
poverty levels in Quebec and also in the other Canadian provinces
are a concern for all of us.
If there is a scourge we must deal with, it certainly is the poverty
of children, of single mothers in our society.
(1130)
This is one of the reasons why, in our past three budgets, we
closed the majority of loopholes. What is left are incentives to help
industry create jobs. One of the most important ones, for instance,
is the taxation level which is much lower for small and medium
size businesses than for major corporations.
The best way to help is first to give money directly to the poor,
but also to create jobs, which has been the result of our past three
budgets.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the finance minister not agree that it is high time for
him to listen to the official opposition's proposals and, for the sake
of fairness, to open the government consultation process on
business taxation to groups representing the poorest members of
our society?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
not only do I totally agree that we have to meet with these groups,
but I have done it. I met with the antipoverty association before
each budget. In preparation for the budget, I met with most social
groups wishing to talk about the budget. The finance committee did
the same, and we intend to keep on doing it.
On the other hand, as I know the member is well aware, all
governments are faced with the same problem. We have debts, we
have deficits, this is a burden we do not want to pass on to our
young people. This is why, when we see in today's Le Devoir
community groups comparing Bouchard to Harris, we understand
that it is another provincial government faced with a problem.
I do not intend to criticize the Government of Quebec.
Governments are trying to do their best, and so are we.
1421
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in this House the Prime Minister said that he is proud of
his minister of defence. What a strange use of language. Is he proud
of the hazings? Is he proud of the continued cover-ups? Is he proud
that senior officers ordered documents destroyed or falsified? Is he
proud that morale is at an all time low?
Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could tell the House just
exactly what it is the Prime Minister is proud of.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member has
complaints about morale in the armed forces, he should get himself
a mirror to see the reason why.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, are
there no better answers than this?
The incompetence of the minister sets an unacceptably low
standard for all other ministers to stoop to and we have just seen it
right there.
The men and women on the front lines of the Canadian military
are the most courageous in the world and they deserve better
leadership. My question again, if I can get a decent answer this
time, is: What message is the Prime Minister sending them when
he does not have the courage to do the right thing and demand the
defence minister's resignation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that the Reform
Party is obsessed with moles, cover-ups and other kinds of stories.
If the Reform Party is truly interested in getting to the bottom of
the facts it should support the decision of the Minister of National
Defence who had the courage to call a public inquiry into the
events surrounding the Somalia affair precisely because he did not
want to have anything to do with the mess that was created by the
previous Conservative government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we just learned this morning that Imperial Oil, an oil
company making huge profits, will receive a $843 million tax
refund from the federal government.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. While the minister is
asking all Canadians to tighten their belts, is asking the people
most in need to forego $7 billion through his cuts in social
programs, including $500 million to Quebec students, and is
asking the unemployed to cough up $5 million in premiums each
year, is it normal and morally acceptable that a company that will
make $514 million in profits this year should benefit from such
generosity on the part of Revenue Canada?
(1135)
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to clarify to Canadians that the Government of Canada
through Revenue Canada will be paying refunds. The refunds are
not the government's decision but are in reaction to and the reality
of a court decision, and this government does obey the law in this
country.
With respect to the resource allowance refunds it has been nearly
a quarter of a century that the mining and oil and gas sectors, very
important sectors to our Canadian economy, have needed clarity. It
is with the work of the Minister of Finance since 1992 when the
court procedure ended and in discussions with these very important
resource sectors of our economy we have now in a very proactive
manner inserted regulations and legislation that will give certainty
that was not there before to an area of the law. This is very
beneficial for all the stakeholders.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the secretary of state is telling us that taxation is defined
by the Supreme Court. He has some nerve, using that as an excuse.
I will rephrase my question. Is it not time that the minister
understood, once and for all, that it is crucial and urgent to proceed
with a total and complete review of business taxation, not behind
closed doors, not exclusively by a group of experts of the type that,
indeed, made sure that Imperial Oil receives an $843 million tax
refund, but a real review, through a parliamentary process open to
the public and transparent, to ensure that this sort of thing does not
happen again?
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this
question by stating very clearly that this government has acted to
stop the situation from repeating.
The government of the day in 1992 issued draft regulations after
the court decisions were halted and over with. We passed
legislation in 1995 requiring large corporations to specify and
quantify their outstanding tax issues. We released the new tax rules
for the resource allowance in the 1996 budget.
Of the refunds being issued over this time period, they were
anticipated and prudently allowed for in our budgets. Fully
two-thirds of the moneys being expended as refunds now is
interest. There will be corporate tax, mostly at the top corporate tax
1422
rate, payable on this interest. Therefore the government will be
getting some of this money back in its pocket.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Ontario
Premier Mike Harris has said that hell will freeze over before we
will see co-operation for a 15 per cent sales tax in Ontario and with
good reason. His finance minister has said that harmonization
would cost Ontario taxpayers up to $3 billion.
Page 15 of the red ink book states: ``Governments have little
room to find new revenues from the tax side. Indeed the long term
objective of all governments must be to reduce the tax burden''.
Will the finance minister now admit that his $3 billion
harmonization proposal for Ontario based on the red ink book
promise to eliminate the GST actually breaks another red book
promise to harmonize and reduce the tax burden?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker. The fact is that our proposal does exactly what we said in
the red book. What the member has just called for, which is
harmonization, is in fact what the member's party called for in the
finance committee.
It is important to understand that the $3 billion the hon. member
refers to, as far as the federal government is concerned, whatever
would occur would be revenue neutral. If there would be a gain on
one segment of the taxpaying public in Ontario, the Government of
Ontario would certainly have the opportunity to use that funding
either to reduce taxes or in fact to increase social services in the
province of Ontario. It would have complete flexibility.
(1140)
Therefore it is simply not true to say there would be a shift from
one level of taxpayer to another. In fact, it would give the
government the scope for far more fairness in Ontario, as was the
conclusion of the Ontario fair tax commission over a year ago.
What we are looking at is a profound structural change in the tax
system which would do a great deal of good for small business and
the consumers of Ontario.
In terms of the opening statement of the hon. member, his
reference to hell freezing over, that may be the case. It may well be
that the hon. member and other governments have a better
knowledge of that place than I have.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, based on
that response I suggest the finance minister get himself a fur coat.
A study done at the University of Toronto Institute for Policy
Analysis found that the Liberal plan for harmonization could lead
to the direct loss of 70,000 jobs in Ontario; 70,000 more people on
UI in Ontario. The government was elected on a promise of jobs,
jobs, jobs.
Will the Minister of Finance now admit that his harmonization
proposal breaks yet another red book promise? Does the finance
minister consider one job, the Deputy Prime Minister's job, ahead
of 70,000 jobs in Ontario?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Tax Foundation and most other commentators have
indicated that the savings available to small and medium size
business would be between $400 million and $700 million, and
they may well be in excess of $1 billion. That is the kind of money
that small business needs to create jobs and it is the kind of money
that harmonization and the new tax would provide.
There is a reason the majority of Canadian exporters have called
for a harmonized tax. They know it would put them in a more
competitive position vis à vis the United States. That means jobs.
There is a reason the consumers have called for it. They
understand the simplicity it would provide to small retailers. That
means jobs. Virtually every economic group in the country has
called for a single tax. They all recognize the benefits.
The hon. member is calling for ten different sales taxes plus the
federal sales tax across the country. Immense complexity. We are
the only country that does not have a single sales tax.
Why does the hon. member continue to try to take Canada
backwards? Is that an essential part of Reform Party policy?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
would seem that what is good for manpower training is also good
for the information highway: the federal government keeps
infringing upon areas of provincial jurisdiction, increasing the
overlap and the waste of public funds and getting taxpayers in
deeper trouble by adding new programs left and right. We just had
another example of this when the Minister of Industry announced
he intended to link every school in Canada to the Internet, even
though some provinces already have similar programs.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When will the
federal government recognize that education is an area of
provincial jurisdiction and transfer to the provinces all the money it
currently spends on these institutions?
1423
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec students have
the same right as students elsewhere in Canada to be connected
to the information highway and that is what we are trying to do
with this project. It is unfortunate that the Bloc Quebecois is much
more interested in political separatism than in the information that
will open the doors to the 21st century for our students.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister just demonstrated all the respect she has
for areas of provincial jurisdiction. Such is her position. In the
information the federal government is releasing about Rescol,
teachers are invited to apply to the federal government to get
funding for this Internet project. Again, the federal government is
going over the heads of the provinces.
When will the minister and the government recognize the
provinces' jurisdiction in the matter and transfer all the money they
spend on schools?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I took
part with students from the cities of Hull and Dorval in a project
dealing precisely with the information highway.
(1145)
The system linked us with students in Hamilton, Winnipeg and
other parts of the country. Why is the hon. member scared of
information? Why is he afraid to let students from various areas of
the country start talking to each other? Does it go against his
separatist policy which closes doors instead of opening them up?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Industry recently announced that the
budget of FedNor, the regional development agency in northern
Ontario, is being increased to $60 million over three years.
In view of the concerns of the auditor general, will the
parliamentary secretary advise the House what the minister will do
to ensure that Canadian taxpayers get full value for this
expenditure, particularly as it relates to access to capital for small
businesses in northern Ontario?
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was an announcement last week by the
Minister of Industry revitalizing FedNor and providing the
financing that has been referred to in the question.
This is a necessary step in helping small business in northern
Ontario. By setting up the system that has been put in place there
will be a leveraging approximately fivefold in the money from the
banks in helping establish greater financing for small business in
northern Ontario.
FedNor is a regional agency along with other agencies in
Atlantic Canada, Quebec and western Canada; the same agencies
the Reform Party would have destroyed in its budget. It wants to
eliminate development and employment in the different regions of
Canada.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to issues of national security the
solicitor general has taken the approach that Canadians will just
have to trust the public statements from CSIS, SIRC and him.
The minister is so secretive that he has even denied the national
security subcommittee unexpurgated copies of his ministerial
directives to CSIS, although his Conservative predecessors gave
the subcommittee full access.
Can the minister explain why he is so intent on keeping secrets
from members of the House?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be happy to review the matter to see if we are doing anything
different from my predecessor and I will be happy to get back to
her. Certainly we want to co-operate with the subcommittee which
is part of the justice committee of the House.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps saying ``trust me, trust CSIS
and trust SIRC'', but trust must be earned.
Has all the information in the documents the minister has tabled
in the House of Commons from CSIS and SIRC been completely
accurate?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has not identified the documents she is talking
about. As far as I am aware the material I have tabled on behalf of
CSIS or SIRC is accurate. If she has any suggestions to the
contrary, I ask her to bring them to my attention so we can go into
the matter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
1424
When tens of thousands of pensioners saw their American social
security payments cut by 25 per cent, the only thing the
government found to say in this House on March 14 was that it
would raise the issue with the U.S. government, in order to find
a solution to this inequity resulting from the new Canada-U.S. tax
treaty.
Such a meeting has not yet taken place, and the pensioners are
still waiting. Will the minister commit to raising the issue on his
next visit to Washington, and can he tell us right now exactly when
that will be?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, my next trip to Washington will be in two weeks, and it is
on the agenda for the talks I shall be holding with the Secretary, Mr.
Rubin.
(1150)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since the minister agrees these pensioners are not being
treated fairly, why does he not commit to passing the appropriate
tax measures to compensate Quebecers and Canadians, if the U.S.
does not respond favourably to his request.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows that this is an American legislative issue
that affects other countries as well as Canada. There seem to be
exemptions, which is rather discriminatory, but Canada is not in a
position to compensate Canadians who are taxed by other
countries, whether that country be the U.S., Britain or France.
I am totally in agreement with the hon. member that this is
unfair. We do not agree with the way the Americans are handling
this, and I certainly intend to raise the issue directly with Mr.
Rubin. I should add, moreover, that there have already been
discussions between officials of our two departments.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
year John Fraser's report on the Fraser River fishery laid the blame
for millions of missing salmon clearly on the mismanagement and
negligence of the fisheries minister.
Since then the government has also failed to negotiate a new
Pacific salmon treaty. It failed to use licence fees to help fishermen
and even failed to keep open the fish hatcheries which are the
future of the industry. It destroyed the fishery and now the minister
will be forced to announce the destruction of the fishing fleet.
Will the minister accept that his bungling, his mismanagement
and his negligence of the west coast fishery are responsible for
this? Or would he like to blame it on his predecessor, Brian Tobin?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly do not accept the premise of the member's question.
The minister is on the west coast and will be making an
announcement later today. This follows a long series of
consultation with the industry and will also go a long way to
meeting recommendations that were made by people who
participated in the round table.
I would have thought the member would be out there today to
applaud what the minister will be announcing. The measures will
be in the direction which will certainly contribute to the
revitalization of the salmon industry in B.C.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
suppose they will have lots of places to hold the press conference.
About 18 fish hatcheries have been shut down.
One recommendation of the Fraser report was that fee increases
were acceptable but only if ``it can be assured that all moneys
collected will be used only for local fisheries management''. Now
we find that $65 million collected in fees did not go to fisheries at
all, the government has already shut down 18 fish hatcheries and
enforcement is at a dismal level.
Why did the minister not follow the recommendations of the
Fraser report accepted by the government and use the fees collected
from fishermen to help out the fishing industry?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my
hon. colleague will listen to the announcement that will be made
later this day from the west coast, I am sure he will find occasion to
applaud the minister's action. This announcement will go a long
way in meeting the expectations of the industry on the west coast.
* * *
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal Party was the only party to have a mining
policy during the last election. The Liberal mining agenda and the
mineral exploration measures in this month's budget laid out a
forward looking strategy to assist the Canadian mining industry.
Mining and exploration are vital to the Canadian economy, in
particular to the people of Timmins-Chapleau in northern
Ontario.
My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. On Tuesday
the keep mining in Canada campaign statistics indicated that
mineral exploration in Canada is declining at an alarming rate. Is
mineral exploration in Canada decreasing?
1425
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the surveys by keep
mining in Canada cover only 10 per cent of the total number of
companies conducting mineral exploration in Canada. They
exclude any company spending less than $4 million annually.
This year exploration expenditures are forecast to reach $850
million. Canada has ranked first in the world in 11 of the past 15
years. In 1996 I am confident that Canada will maintain its premier
position in the world, thus creating jobs for thousands of
Canadians.
* * *
(1155)
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or the parliamentary
secretary.
Following personal comments made during the referendum
campaign by George Berthu, the president of the European
Parliament's delegation for relations with Canada, the then
Minister of Foreign Affairs exerted pressure in a number of ways,
including cancelling a visit by European parliamentarians to
Ottawa last February, with the aim of having Mr. Berthu relieved of
his duties by the European authorities concerned.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs intend to pursue the course
taken by his predecessor, by continuing to intrude in this
unacceptable manner in the affairs of European parliamentarians,
through the person of his Canadian ambassador to the European
Union?
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs intends to work with all members of Parliament in
the conduct of Canada's foreign policy, in Europe as elsewhere.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister realize that by burning bridges with the leadership of
the European Parliament's delegation for relations with Canada, he
is alienating one of the better allies Quebec and Canada have in
several very important issues involving Europe that represent
thousand of jobs here?
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the conduct of
Canada's foreign policy is the responsibility of the Government of
Canada. The minister responsible is working with members of
Parliament, including the parliamentary associations. He is giving
his support in this regard in the interests of all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Krever report
is stalled by government lawyers who are looking at, in the justice
minister's words, narrow grounds of procedural fairness. This guy
is a judge, a supposed expert in the area of procedural fairness.
Does the justice minister not recognize that he is calling into
disrepute the competence of this judge?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have professional and personal
knowledge of the skill and ability of Mr. Justice Krever. He is a
person of extraordinary ability.
The reason government lawyers are in the federal court is that
notices were given to certain individuals in circumstances in which
we contend there was not fairness shown as required by law. It is a
procedural matter.
In no way do we quarrel with the commission's authority to
make findings against people if that is what it chooses to do on the
evidence. In no way do we wish to slow down the inquiry. We have
asked the court to expedite the hearing and it has agreed. It will be
heard on May 22.
Without departing at all from the respect we have for Mr. Justice
Krever or the anxiety we have that he finish his work and make his
findings, we want to take the points, which we think are important
and have to do with fairness in the process, before the court for a
quick determination.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister faces quite a challenge. We have a justice minister looking
at procedural fairness for fat cat politicians. We have a health
minister who should be looking after procedural fairness for the
victims, victims like Lynn Kamph from Pickering who is infected
and ill, victims like Chris Taylor of Duncan, B.C. who is sadly
already gone.
Would the health minister take off his lawyer's hat, put on the
health minister's hat, a compassionate hat, and let Justice Krever
speak and tell everything he knows?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, implicit in the hon. member's
question is the suggestion that by resorting to court we are
somehow trying to stop the commission or Mr. Justice Krever from
making findings or from making recommendations, which is
simply not so.
The anxiety we have about seeing this commission complete its
work and make findings so we can improve the system of blood
storage and control is reflected in our agreement to extend the
1426
commission's life, to provide it with additional funding when
requested.
(1200 )
We are in court but we are there on questions which we think are
important for the fairness of the process. We are not there to
interfere in any way with the judge's powers to make findings as
soon as possible. We have asked the court to hurry up the case and
it has agreed to do so. We hope we can get these matters resolved
quickly so we can get on with the commission's report.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Windsor know firsthand the value of
Canada's medicare system because they see the alternatives every
day across the river in Detroit. They have concerns that the North
American Free Trade Agreement might open medicare to
competition from U.S. companies.
What assurances can the Minister of Health give Windsorites
and all Canadians that our health care system is being protected
from U.S. corporate competition?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the member and the House will know, when we signed NAFTA
there was protection, particularly annex II.
However, due to the fact that Canadians had some anxieties and
due to the fact that we as a government wished to reassure those
Canadians that medicare in this country is protected, we have been
able to negotiate an agreement in principle with the United States,
Mexico and us which will further give assurances to Canadians that
our health care system, which is the best in the world, will be
protected for Canadians for generations to come.
_____________________________________________
1426
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to three petitions presented during the first session.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an act to amend the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical to Bill C-240 which
was introduced in the first session of this Parliament on April 22,
1994.
Pursuant to the order made on March 4, I am requesting that this
bill be reinstated to the same position it was prior to prorogation.
The bill seeks to amend both the Criminal Code and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It would allow for
post-sentence detention orders. Currently a dangerous offender
designation can be sought only at the time of sentencing, which
occasionally requires our justice system to release offenders who
are deemed high risk to commit further serious offences.
The bill would permit the authorities to seek a dangerous
offender designation against these individuals in the last year of
their sentence. I humbly request that it go back where it was before
prorogation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-240 at the time of prorogation
of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
the bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-255, an act respecting the beverage
containers.
(1205)
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for a
minimum deposit on all beverage containers made in whole or in
part of plastic, metal or glass and that contain beverages for the
purpose of sale.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that these containers are not
thrown by the roadsides and into the countryside of Canada, and to
keep our environment cleaner. A deposit system will achieve that.
I am pleased to introduce this bill, which I had introduced not in
the previous session but in the previous Parliament.
1427
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-256, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (hate propaganda).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the
Criminal Code to include in the definition of identifiable groups
those identified by sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical
disability and include them for the purposes of prohibiting those
who wish to promote hate propaganda against specified groups
from doing so.
Those groups would now achieve the same protection others now
have under the law if this bill were adopted by the House. This bill
had also been introduced by me in the last Parliament. It is being
reintroduced now but it was not in the last session.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was expecting to
introduce a few bills today. I had been told that I could introduce
them at noon.
The Deputy Speaker: Do I have the unanimous consent of the
House to revert to introduction of bills?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an act to amend the
Unemployment Insurance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would change certain functions
with regard to insurability of UI claimants. At present, there is a
very serious backlog of files to be reviewed in terms of insurability.
The purpose of the bill is to decentralize administration to the
employment centres to make sure the backlog problem is resolved.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-258, an act to amend the Public
Harbours and Port Facilities Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which had been introduced during
the previous session, would insure more fairness in the
appointment of harbour masters. In the present legislation, there is
an old practice harking back to early Confederation days that lends
itself to a lot of political patronage.
The purpose of the bill is to make sure that appointments are
made as a result of a selection process based on merit.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1210)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-259, an act to amend the Canada Post
Corporation Act (membership of Board of Directors).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the objective of this bill is to ensure that
the board of directors of the Canada Post Corporation includes
representatives from each and every province in Canada so that
there is a balance and the specific character of each region can be
respected, and to set up committees so that, when decisions are
made at the regional level, the people from the regions affected are
consulted to ensure that the economic impact of those decisions on
regional development is taken into account by Canada Post
Corporation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to lay upon
the table of the House a petition signed by approximately 200
constituents of Fredericton-York-Sunbury and neighbouring
ridings.
Basically the petition calls on the House to amend the current
legislation to exclude convention refugees from having to pay the
right of landing fee.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present two petitions, one from the residents of the city of
Saskatoon and the second from the rural portion in my riding,
including communities such as Annaheim, Naicam, Muenster,
Humboldt and St. Gregor, urging this government not to increase
the federal excise tax in the 1996 budget.
Of course the petitioners were pleased with the minister's
announcement on March 6 not to raise any taxes, but they will be
pleased to remind him of this for next year's budget.
1428
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to present a petition signed by constituents from Montréal-Nord, in
my riding, and from several other cities in Quebec and Canada.
These petitioners are opposed to the $975 immigration tax. They
say it is offensive and discriminatory, particularly for immigrants
and refugees from poor countries. Needless to say, I totally support
this petition.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I want to present a petition signed by more than 200
people who criticize the inequity of the new Canada-U.S. tax treaty
on American pensions paid to Canadian residents.
The petitioners call on the Canadian government to deal with
this problem either by changing the way these pensions are taxed
by the Americans or, if that is not possible, by finding a way of
making sure these people are not penalized by the new tax treaty
signed by Canada.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from citizens
in Edmonton who draw to the attention of the House that since
1926 the opposition in Westminister Parliaments have been known
as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition; that the Bloc should be moving
over; that the Reform Party should be taking its place.
They call on Parliament to implement a means by which it could
be determined democratically whether the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois should continue as Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it pleases me to present 52 petitions to the House from
Newfoundland. One is from over 400 employees of Revenue
Canada. They all deal with the same subject.
The petitioners are demanding the reinstatement of about 50
employees of Revenue Canada who are being laid off today.
Because these people process the child benefit cheques and the
GST tax credit cheques, the layoffs will lead to delays throughout
Atlantic Canada for millions of people.
We look forward to a response from the Government of Canada
to this petition. The layoffs do not make any sense and I agree with
every single person who signed these 52 petitions.
(1215 )
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have five
petitions to present today.
The first petition is signed by about 2,300 people in my
constituency urging the government to forget about increasing
taxes. They ask specifically that gasoline taxes not be increased in
the next federal budget. Already they are planning for the next one.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition requests the government reduce spending and that there be
no increases in taxes whatsoever. The petitioners also request a
taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending. That petition has
about 300 signatures.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the third petition
asks Parliament to strengthen the Young Offenders Act. It contains
571 names.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fourth
petition asks for protection of unborn human beings and is signed
by 215 petitioners.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fifth and last
petition is against euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide. It bears
88 names.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition to present from residents in my riding and
surrounding area. The petitioners request that Parliament not
increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider
reallocating some of the current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's
crumbling national highways.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
>
1429
1429
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is my fourth attempt at this speech. I started before question period,
I started after question period, I started before petitions, I have
started after petitions and now I am going to deliver this speech.
I am a little concerned as I did promise the Speaker just before
question period to deliver a barn burner. I am grateful to see there
are enough empty seats in the House that if members from the
government side flood across the floor after my speech, there will
be room to accommodate them over here.
The motion we speak to today is about the Quebec bridge. It is a
famous landmark and is sometimes called the eighth wonder of the
world because of its engineering expertise in its day. I understand it
is still a marvel.
I have to admit up front that I have never seen this bridge. From
what I have heard about it today and read in the press releases sent
out the heritage minister and by others, it is a beautiful bridge. I
hope one day to travel on it and to see it for myself. I will plan that
in my future travels and I look forward to it.
The bridge is 80 years old. It started out as a railway bridge. It
graduated into a multi-purpose bridge and now is used more for car
traffic than it is for rail traffic.
The problem is that the bridge is not being maintained properly
by CN which is now the legal owner of the bridge. The Quebec
government pays only $25,000 a year for the use of the bridge for
car traffic and it probably costs $4 million or $5 million a year to
maintain the bridge and bring it back up to standard.
The gist of the argument being studied is the shortfall in the
maintenance of this bridge. Who should pay for bridge
maintenance on this project?
Since the 1980s CN has been putting only about $600,000 a year
into the bridge. That is not enough. It is gradually deteriorating and
engineers tell us that it will deteriorate until it becomes unsafe,
some time in the next century. Maintenance has to be improved. To
repair it now will cost about $45 million. If repairs are not ongoing
one day it will be unsafe and will eventually have to be demolished.
Obviously a landmark like this should not be demolished. It should
be part of our heritage and preserved so people like myself, who
have yet to see it, can have a look and appreciate what our
forefathers and mothers have created for us.
(1220)
In 1993 the federal government sold the bridge to CN for one
dollar with the proviso that CN maintain the bridge.
The principle being discussed is: Who should look after the
bridge? The motion says it should be the federal government. I
would argue that there are principles at stake in this debate and I
would like to elaborate on them at this time.
I would argue the principles are ownership and user pay. The
users of the bridge, CN Rail and the people of Quebec and the
maritimes, should pay to maintain it. However, they are reluctant to
shoulder their responsibilities in this regard. They want to escape
the increased costs which are incurring. They want to return the
responsibility to the federal government which has already sold it
to CN for one dollar.
Why should the federal government maintain it if it does not
own it? I would like to note the wording of the sale agreement. It
states:
Canada shall transfer the Quebec Bridge to CN as part of the first land block
transfer of CGR lands. CN shall undertake to fund a major maintenance program
on the Bridge, including the installation and maintenance of architectural
lighting, which shall restore this structure to a condition which shall ensure its
long-term viability and ensure it is maintained in this state. Without limiting
CN's obligations described above, CN will attempt to reach an agreement with
the Province of Quebec to co-fund such a maintenance program.
It is CN's responsibility. It is obligated to work out a co-funding
agreement with the province of Quebec.
Clearly CN is not meeting its obligations under the agreement.
We understand its reluctance when there are others who use the
bridge. As a matter of fact, car traffic amounts to three-quarters of
the traffic on the bridge.
CN is reluctant to shoulder all the cost and I can understand why.
However, there are several options which flow from this and I
would like to mention a few of them.
First, the Department of Transport, which has jurisdiction over
the safety of the bridge, could continue to inspect it, table reports
and finally, when it becomes unsafe, throw its hands up in the air
and close the bridge. Obviously that option should not be pursued.
Second, CN has indicated that it could use other routes for its
railway traffic and is prepared to do so. It has indicated that it has
been using the bridge primarily for political reasons. It looks good.
It is historic. However, CN could work its way around the situation.
It does not need the bridge for rail traffic.
If CN can no longer afford to maintain the bridge and if it no
longer needs to use it, maybe it should sell it to the province of
Quebec for its use. This would force a resolution to the problem,
although I am not sure it is the best one.
1430
Third, CN and the province of Quebec could look at alternate
means of funding to maintain the bridge. They could look at a toll.
There are 25,000 cars a day. There are 10 trains a day. Some fees
could be applied for people who want to use the bridge to shorten
their trips. A toll such as the one we pay on the Coquihalla
highway in B.C. could help to raise money for maintenance
purposes.
I would argue that the federal government coming up with more
money is not an option. The federal government purposely sold the
bridge to CN. CN has an obligation to look after it. It should work
out a co-funding agreement with the province of Quebec.
It is fair to note that CN has offered to pay half of the cost of the
repair. It is willing to ante up $27 million. It is willing to do its
share. However, CN expects some level of government to pick up
the other half of the tab. I would submit it would be a bad precedent
to set if the federal government agreed that it had millions of
dollars available for the repair. I would argue it has no legal or
ethical obligation to do that. I agree with the previous government
speaker and I may even agree with future speakers.
We should think about the precedent it would set. I can think of
several bridges in my riding which could use some federal money. I
think of the bridge over the Chilliwack River which is an old Bailey
bridge built by the armed forces about 50 years ago. It now handles
hundreds of thousands of cars a day and is one of the busiest
bridges off the Trans-Canada Highway. People going to Cultus
Lake have to use the bridge. It is continually jammed to capacity. It
is a dangerous, narrow bridge built by the federal government.
(1225)
If the government can put money into the bridge in Quebec,
maybe it would not mind putting in a four lane bridge in Chilliwack
but I do not think it will happen. The government has to be
consistent. Unless it is willing to be consistent it will find itself on
the tab for hundreds of bridges around the country and it will be
unable to fulfil the needs many people have.
As I mentioned, I appreciate the historic significance of the
bridge. It has tweaked my interest again to actually go and see the
bridge someday soon, hopefully when the snow quits blowing. I
hope to make a trip over the bridge.
An hon. member: Over which way?
Mr. Strahl: Not over the edge of the bridge, but over the bridge
proper and enjoy it.
I encourage CN to continue with its maintenance plans and I
encourage the province of Quebec to do what it takes to make sure
the maintenance is done properly and that safety is maintained.
Other options should be explored, perhaps a small toll or fee which
would help the bridge pay its own way. The federal government
has no obligation in this area. It cannot afford to cough up millions
of dollars whenever there is a cry for more money. The feds are
going to have to stay out of it. CN and the province of Quebec are
going to have to solve the problem.
I promised a barn burner speech. I am now on my fourth try and I
think I will rest while the resting is good and leave it to hon.
members on the government side to wrap things up.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I would like to comment on the motion
by the member for Louis-Hébert dealing with the federal
government's responsibility for repairs to the Quebec bridge.
As my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, already knows,
the Quebec bridge is an issue which has been much discussed in
recent years. In fact, the bridge was recently declared a historic site
by the former Minister of Canadian Heritage. As the longest
cantilever railway bridge in the world, it is a remarkable tribute to
the perseverance and triumph of engineers and bridge builders.
In 1987, the Quebec bridge was classified as a historic
monument by both the American Society of Civil Engineers and
the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Like any other
complex 80-year old structure, this bridge must be examined and
repaired regularly. I can assure all the members of this House that
the Quebec bridge is very safe.
It can safely withstand existing traffic and the expected increase
in suburban traffic for many years to come. This was confirmed by
CN, following a comprehensive study on the condition of the
bridge conducted by Modjeski & Masters, a firm of engineering
consultants.
This firm was one of the major consultants involved in the actual
building of the Quebec bridge. According to the comprehensive
inspection it carried out, the bridge is in a remarkably good
condition, considering its age and the operating environment of its
structure.
The member recommends that the federal government, in
conjunction with Canadian National, participate in repairing the
Quebec bridge. I want to remind the member that the bridge is no
longer the property of the federal government.
(1230)
An agreement signed in July 1993 by the Canadian government
and CN provided for the transfer to CN of the Quebec Bridge and
the Canadian government railway lands. Pursuant to this
agreement, CN undertook to invest in a maintenance program to
restore the structure in a way that ensures its long term viability.
1431
I am glad to announce to the House that, in accordance with
its commitment to ensure the long term viability of the bridge and
honour the agreement signed in July 1993, CN intends to launch
next summer a major maintenance program.
CN expects to invest in the bridge $1.5 to $2 million a year for
the next 15 years. Such a significant investment proves that CN is
committed to maintaining this important infrastructure. This is a
huge commitment on the part of a railway for a bridge that is used
mainly for suburban road traffic. Surely the hon. member knows
that, although the bridge was originally constructed to meet the
needs of rail transport, a Canada-Quebec agreement signed in 1928
allowed the province to build and maintain a road span on this
bridge.
An agreement signed in 1949 allowed for the widening of this
span for $25,000 a year. This agreement is still in force and will
expire only in 2012. Needless to say this payment negotiated
almost 50 years ago is far from covering structural costs resulting
from daily road traffic.
Motor vehicles represent close to 75 per cent of present traffic on
the bridge. Although I should point out again that the bridge is safe,
a certain amount of deterioration has occurred from the use of
products to remove snow and ice on the road portion of the bridge's
superstructure.
In addition to the sums CN is prepared to invest in order to
ensure the long term viability of the bridge, the railway company is
totally willing to contribute to a more complete restoration
program, if the Quebec Department of Transport agrees to review
the terms and conditions of the 1949 agreement and if it agrees to
assume half of the costs of an important maintenance program. I
have also learned that CN is willing to meet with the
representatives of Quebec's Department of Transport to discuss
cost sharing.
The hon. member for Louis-Hébert should admit that the
previous government disposed of the railway lands belonging to
the Canadian government on the express condition that the CN take
total responsibility for the Quebec Bridge. The federal government
made its contribution at that time.
Since deficit reduction is our priority, the participation of the
government in a maintenance program that is clearly the CN's
responsibility would be an inappropriate use of public funds.
As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert knows, the Quebec Bridge
is primarily used by south shore commuters who cross over every
day on their way to work on the north shore. In fact, less than 10
trains use the bridge daily while 25,000 cars cross it regularly. All
things considered, the Quebec Bridge has become a road bridge
used mainly by commuters. The deterioration of the bridge is
certainly attributable in large part to that car traffic.
The government recognizes the unique character of the Quebec
Bridge and its historical significance for the world. Its unique
splendour must be preserved for future generations and it will be. I
am convinced that the CN will fulfil its obligations according to the
agreement concluded with the Government of Canada in 1993.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the member for
Lévis, I am one of those who cross the Quebec bridge regularly to
come to the federal Parliament.
(1235)
One of the bridge's piles is in the riding of Lévis, the other in
Louis-Hébert. This explains why my colleague and I sponsored this
motion together. He was lucky in the draw today, and I fully
support his motion.
I have already detected a positive impact of discussing the
Quebec bridge for one hour. I have noticed, for example, that a
Reform Party member showed a certain interest in the subject, also
a certain ignorance. This has allowed us to make certain
clarifications, and to more fully inform all the members of the
House.
I have also noticed that the members across the floor have been
forced to ask about the respective positions of the Department of
Transport and the Department of Canadian Heritage since, two
days before being relieved from his duties, the former Minister of
Canadian Heritage had recognized the Quebec bridge as a national
historic site-national, in the Canadian sense, of course.
Let me review the historic significance of this structure. This
bridge has been the subject of a long debate that dates back to the
very beginning of the Canadian Confederation. I remind the House
that, at the time of Confederation, the railway issue was important.
All regions had to be linked. At that time, trains ran along the south
shore. They did not serve Quebec City which was a capital. No
service was provided to those who wanted to cross over from
Quebec City to get to the Maritimes.
This issue was discussed at length, and one could say that Sir
Wilfrid Laurier, who declared it an important issue, was it main
champion. Since history was to be made, he wanted this bridge to
be a symbol. He had said-I do not have the exact quote-that it
was the symbol of federalism in Quebec.
The coalition wrote this week to all the members opposite, in
fact to all members of the House of Commons. They sent them an
envelope with a little piece of the bridge enclosed, to show that any
member concerned about Canadian heritage has reason to be
worried. This symbol of federalism is now becoming a symbol of
collapse, of disintegration. This is a signal, a warning sign.
1432
It is very important; it is history. If Sir Wilfrid Laurier was here,
I am sure he would agree with me. He would say that it is critical
to save this historic structure.
Unfortunately, Canadians do not judge it at its true value. The
member for Louis-Hébert told us earlier that the members of the
transport committee did not show any interest, when they met the
coalition's members. One member, whose name I will not reveal,
said that, all told, CN owned some 6,000 bridges across Canada. He
compared this bridge to any structure that crosses a stream or small
river.
We are talking here about the St. Lawrence River, and the
longest railway bridge in the world. It is also the first cantilever
bridge in the world. Later on, there was one built in Scotland,
which is also recognized as part of the world heritage.
The member for Pontiac reminded us earlier that the American
Society of Civil Engineers had recognized the bridge as a
masterpiece of engineering. As for folk culture, everyone
remembers that the bridge of Quebec was considered to be the
eighth wonder of the world. But absolutely no one is filled with
wonder by it anymore; on the contrary, many are afraid of it.
I invite the people opposite, all those who still have some
interest in the Canadian national heritage that is symbolised by the
Quebec bridge to respond as soon as possible to the letter of the
Quebec bridge coalition's president by saying: I am convinced that
the necessary efforts should be made and I support the federal
government in doing so.
(1240)
But since my time is almost up, I would like to remind the House
of some numbers. First, I listened to the hon. member for
Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle when he said 25,000 vehicles a day
are now using the bridge, that is, more automobiles than trains.
That is true. And that because of it, the owner, the CN, should make
the leaseholder pay more.
I would inform the hon. member who announced his
government's position, which is that CN will spend the necessary
amounts, that the Quebec government agrees, and in writing. Not
just orally but in writing. It told the president of the coalition they
were ready to spend $1.5 million a year over 16 years to review the
contract, provided, of course, that the owner first undertakes to do
the work. A tenant does not pay the rent on a new apartment in
advance before the work is done.
Then, the government replies, like Pontius Pilate: ``Oh, but you
know, it is not really our responsibility. CN is now a private
company''. I remember, I was one of those who took part in the
debate at the time. We wanted the new Canadian corporation, CN,
which has since become a private company, to exclude the Quebec
Bridge, as it did the CN Tower in Toronto. This, however, was not
done. The government did not exclude the Quebec Bridge.
Although it recognized, six months later, that it was of national
patrimonial interest, it left the matter in the hands of CN.
They are now content to say that CN will do its part, that it is a
private company, that, in 1993, an agreement was reached to
transfer the bridge to CN, but the members did not read everything.
It may take me a while to find the article, but there was a land
transfer worth $35 million, provided CN did the work.
Well, the work would cost around $63 million. I was listening to
the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle earlier. In the
end, only $22.5 million to $24 million would be spent, although the
work would cost $63 million. The announcement is made, and the
people listening think: ``My God, the federal government is saying
it will be done, that CN will do it'', even though this amount
represents only half the cost, even less. Of the $63 million needed,
$40 million is still missing. Where will it come from?
Again, the Quebec government is prepared to contribute $1.5
million per year for 16 years, for a total of $24 million.
The federal government recognizes the heritage value of the
bridge, but there is still $14 million missing. The federal must do
one of two things: either provide the $14 million missing, or force
CN to do what was provided in the agreement. After all, a contract
means something.
Article 4 reads as follows: ``Canada shall transfer the Quebec
bridge to CN as part of the first land block transfer of CGR lands''.
This is what is worth $35 million. ``CN shall undertake to fund a
major maintenance program on the bridge, including the
installation and maintenance of architectural lighting, which shall
restore this structure to a condition which shall ensure its long term
viability and ensure it is maintained in this state. Without limiting
CN's obligations described above, CN will attempt to reach an
agreement with the Province of Quebec to co-fund such a
maintenance program'', etc. That was done.
So, we ask that articles 4 and 13 be applied, because even if CN
is privatized, it cannot elude its obligations. Let the federal
government force CN to pay the missing $14 million.
The Deputy Speaker: The period for Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order
Paper.
[English]
The House stands adjourned until Monday, April 15 at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 12.44 p.m.)